# THE official, authoritative GHG thread



## FeXL

Created in the interest of non-contamination of nearly every other thread in this forum.

Awright, have at 'er...


----------



## Beej

Great idea FeXL! Definitely be good to contain this growing problem instead of denying that it exists. 

Update: I just exhaled. Time to beg forgiveness for my sins.

Update, update: Anybody read Dion's platform on the environment? Comments on if that's enough regarding GHGs specifically? 

I read it a while back and was underwhelmed, but will probably read it again just in case.


----------



## SINC

FeXL said:


> Created in the interest of non-contamination of nearly every other thread in this forum.
> 
> Awright, have at 'er...


Hell of an idea FeXL.

MacDoc's gonna have to visit here many times a day though, to keep those other threads on track.


----------



## Max

You know, it's a funny thing. This thread was only just born and already I'm feeling exhausted.


----------



## winwintoo

GHG??????    

Margaret


----------



## Max

Greenhouse gasses.


----------



## winwintoo

Ok, I'll stay out of here then. My allergies are bothering me enough without this   

Have fun, Margaret


----------



## Max

I think "having fun" in here would be beside the point, Margaret. I'm guessing it's intended to be a safe container of sorts for a great deal of bile, spittle and blood. And ravenous fear. Whether or not it will work is another thing altogether.

But at least now you to to stay away.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

So I was out in the greenhouse yesterday, after eatin' some tofu ... man - talk about yer climate change.


----------



## Beej

The butt plug is not only a fun toy for couples, but represents the first stage of a solution to capturing methane emissions, 20 times more potent for global warming than CO2, from animals. 

Discuss.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Beej said:


> The butt plug is not only a fun toy for couples, but represents the first stage of a solution to capturing methane emissions, 20 times more potent for global warming than CO2, from animals.
> 
> Discuss.


:lmao: 

Can the methane be sequestered? Maybe a solar powered pump attached?


----------



## Beej

Even if it's just flared, that would still reduce the global warming affect. 

Better yet, gather it in a baggie and, at one point in the day, empty the baggy into the grid so the gas can be used for heating or power generation. It's not a zero-emissions solution, but is quite a huge gain.

Butt plugs (and baggie attachments) for every man, woman, child and our livestock!

Now onto vehicle emissions and harnessing the power of fat to improve our health and energise our cars...turn a problem into an opportunity.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Beej said:


> Even if it's just flared, that would still reduce the global warming affect.
> 
> Better yet, gather it in a baggie and, at one point in the day, empty the baggy into the grid so the gas can be used for heating or power generation. It's not a zero-emissions solution, but is quite a huge gain.
> 
> Butt plugs (and baggie attachments) for every man, woman, child and our livestock!
> 
> Now onto vehicle emissions and harnessing the power of fat to improve our health and energise our cars...turn a problem into an opportunity.


:lmao: :lmao: 

My inner 12-year old wants to up the ante and carry on with this, but I think I'll just exercise a bit of middle-aged self control. (He says, lifting his right leg and letting out a massive ... )


----------



## Beej

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> (He says, lifting his right leg and letting out a massive ... )


:lmao: 

A right-releaser? I tilt left a little then release.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Beej said:


> :lmao:
> 
> A right-releaser? I tilt left a little then release.


It's really not a right-left thing, Beej.


----------



## Beej

Everyone has a deeper central source on this issue?


----------



## SINC

I'm just going to leave this and run along so you boys can have your fun.


----------



## Max

Hmmm... after having just watched _An inconvenient truth_ for the first time, I'm somehow not in the frame of mind to crack adolescent jokes.

It was a compelling essay in where we've been and where we are headed - whether or not we wish to cooperate with our planet. It was impressively free of hysteria, hand-wringing, whining or blaming. It was, very simply, cogent and urgent.


----------



## Beej

http://www.iea.org/textbase/weo/graphs/Slide7.gif

Projections of GHG emissions from the International Energy Agency under two different scenarios.


----------



## Beej

..........................
Embracing, hell being the centre of the universe for the emerging carbon market is a terrific opportunity.	
..........................
A logical fallacy. It will be extremely expensive and Canada would bear the brunt of developing the technology without any guarantee of royalties or future economic benefit. Who would be Alberta's "customers" and how likely is it that they could protect the intellectual property they would develop?

If you want to sell this idea, sell it on real terms, not as a fairy tale.
..........................


This seems like a good place for the discussion. First off, the "carbon market" concept needs to be separated from sequestration. The 'market' for trading credits would be most likely connected with a financial/commodity exchange. In Canada, the lead seems to be Montreal, although Winnipeg tried to push early to get involved. In the U.S., I think Chicago is in the lead.

Physical sequestration is being researched around the world so, although there would be some advantages to being the "experts", they would not likely be a major foundation of economic growth or even Canadian just because we want them to be and spend money.

More along the lines of some great news stories about Canadian research and leadership in foreign projects -- good, just doesn't run the economy.

The real gains are in making sequestration cheaper for us to use. The bulk of the activity (billions in investment) would be based upon some sort of tax/cap system that made it economic for companies to build a carbon grid in Alberta. Note that isn't creating new value-added economic activity, it is creating new tax reduction activity until Canada can get below some future international target and start "exporting" underground storage space cheaper than others can. 

Again, assuming that we can go so far as to open up extra emissions space in our national balance sheet and be cost-competitive and that it would matter that much is a long set of assumptions. If government gets involved (aside from just setting a tax), then it should justify it on regional political grounds or otherwise, not some brilliant economic strategy. The umpteen ribbon-cutting speeches can do that, but the backroom analysis needs to be real.

All way out there and with no obvious first-mover advantage; possibly even first-mover disadvantages if too much is spent. A carbon tax loads the risk onto investors, government mega-projects load the risk onto taxpayers and the most likely approach is a blend. Some sort of emissions caps along with partial government funding ("research") into developing sequestration technology.


----------



## Beej

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/arizona_public_.html#more

Better than sequestration, but still early in the game.


----------



## MasterBlaster

.


----------



## Beej

http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/nir-apr06/html/page8.html
................................
In 2004, emissions from enteric fermentation comprised 23,714.98 Gg CO2 equivalent. This represents 31.8 percent of New Zealand's total CO2 equivalent emissions and is the largest single category of emissions in the New Zealand inventory. 
................................


Some countries have a very different GHG emissions makeup than Canada.

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


----------



## MasterBlaster

.


----------



## SINC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9pkSdj9NDg


----------



## SINC

I happened across this and knew it had to be posted here:


----------



## Max

In other news, over at the Reg they're talking about the Ross Ice Shelf.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Max said:


> In other news, over at the Reg they're talking about the Ross Ice Shelf.


First, addressing your comments here and in other threads about adolescent humour.

I think climate change is the most serious issue facing humanity. Since I expected this thread to reflect that and be full of all kinds of serious argument and counter-argument fairly quickly, I didn't think making a little fart joke would derail it. I apologize if my adolescent sense of humour did that. I won't apologize or amend my adolescent sense of humour though, I'll be making fart jokes until my final days. 

God, the subject is so serious, I feel the need to just occasionally lighten up about it. I guess you weren't in that mood.

On the subject of the Ross ice shelf, I came across this article a couple of days ago: Massive ice shelf 'may collapse without warning' 

The scientists studying the shelf, which is the size of France, say that it may have collapsed in the past suddenly and without warning and may do so again potentially enhanced by global warming. The estimated rise in sea level could be from 16 feet to an astounding 55 feet. There was no mention in the article about what "suddenly" meant. If they are talking about it collapsing like a landslide, then the potential of a tidal wave like our civilization has never seen exists, that would wipe whole coastlines off the map. Short of that, a sea level rise of this size, over days, weeks or even months, would thoroughly devastate the global economy.

The potential damage of this is so horrible I don't even know how to relate to it, other than fervently hope that the worst case scenario could never happen. Or just to make some whistling past the graveyard type humour.


----------



## Max

Hey man, you're OK with me. I don't mind a little humour either - adolescent or otherwise. It's only when it threatens to overtake a topic as weighty as this that I object. It's a balance I'm seeking. So... I'm sorry you considered yourself singled out by me.

So... hope we're done in that regard. I'm sorry, you're sorry. And now that the matter's been cleared up, on with the ice shelf. I posted that last link because I find it very interesting, although mine is not a very scientific mind; hence, I posted without any commentary. I just thought it was probably pertinent to this thread.


----------



## SINC

*This couldn't go anywhere else!*

Plane forced to land after passenger passes gas

Dec. 5, 2006. 

ASSOCIATED PRESS

NASHVILLE — It is considered polite to light a match after passing gas. Not while on a plane.
An American Airlines flight was forced to make an emergency landing Monday morning after a passenger lit a match to disguise the scent of flatulence, authorities said.
The Dallas-bound flight was diverted to Nashville after several passengers reported smelling burning sulfur from the matches, said Lynne Lowrance, spokeswoman for the Nashville International Airport Authority. All 99 passengers and five crew members were taken off and screened while the plane was searched and luggage was screened.
The FBI questioned a passenger who admitted she struck the matches in an attempt to conceal a "body odor," Lowrance said. She had an unspecified medical condition, authorities said.
"It's humorous in a way but you feel sorry for the individual, as well," she said. "It's unusual that someone would go to those measures to cover it up.''
The flight took off again, but the woman was not allowed back on the plane. The woman, who was not identified, was not charged in the incident.


----------



## Macfury

Anyone read this in today's web-based Globe by Pierre Jutras, associate professor of geology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax?



> I offer this message to environmentalists: Please, leave the carbon dioxide and global warming problem to urban and economic planners, and deal with real atmospheric pollutants instead, such as carbon monoxide, aerosols, chlorofluorocarbons, tropospheric ozone, volatile organic compounds and sulphur oxides.



Read "Carbon dioxide isn't the villain it's made out to be" at:

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


----------



## FeXL

Interesting read, Macfury.

Time to 'fess up.

That we are in the midst of a global warming period (however brief or lengthy) I do not deny. However, I'm still not convinced how much of this is generated by humankind and how much is just the normal ebb & flow of the planet's climate. I don't know that we'll ever be able to model that accurately.

Jutras brings up some very salient points in his argument.

Hmmm...


----------



## Beej

Does anyone have scientific links to address the points made in the article?


----------



## Loafer

Macfury said:


> Anyone read this in today's web-based Globe by Pierre Jutras, associate professor of geology at Saint Mary's University in Halifax?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read "Carbon dioxide isn't the villain it's made out to be" at:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061207.wcomment1207/BNStory/National/home


Sorry but it's junk writing like this that dispels the real problems about Global Warming.

1. you must be an idiot to think Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant....it's an excess of the stuff that humans are 'releasing' at a significant rate through the burning of fossil fuels. The earth can't absorb such vast quantities. 

2. the carbon found in fossil fuels got there over a period of billions of years yet here we are releasing it on our atmosphere over the last one hundred years....not good. 

3. fluctuating yes.....to the degree we have seen since the beginning of the industrial revolution....no. 

4. no scienctific fact relating to this at all.....junk

5. hhmmm, haven't we been seeing an increase in hurricane activity due largely in part because of the warmer conditions in the atmosphere ?

6. all scientists now agree that carbon levels have been increasing because of human activity and is not part of a natural fluctuation

7. all scientists agree that the world is getting warmer due to the rise in Carbon Dioxide due to human activity and is not part of a natural fluctuation.

the guy who wrote that article is a f*cking idiot
pisses me off that people still get away with writing crap like that.....trying to pretend to be the voice of sanity. Well, sorry mate, your'e just another cock who doesn't think saving our planet is a priority on your radar.

that's the last time I ever buy the Globe and Mail!

just to add.....check out the comments from that link. Seems I wasn't the only one upset with the junk science there.


----------



## SINC

Loafer said:


> Sorry but it's junk writing like this that dispels the real problems about Global Warming.
> 5. hhmmm, haven't we been seeing an increase in hurricane activity due largely in part because of the warmer conditions in the atmosphere ?


Uh, no, didn't happen as predicted this season. Is that junk too?


----------



## Loafer

"Chris Gizbert from United States writes: Look, I'm a geologist/geophysicist Ph.D. too, but I try very hard not to speculate publicly in areas outside of my expertise, particularly where there are serious policy and economic consequences. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, even a contrarian opinion. But Dr. Jutras (implicitly) presents himself as an authority on the subject. Which, of course, he is not (I note that none of Dr. Jutras' relatively slim publication record involves climate sciences). This is more than a little dubious, from a professional ethics point of view. "


----------



## Loafer

SINC said:


> Uh, no, didn't happen as predicted this season. Is that junk too?


The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.

Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.

If he could show me some scientific evidence to back up his position I would certainly take a look....but as he didn't I would be inclined to believe he was talking bollocks.

Happy ?


----------



## SINC

Loafer said:


> The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
> 
> Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
> 
> If he could show me some scientific evidence to back up his position I would certainly take a look....but as he didn't I would be inclined to believe he was talking bollocks.
> 
> Happy ?


I was referring to this past season. All their predictions of dire consequences and ravage fell flat. Fewer storms than for many years. Just wanted to point that fact out. Scientists are not always right, and especially with the weather and GHGs.


----------



## Loafer

SINC said:


> I was referring to this past season. All their predictions of dire consequences and ravage fell flat. Fewer storms than for many years. Just wanted to point that fact out. Scientists are not always right, and especially with the weather and GHGs.


even fluctuations occur in larger fluctuations

I'm not disagreeing with you.....just looking more at the big picture

SINC, just out of interest as I'm not fully aware of this, but do you believe the increase in CO2 emissions caused by humans over the last 100 years has had an impact on the Earth to a degree where it is significantly raising the average global temperature or not ?

just curious


----------



## MacGuiver

Loafer said:


> The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
> 
> Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436: 686-688.
> 
> If he could show me some scientific evidence to back up his position I would certainly take a look....but as he didn't I would be inclined to believe he was talking bollocks.
> 
> Happy ?


That could also be attributed to the technological advances we've seen in the past 30 years to track storms that we never had 40 plus years ago. Satellites can track storms and there intensity today in real time that may have gone virtually undetected 40+ years ago. No?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

Loafer said:


> even fluctuations occur in larger fluctuations
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you.....just looking more at the big picture
> 
> SINC, just out of interest as I'm not fully aware of this, but do you believe the increase in CO2 emissions caused by humans over the last 100 years has had an impact on the Earth to a degree where it is significantly raising the average global temperature or not ?
> 
> just curious


While I think our existence here has impacted the planet, it seems to me that science is overreacting. Much of what is taking place seems to be naturally cyclical over hundreds of years and IMO the jury is still out. I'm not about to run around screaming, "the sky is falling" just yet.


----------



## Loafer

SINC said:


> While I think our existence here has impacted the planet, it seems to me that science is overreacting. Much of what is taking place seems to be naturally cyclical over hundreds of years and IMO the jury is still out. I'm not about to run around screaming, "the sky is falling" just yet.


no one is saying the sky is falling in. I think what people are trying to get across here is that we as humans have done something that is going to have some far reaching effects well into the future that our children and childrens children will have an awfully hard time to deal with unless we start to make some changes now.

I think that's a fair assumption.

I think it's slightly arrogant of you to suggest that science is overreacting. I'm assuming of course that you are not a scienctist and you haven't studied global CO2 increases and it's effect in the recent history. To dismiss this research as simply 'overreacting' is unfair to say the least.

Correct me if I am wrong on the above assumption of you SINC.

As someone a generation younger than you (I believe) and with a small child who will certainly have to deal with the consequences of our lifestyle today I for one don't see any harm in getting governments around the world to try and instill some sense of energy reduction in people and in industry in an attempt to reverse or at least slow down the impact we are having.

It beats why anyone would be 'against' this.

I would also stick my neck out a bit here and say that the jury is almost certainly not 'still out'. The general consensus amoung leading global warming scientist is a resounding yes, that humans have introduced far greater amounts of COs into the atmosphere than previously experienced in such a short amount of time which is undoubtedly increasing the general temperatures around the globe.


----------



## SINC

Loafer said:


> I think it's slightly arrogant of you to suggest that science is overreacting. I'm assuming of course that you are not a scienctist and you haven't studied global CO2 increases and it's effect in the recent history. To dismiss this research as simply 'overreacting' is unfair to say the least.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong on the above assumption of you SINC.


I must say I am surprised you find that arrogant, it is certainly not intended to be by me.

By overreacting I simply mean that GHG fearing fanatics, some of them scientists themselves are pushing alarm buttons too frequently. Perhaps their intent is to shock people into changing their ways, but fear mongering is counter productive to reasoned progress.

And if anyone thinks our buying carbon credits will help the situation, they are sorely mistaken. That is simply the dumbest thing I have ever heard and because it is part of the Kyoto protocol it makes me suspicious of the whole accord as being ill thought out and hastily entered into at the urging of those very fanatics.


----------



## MasterBlaster

.


----------



## Loafer

I don't think it is Science that is overreacting, maybe the media that reports the findings could be construed as seeming that way.

I agree with you on the carbon credits. Just another bungled attempt by governments to patch up a problem. It happens in other areas of globals failure...not least Rwanda and Sudan, so I think it's more a political failure than anything.

It just needs addressing in a much easier way for people to do something about it by giving economic incentives for people and industries to reduce their production of GHG emissions.

What do you think of the Conservatives plan to tackle the problem ?
Do you think it goes far enough ?

Wouldn't you like to see Canada leading the way on climate change and showing the world how it can be done without severely impacting the lives of the population ?

It would take some very small moves initially to get things moving in the right direction.....

- ban incandescent light bulbs
- subsidise public transport to make it more cost effective for people than driving
- increase road taxes for gas guzzling cars and trucks 
- improve vehicle emission standards
- subsidise hybrid and new technolgy vehicles
- create a "green" technology science park....would pay for itself down the line with licenses of any new technology developed
- reduce subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industries
- increase subsidies to renewable energy industry

The list goes on...not a major shift in lifestyle at all but would have a bigger impact on the environment and would be a great way to start things off.

All this stuff could be done tomorrow...not problems.


----------



## SINC

Loafer said:


> What do you think of the Conservatives plan to tackle the problem ?
> Do you think it goes far enough ?
> 
> Wouldn't you like to see Canada leading the way on climate change and showing the world how it can be done without severely impacting the lives of the population ?
> 
> It would take some very small moves initially to get things moving in the right direction.....
> 
> - ban incandescent light bulbs
> - subsidise public transport to make it more cost effective for people than driving
> - increase road taxes for gas guzzling cars and trucks
> - improve vehicle emission standards
> - subsidise hybrid and new technolgy vehicles
> - create a "green" technology science park....would pay for itself down the line with licenses of any new technology developed
> - reduce subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industries
> - increase subsidies to renewable energy industry
> 
> The list goes on...not a major shift in lifestyle at all but would have a bigger impact on the environment and would be a great way to start things off.
> 
> All this stuff could be done tomorrow...not problems.


In spite of the dirt being heaped upon the Conservatives both here in the thread and on the world stage, I think they are making progress.

First let us recognize that neither the Chretien or Martin Liberal governments who signed on to Kyoto did anything to limit GHG in Canada other than give it lip service. In fact carbon emissions increased dramatically on their watch.

The Conservatives on the other hand, actually tried to get something going with their clean air act and while it was a start, it was not ambitious enough to satisfy Canadians or the rest of the world. My understanding is that It is now being revised with the input of other parties to tighten it up.

So let's give credit where credit is due in recognizing that the Conservatives have made an attempt to at least begin the process.

The suggestions you make are really no brainers in terms of conserving energy and in turn reducing CO2 buildup.

Contrary to what many believe, I do my part on many levels. I have curtailed my driving from over 40,000 km annually to now only 6,000 km by design. I now use other methods to get around.

I have installed a new energy efficient furnace and insulated our home to cut my natural gas cost by 50 per cent in the past two years.

Every incandescent light bulb is gone from my house in favour of florescents with the exception of Tri-lights as they have not yet figured that problem out yet to my knowledge.

Our water consumption has been reduced by 40 per cent simply by establishing and following a new set of procedures.

We buy green power on a portion of our electric bill generated by the wind in southern Alberta.

My contributions may not be much, but they, like the Conservatives are a start.

But no amount of hollering "the sky is falling" will work with getting people to change. That requires reasoned progress and education. The best way we can all do that is to encourage friends and family and co-workers to follow suit.

The validity of science will be shown over the next 50 years, but predicting the weather is best left to the Old Farmer's Almanac. They have been getting it over 80 per cent right since 1792 and that is a much better track record than modern science with their fancy equipment.


----------



## Kosh

SINC said:


> Every incandescent light bulb is gone from my house in favour of florescents with the exception of Tri-lights as they have not yet figured that problem out yet to my knowledge.


Actually, I believe I saw flourescent tri-lights a couple of months ago. I didn't bother because I had already replaced my tri-lights with regular flourescent lights. I see 23-25 Watt flourescent lights (replacements for 100W candescent lights) are becoming more popular finally. 15W flourescents aren't good for places where you had 100W candescents.


----------



## Beej

Beej said:


> Does anyone have scientific links to address the points made in the article?


So, not much yet?


----------



## Macfury

Loafer said:


> The general consensus amoung leading global warming scientist is a resounding yes


I think that you've sub-consciously hit on it. Global Warming Scientists agree because they are GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS! They're not much interested in the contrary opinions and are virtually united in agreement--among themselves.


----------



## Macfury

I accidentally reported news of a new study in MacGod's...er MacDoc's STERN thread. Interesting reading.


----------



## Beej

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/un_report_globa.html#more

...................
According to a report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent—18%—than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
...................


----------



## SINC

Beej said:


> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/un_report_globa.html#more
> 
> ...................
> According to a report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent—18%—than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
> ...................


Ah yes, the old farting cow trick!


----------



## FeXL

Linky



> Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.


Discussion?


----------



## SINC

Quote: "Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming. "


Hehehe! :lmao: :clap: :clap: 

Attaboy FeXL!


----------



## Macfury

Lord Christopher Monckton is an outspoken critic of the "science" behind so-called Global Warming Theory. Some of his criticisms of the recent UN report: 

_UN: Equilibrium global average warming if carbon dioxide is stabilized at 550 parts per million is very likely to be between 1.5° and 4.5°C and likely to be at least 2°C above 1750 values. Best estimate is 3°C. _ 
CM: “Equilibrium” temperature will occur at least 100 years after stabilization. By then, oil and gas are likely to have become scarcer. Also, much of the forecast warming has already occurred. Perhaps as little as 0.6C of further warming will occur at CO2 doubling. 

_UN: Since the 1990 report, projections have suggested global temperature increases of 0.15 to 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. 0.2°C per decade has been observed. _
CM: The outturn is actually 0.16C (1990-1999), right at the lower end of the UN’s 
projections. The outturn for 2000 to 2010 will probably be 0.18C. 


_UN: Projected sea level rise for 2090-2099 v. 1980–1999 is 7.5 to 17 inches, two-thirds from thermal expansion, one-third from melting polar ice. _ 
CM: The reference period should be a decade, not 20 years, and should be the most recent decade, reducing the projection by 10-15%. The rate of increase in sea level has changed little in 80 years. 


_UN: There is very high confidence that our global net effect since 1750 has been warming of 1.6 watts per square metre, likely to have been at least five times greater than that due to changes in solar output. _
CM: Just six years ago, the UN said our global effect since 1750 had been 2.43 watts per square metre. Since temperature has failed to rise as fast as predicted, this estimate has had to be slashed by a third. 


_UN: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, evident from increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, melting of snow and ice, and rising sea level. _
CM: The fact of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. The world’s ice mass has grown in the past 30 years. Recent fluctuations in the rate of increase in sea level are not unusual compared with the fairly recent past. 


_UN: Eleven of the last twelve years rank among the 12 warmest years since 1850. The trend from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74°C is larger than the 2001 report’s trend from 1901–2000 of 0.6°C. _
CM: The start date has been brought forward five years. From 1900 to 1905 the 
temperature fell. Thus the trend has changed little. 


_UN: The average rate of warming over the last 50 years (0.13°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. _ 
CM: The UN only obtains this result because between 1940 and 1975 temperature fell. In fact, between 1910 and 1930 the average rate of warming also was 0.13C, so the rate in the past 50 years is not unprecedented. 


_UN: New analyses of balloon and satellite measurements of atmospheric temperature show warming rates that are similar to the surface, largely reconciling a previous discrepancy. _
CM: The records only match if the El Nino event of 1998 is taken as part of the trend. Without it the satellite measurements show less warming than the surface, where warming is said to be occurring but may not be. 


_UN: Atmospheric water vapour content has increased since the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water that warmer air can hold. _
CM: The result of the more humid atmosphere is a substantial greening of the fringes of the Sahara, which has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometers in the past 20 years. 


_UN: Observations show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000m and that the ocean has been absorbing most of the heat added to the climate system. _
CM: Ocean temperature has been falling recently. Models over-project sea surface temperatures and only match observation if averaged to a very great depth, where temperature has not changed. 


_UN: Arctic temperatures rose twice as fast as the global average since 1905. However, Arctic temperatures are very variable. A warm period was observed from 1925 to 1945. _
CM: The Arctic warm period from 1925 to 1945 mentioned by the UN was actually warmer than the present by as much as 1 degree Celsius. The polar bears throve, and still thrive. Most researches show the Antarctic is cooling. 


_UN: Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4% per decade. _

CM: Almost all the Arctic is sea-ice. There was almost certainly less Arctic sea-ice in the early 1940s than there is now, and there may have been none in Summer in the middle ages. 


_UN: Shrinkage of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed 0.41mm a year to sea level rise from 1993 to 2003. Some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers are draining interior ice faster than before. _
CM: During the past 30 years, both Greenland and Antarctica have gained ice mass. In the 10 years from 1993 to 2003, the Greenland ice sheet grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year. 


_UN: The Antarctic ice sheet may remain too cold for widespread melting and may gain mass from increased snowfall, but net loss of ice mass may occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice-mass balance_. 
CM: In the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice-sheet has grown, reversing a 6,000- year melting trend. Antarctica contains 90% of the world’s ice, and growing.

Disclaimer: Sometimes Monckton's critiques are printed by associations who have received money from petroleum companies. Monckton is not in their employ.


----------



## SINC

Finally the truth. Thanks for setting the record straight Macfury.


----------



## Beej

It doesn't take much looking to find out what's wrong with the key parts of Monckton's claims (note he does provide a measure for CO2 induced warming).


----------



## Beej

Baliunas and Soon's 2003 paper is worth looking into at Wiki:
..............................
In 2003, Baliunas and Willie Soon (also an astrophysicist) published a review paper on historical climatology that concluded that the climate has not changed in the last 2000 years.

A few months afterward, 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work.[9] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result [10].

Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[11][12] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[13]
..............................


----------



## Macfury

At this point, even peer review sems to matter little when it seems that we're looking at what amounts to a religious passion for global warming theory. I suspect that those studies which do not support global warming theory _enough _will be ditched by peers--or asked to come back with a stronger statement.


----------



## Macfury

I guess I'm wrong about the appearance of papers disagreeing with global warming theory. This from the New York Times of March 13.



> But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.
> 
> “Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.


The article states that there's a rising scientific backlash against current GHG theories, from mild criticism to outright disagreement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?8dpc


----------



## FeXL

> “There is nothing in the U.S. hurricane damage record that indicates global warming has caused a significant increase in destruction along our coasts.”


Linky.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Guess it's time to show more doctored photos of polar bears clinging to ice floes.


----------



## SINC

OMG the horror!

A "team of scientists" stating global warming is not at fault!

Believers will be devastated!

Quick, somebody call in another team to deny this awful study!


----------



## MacDoc

I guess if you call someone with a political science degree and a long time connection to the denier squadron a scientists 

No ice left to cling to- your hogwash has sunk without trace.....

*Roger A. Pielke Jr., a political scientist at the University of Colorado, *

thought that lead name rang a bell.

Still trying justify sucking on a sewer pipe for goodies I guess....what next?? - the paid to appear New York "conference"??

give it up - even the oil companies and the Pentagon know its a serious threat.....knew it even several years ago

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Observer

pardon my laughter on this one....



> Exxon says it never doubted climate change threat
> Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:18pm EDT
> 
> By Gerard Wynn
> 
> LONDON (Reuters) - Oil company Exxon Mobil Corp. never in the past decade doubted the risk from climate change, its global spokesman Kenneth Cohen said on Thursday, *in a latest attempt to improve its green credentials.*
> 
> Exxon had simply firmed up, or "evolved," its understanding of the threat, said Cohen, the company's head of public affairs.


of course they knew - they just tried to muddy the waters and agitate the dumber citizens......

y'know like more doctors smoke Camels.....

addendum



> Exxon now sees as inevitable a federal U.S. law to penalize greenhouse gas emissions, for example through a carbon tax or trading scheme.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> they just tried to muddy the waters and agitate the dumber citizens......
> 
> y'know like more doctors smoke Camels.....
> 
> addendum


Ah yes, I had forgotten. 

One must be of extremely high intelligence to have an informed opinion. 

Lower IQs stand aside and all that.


----------



## MacDoc

No actually you don't making all the more ludicrous ........it's quite evident to all but a few.......there's still a few flat earthers as well.

Touting an economic survey as climate science......desperation knows no bounds

Pielke constructed the essence of that in 1995 and has been touting it wherever ever since

Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925-95

Reference Information: Pielke, Jr., R. A. and C. W. Landsea 1998.
"Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1925-1995," 

regurgitated misdirection.....it's NOT climate science....it might qualify for actuarial use.


----------



## chas_m

If you think you're going to be able to contain all the hot air in this forum to this one thread ...


----------



## SINC

Doesn't matter what study or story is published and by what group of experts, a small group here declares them all to be bogus or wrong.

It's got so I don't have any belief in that opinion any longer. These studies can't ALL be wrong. But a small group of seemingly know-it-all fear mongers certainly can, and likely are in many cases.


----------



## FeXL

Black Carbon Pollution Emerges As Major Player In Global Warming.



> Black carbon, a form of particulate air pollution most often produced from biomass burning, cooking with solid fuels and diesel exhaust, has a warming effect in the atmosphere three to four times greater than prevailing estimates, according to scientists in an upcoming review article in the journal Nature Geoscience.


----------



## Macfury

> with solid fuels and diesel exhaust


Get those bloody buses off the road!


----------



## Max

And tractor trailer rigs and Golf diesels too!!!!


----------



## JumboJones

Smart cars aren't so smart anymore, save on gas but still the environmental effects of a Hummer. Can't wait to see the look on those tree huggers faces.


----------



## Max

The environmental effects of a Hummer? Hardly. Scaled-down, big time, maybe! Geez man, the Hummer's engine is closer in size to a whole Smart!

As an aside, the new Smarts coming to the States are conventional gas engines. They knew that American consumers don't cotton to diesel and they're going to have a tough time as it is weaning them off their larger cars... crazy gas prices or not.


----------



## FeXL

> It turns out that uncertainties in the energetic responses of Earth climate systems are more than 10 times larger than the entire energetic effect of increased CO2.


Hmmm... (long article)

A Climate Of Belief


----------



## MacDoc

Reality has this annoying habit of getting in the way of nonsense....

no models needed.....










despite the LaNina....



> The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) just came out with their March climate report for the U.S. and the world. Here is a sampling of what it says........
> 
> --*The average global temperature (land/ocean surface combined) for the month of March was 0.71 degrees celsius (1.28 F) above normal (against the 20th century mean) making it the 2nd warmest on record for the month of March (using 129 years of record keeping).*
> 
> If you don't like those numbers then take a look at a few of the other sources for March 2008 global temperature measurement..........
> 
> RSS/MSU data
> 
> Global +0.08 c (More detail right here, courtesy of Anthony Watts)
> Northern Hemisphere +0.47 c
> Southern Hemisphere -0.33 c
> 
> UAH/MSU data
> 
> Global +0.10 c
> Northern Hemisphere +0.43 c
> Southern Hemisphere -0.24 c
> 
> GISS data
> 
> Global +0.67 c
> 
> Back to the NCDC March highlights.......
> 
> --*The global (land only) surface temperature was the warmest on record!* The main reason for this is the fact that much of the Asian Continent (we are talking a major chunk of land here) was well above normal for the month of March.
> 
> *--March snow cover extent on the Eurasian Continent was the lowest on record.*
> 
> --The global ocean surface was 13th warmest on record, again thanks tp the warmth around Eurasia (Sorry, nice try La Nina!)


----------



## FeXL

Perhaps you can elaborate on WTF you posted has any relationship, however tenuous, to errors in the math used to predict _future_ climate models which is the whole point of the aforementioned article?

I do want to sit across the table from you and have a beer someday, MacDoc. I purely do...beejacon


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> Perhaps you can elaborate on WTF you posted has any relationship, however tenuous, to errors in the math used to predict _future_ climate models which is the whole point of the aforementioned article?


It's a Pavlovian response to skepticism.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> It's a Pavlovian response to skepticism.


I believe a _healthy_ skepticism is a requirement to intelligent debate. On the other hand:



> no models needed.....


tells me that MacDoc figgers just because the temperatures went up last year, sure as sh!t they're gonna go up this year and even more the next. Don't even bother pulling out the thermometer boy, yer just wastin' time.

There's some good, solid science there. Definitely the kind that would foster an intelligent conversation.

Even Pavlov's dog's eyes weren't glassy and jowls drooling all the time.

____________

In the town that I grew up in there used to be this bitter, old curmudgeon who pooh-poohed and naysayed pretty much everything. Got to the point where no one would even bother talking to him, he was so miserable to get along with. 'Course, he could never figure that out, either. Wife left him, his children avoided him. His dog ran away. (OK, OK, so he didn't have a dog. But if he would have...) 

He was always so angry.

He died a few years back a lonely, broken down man.

Six people showed up at his funeral, one of them was the preacher and two more were the alter boys. Two others were attendants from the funeral home. The last was this bum who was there for the free lunch after the service and didn't even know the deceased...

Curiously, he used to *bold* and *colour* all of his internet quotes, too.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: He hasn't told you that "You're gonna FRY!" yet. That's the really enderaing part.


----------



## MacDoc

Latest Harper lap puppy wall paper...


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Latest Harper lap puppy wall paper...


That's not a sentence...that's a word salad.


----------



## Vandave

And April has been cooler than average... :yawn: 

UNITED STATES Climate Summary


----------



## SINC

So is May so far, as was the entire winter. :yawn: :yawn:


----------



## Vandave

SINC said:


> So is May so far, as was the entire winter. :yawn: :yawn:


Phew, those March numbers had me scared.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Latest Harper lap puppy wall paper...


Again=relevance?

Was this posted in the wrong thread?

If not, are you presuming to know something about my politics? Or is there some even more obscure point which you have, again, failed to make?

If you have a salient post to make, please, engage.

If you're foundering MacDoc, that's fine, too. Sit quietly in the corner and when you can contribute constructively, do so.


----------



## Macfury

And the global warming of Mars continues apace despite a total lack of industrialization...


----------



## FeXL

Short term carbon dioxide solutions?

Here



> Researchers in Wyoming report development of a low-cost carbon filter that can remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide gas from the smokestacks of electric power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels.




and here (somewhat older, I see, but interesting nonetheless...).




> Engineers have designed a simple, sustainable and natural carbon sequestration solution using algae.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> The environmental effects of a Hummer? Hardly. Scaled-down, big time, maybe! Geez man, the Hummer's engine is closer in size to a whole Smart!
> 
> As an aside, the new Smarts coming to the States are conventional gas engines. They knew that American consumers don't cotton to diesel and they're going to have a tough time as it is weaning them off their larger cars... crazy gas prices or not.


see that's precisely why I just make fun of them. Just sheer nonsense. There's not one reason I can see why I should bother getting into a reasonable debate with that sort of stupidity.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> So is May so far, as was the entire winter. :yawn: :yawn:


you guys still chasing the cats tail I see?


----------



## EvanPitts

If Green House Gases are such a problem - why doen't the government just ban greenhouses? And while they are at it, ban anyone named Green from living in or owning a house? That would do more than any of Dion's crackpot ideas.


----------



## Macfury

A large contingent of the carbon dioxide flakes are into de-industrialization, so finding a filter to remove carbon dioxide won't interest them at all. They use science as a fig leaf for their "Return to Eden" philosophy.

Blowing up the coal stacks at one of Toronto's most important power generating sites is proof of that philosophy.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe

De-industrialization in Canada is also called free trade and globalization. 

Also known as moving industry to countries with LESS safety and environmental standards, but MORE restrictions on human rights and freedoms.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> A large contingent of the carbon dioxide flakes are into de-industrialization, so finding a filter to remove carbon dioxide won't interest them at all. They use science as a fig leaf for their "Return to Eden" philosophy.
> 
> Blowing up the coal stacks at one of Toronto's most important power generating sites is proof of that philosophy.


A large contingent of climate change deniers also grind up cats to enrich their fuel, so that gives you an insight into their philosophy too.


----------



## Macfury

If you want to grind up cats for fuel, please do so humanely.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

FeXL said:


> Short term carbon dioxide solutions?
> 
> Here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Researchers in Wyoming report development of a low-cost carbon filter that can remove 90 percent of carbon dioxide gas from the smokestacks of electric power plants that burn coal and other fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly hope this turns out to be real technology and not vapour-tech. We need to ramp up electricity and we still have lots of coal, so something like this could really help. It will give us time to properly develop and install renewable electricity generation. Something like this could make a transition to electric vehicles far easier without having to resort to nuclear with all it's negatives.



MF said:


> A large contingent of the carbon dioxide flakes are into de-industrialization, so finding a filter to remove carbon dioxide won't interest them at all. They use science as a fig leaf for their "Return to Eden" philosophy.
> 
> Blowing up the coal stacks at one of Toronto's most important power generating sites is proof of that philosophy.


C'mon MF, that's BS and you know it. There's a difference between making witty bon-mots and just spreading misinformation. Environmentalists don't want de-industrialization, we just want an industrial society that won't harm our continued existence into the future. I like my industrial products although many of them are far too cheap because they don't include the cost of the damage they do.


----------



## Macfury

Sauce: Carbon-dioxide flakes are a small sub-set of environmentalists. I would consider myself an environmentalist as well. I don't consider you a flake.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Sauce: Carbon-dioxide flakes are a small sub-set of environmentalists. I would consider myself an environmentalist as well. I don't consider you a flake.


OOOO - kay. I took your term "carbon-dioxide flakes" to mean all those who don't agree with your well-documented stand on the climate change issue. In that case that would include most environmentalists, (umm ... I guess with the exception of yourself). 

Thanks for defining your terms.


----------



## groovetube

lol. The reason not to take any of it seriously.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In that case that would include most environmentalists, (umm ... I guess with the exception of yourself).


I suspect the sub-set of environmentalists who doubt the carbon thingy includes more people than just me!


----------



## EvanPitts

We have the crazy "environmental" people in The Hammer. I can see if they get upset about the fact that this is the most polluted place in the Great Lakes area (and that's saying something after Love Canal, and that river in Cleveland that burst into flames in the 70's!) - but they are getting upset about replacing a bridge out on the 8th Concession because the ditches are "bio-diverse" or something.

They are doing themselves no good these days, when their environmental demands do little to rid us of actual pollution, but cost us billions of dollars in special "studies" written by political cronies. Suzuki burns me because if he is so environmentally minded, why does he fly around like there is no tomorrow, and why did their giant gas guzzling maxi-van cut me off on the 401? His commercials scare me - he is the crazy stalker who is trying to rob me of my light bulbs and beer...


----------



## Macfury

EvanPitts: The Toronto Doily Star ran an article for Victoria Day about the way in which fireworks harm the environment. People won't listen to this fever-pitch of puritanism much longer withoiut a major backlash.


----------



## StageDive

Macfury said:


> If you want to grind up cats for fuel, please do so humanely.


Is that even plausible?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> EvanPitts: The Toronto Doily Star ran an article for Victoria Day about the way in which fireworks harm the environment. People won't listen to this fever-pitch of puritanism much longer withoiut a major backlash.


unfortunately since the effects of fireworks has nothing to do with the GHG debate, you are again treading the BS making machine.


----------



## JumboJones

EvanPitts said:


> We have the crazy "environmental" people in The Hammer. I can see if they get upset about the fact that this is the most polluted place in the Great Lakes area (and that's saying something after Love Canal, and that river in Cleveland that burst into flames in the 70's!) - but they are getting upset about replacing a bridge out on the 8th Concession because the ditches are "bio-diverse" or something.
> 
> They are doing themselves no good these days, when their environmental demands do little to rid us of actual pollution, but cost us billions of dollars in special "studies" written by political cronies. Suzuki burns me because if he is so environmentally minded, why does he fly around like there is no tomorrow, and why did their giant gas guzzling maxi-van cut me off on the 401? His commercials scare me - he is the crazy stalker who is trying to rob me of my light bulbs and beer...


I find it pretty funny, here in Oakville we're pretty environmental as well, but why does everything always stop at residential? Where I work we just introduced a recycling program, it has been looked over for years because they make companies pay for it privately. And of course who would be stupid enough to do that right? I can only imagine the amount of garbage companies produce that could be recycled. Cities can't even get something as basic as this right yet citizens pressure gov'ts to adhere to Kyoto. WTF!


----------



## Macfury

Jumbo: It's pretty sad to see that kind of incompetence displayed, then have people demanding that this same group of clowns enact the Kyoto Non-Accord.

Here are some links to articles about fireworks as environmental hazards:

Environment & Nature News - Fireworks leave polluting afterglow - 28/06/2001



> *Fireworks leave polluting afterglow*
> 
> Fireworks release the pollutant ozone. A cause for concern?
> 
> The spectacular fireworks that mark public events like the Olympics and the new millenium, leave a nasty afterglow of the air pollutant ozone according to new research.
> 
> Ozone is best known in the stratosphere, where its formation into the "ozone layer" has a protective effect on the Earth by shielding it from ultraviolet radiation.
> 
> But in the lower atmosphere it is a respiratory irritant, a greenhouse gas and a plant toxin. Its production from oxygen gas in this part of the atmosphere had been thought to require sunlight or nitrogen oxides.


TheStar.com | living | Talking fireworks with the Kaboom Man



> *FIREWORKS AND THE ENVIRONMENT*
> 
> People love fireworks, but do all those colourful nights of fire harm the environment?
> 
> • Fireworks deliver significant levels of perchlorate into nearby water bodies, according to research. Perchlorate is a human health concern as well as a risk to animals. Levels as low as 100 micrograms per litre are known to cause thyroid problems in fish. (Source: Environmental Science & Technology Journal, 2007).
> 
> • According to The Ecologist, the millennium fireworks displays in 2000 worldwide caused serious environmental pollution. The skies were filled with carcinogenic sulphur compounds and airborne arsenic. (Source: The Ecologist, June 2000).
> 
> • Fun alternatives to fireworks include noisemakers, piñatas or streamers made from recycled paper, block parties or parades (Source: thedailygreen.com/going -green/3183)
> 
> • The city of Sydney's New Year's Eve fireworks display uses approximately 11,000 shells, 10,000 shooting comets and a total of 100,000 individual pyrotechnics. (Source: envirostats.info/category /greenhouse-gases)


----------



## EvanPitts

Macfury said:


> EvanPitts: The Toronto Doily Star ran an article for Victoria Day about the way in which fireworks harm the environment.


They get all worked up about fireworks - while pretty much ignoring the fact that The Hammer regularly gets some crazy fallout from industry. First we had the black sticky carbon soot which one would think came out of Columbian Carbon - but the MOE couldn't prove that the only mnaker of lamp black in town was the source. Then we had the rust fall out from the former Dofasco dumping molten steel out of their blast furnace into a giant, dirt, debris and ice filled pit. But fireworks must be the real culprit...

The Toronto Stare is quite the paper, and really, it only shows that the editorial of the Sun is superior...


----------



## JumboJones

I used to live right by Centenial Park, I know all about the black stuff, cleaning my fan was disgusting, black sh!t everywhere. I hate to think what was going into my lungs.


----------



## EvanPitts

JumboJones said:


> I used to live right by Centenial Park, I know all about the black stuff, cleaning my fan was disgusting, black sh!t everywhere. I hate to think what was going into my lungs.


Yeah, and imagine what you are missing now. The rust fallout from Arcelor-Mittal (it used to be Dofasco) dumping super hot steel out of the blast furnace into a giant pit has made people not only stop complaining about the sooty carbon fall out - they want the sooty carbon fallout back because it doesn't stain as bad as a hundred tons of rust dust falling from the sky every day...

One must consider that The Hammer is home to giant piles of slag out in the open, giant piles of coal out in the open, and companies that make such things as lamp black and vegetable oil. Not to mention the rendering plant out in the summer that reeks every summer - so bad that you can smell the stench of it above all of the other odours of the city. It is a wonder how life can even exist! My girlfriend's place, if the wind blows right, gets inundated by the odour of Swedish Berry Gummi-Bears - and I'll tell you that it is strong enough at times, I'd rather go down to the north end for some of that fresh solid air that The Hammer is famous for...


----------



## Macfury

EvanPitts: granted that Hamilton has received funds to clean up that chunk of heavy metal sludge lying at the bottom of the harbour--but the local business improvement council's belief that this will transform the waterfront into an attractive tourist magnet is out in left field.

As it happens, I was born in Hamilton, but lived there only two days.


----------



## EvanPitts

JumboJones said:


> Where I work we just introduced a recycling program, it has been looked over for years because they make companies pay for it privately. And of course who would be stupid enough to do that right? I can only imagine the amount of garbage companies produce that could be recycled.


The place where I used to work (until they finally downsized because of Chinese imports) used to throw everything in the garbage. I asked the boss why the company didn't recycle - and he said because it was "too costly". He listed all of these crazy numbers, the cost of bins, the cost of having someone clean out the bins, the cost of hiring someone to sort garbage, the cost of getting someone in to pick stuff up. You name it, every excuse in the book used to justify filling a landfill site even faster.

So I brought in some old pails, and put one at each bench. And I got an old friend of mine from high school days who is into metal recycling to drop by on his regular route (much of his business is scored by clearing garages out of their old brake rotors). Most of our metals were parts from old scrapped motors that weren't worth rebuilding - mostly aluminum and copper - which are fairly valuable.
So we reaped the benefit of not having to lug ten garbage bags out to the curb every week - and he reaped the benefit of making money on some metals of value. 
We also found out that he would recycle things like old copper wiring, and he would even take much of our plastics because that is also recyclable (and he found he could make money at that). We all benefited - and I think we were recycling about 85-90% of what we would have normally tossed out.

The boss didn't complain for long because really - he was saving money on garbage bags...

We certainly need to live smarter - recycling is another step in that endeavour.


----------



## JumboJones

EvanPitts said:


> The place where I used to work (until they finally downsized because of Chinese imports) used to throw everything in the garbage. I asked the boss why the company didn't recycle - and he said because it was "too costly". He listed all of these crazy numbers, the cost of bins, the cost of having someone clean out the bins, the cost of hiring someone to sort garbage, the cost of getting someone in to pick stuff up. You name it, every excuse in the book used to justify filling a landfill site even faster.
> 
> So I brought in some old pails, and put one at each bench. And I got an old friend of mine from high school days who is into metal recycling to drop by on his regular route (much of his business is scored by clearing garages out of their old brake rotors). Most of our metals were parts from old scrapped motors that weren't worth rebuilding - mostly aluminum and copper - which are fairly valuable.
> So we reaped the benefit of not having to lug ten garbage bags out to the curb every week - and he reaped the benefit of making money on some metals of value.
> We also found out that he would recycle things like old copper wiring, and he would even take much of our plastics because that is also recyclable (and he found he could make money at that). We all benefited - and I think we were recycling about 85-90% of what we would have normally tossed out.
> 
> The boss didn't complain for long because really - he was saving money on garbage bags...
> 
> We certainly need to live smarter - recycling is another step in that endeavour.


We've been harping the 3 R's since the mid 80's and for cities to not have business recycling programs is ridiculous. Business' produce way more garbage than the average household, yet you have cities like TO trying to reduce their carbon foot print because it's the in thing to do.


----------



## groovetube

ok I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I run a business right downtown and it costs me per bag to put out garbage. So it's in my best interest ($$$) to use the recycle services provided. There's fines if I don't buy the yellow bags and try to use the residential service.

Seems the 'in' thing around here, is yapping.


----------



## JumboJones

groovetube said:


> ok I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I run a business right downtown and it costs me per bag to put out garbage. So it's in my best interest ($$$) to use the recycle services provided. There's fines if I don't buy the yellow bags and try to use the residential service.
> 
> Seems the 'in' thing around here, is yapping.


Good to know, but how far from DT does this recycling service for businesses expand to?


----------



## EvanPitts

groovetube said:


> ok I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I run a business right downtown and it costs me per bag to put out garbage. So it's in my best interest ($$$) to use the recycle services provided. There's fines if I don't buy the yellow bags and try to use the residential service.


Since recycling is a municipal initiative - everyone has a different level of service. We have long had recycling in The Hammer, and we have had a municipal composter for almost twenty years, and the Blue Box for at least ten years. In recent years, they added to the blue box program, as well as adding the green cart (and another composter). They decided to add the Blue Box program to small businesses, so places like the place my girlfriend works at (which generates a serious amount of paper in a given week) can recycle instead of tossing in the trash. The Transfer Stations take in even more items for free, and they even added a Reuse Center.

In Burlington, they only had Blue Box pickup on every second week until this year - so a lot of paper would end up being thrown out by businesses because no one wants it hanging around. They do not collect as much recyclables as The Hammer does. They finally started a Green Bin program. I was always tossing things into the recycle box that they didn't accept, because I was so used to the way I did things at home.

Some places pay for each garbage bag - they were going to try that around here but they really fear the fact that if people had to pay - they would just resort to midnight dumping, which remains a serious problem here even without a pay per pay program.

It would be easier if all of the municipalities got on with the same program. There would be much less confusion about it all.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> ok I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I run a business right downtown and it costs me per bag to put out garbage. So it's in my best interest ($$$) to use the recycle services provided. There's fines if I don't buy the yellow bags and try to use the residential service.
> 
> Seems the 'in' thing around here, is yapping.


Forgive him guys. "Centre of the Universe" Syndrome.


----------



## groovetube

JumboJones said:


> * yet you have cities like TO* trying to reduce their carbon foot print because it's the in thing to do.


Are you guys far into a square already?

geez it's not even 3pm yet...


----------



## JumboJones

groovetube said:


> Are you guys far into a square already?
> 
> geez it's not even 3pm yet...


So how far beyond the downtown area does this service extend? What does this service include? Paper/Cardboard? Plastics? Metal? Organics?


----------



## groovetube

caught you with your nonsense it seems didn't I...

It's never hard with the pair of you tag teaming all day.

I don't know about outside of Toronto, since I live, and work in TO, which is the place, as I bolded, you referred to.

lmao.


----------



## Macfury

Read the post carefully, groovetube. He said that some cities don't have proper recycling programs, yet Toronto is trying to reduce its carbon footprint. There's a large discrepancy in availability of programs from municpality to municipality.


----------



## groovetube

you are quite the pair.

Here's some help in case...

City of Toronto: Solid Waste Management - Yellow Bag Program (Commercial collection)

It is more than an 'in' thing here.


----------



## Macfury

Not yellow bagging--carbon footprints. It's all in the post.


----------



## groovetube

JumboJones said:


> We've been harping the 3 R's since the mid 80's and for cities to not have business recycling programs is ridiculous. Business' produce way more garbage than the average household, yet you have cities like TO trying to reduce their carbon foot print because it's the in thing to do.



lol. You are not going to wriggle out of this one.

You both spew on daily you get caught in your own yakking.


----------



## Macfury

Uh huh, and cities like Hamilton don't have these programs. Toronto does.


----------



## groovetube

you will spend 3 pages trying to wriggle out of it.

nailed.


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
Fonts are getting rather huge...

Toronto's problem with "carbon" is less to do with garbage or recycling - which are not trivial problems at all - but with the fact that it has been allows to unconditionally expand without a clear plan, leading to the huge numbers of people that need to commute. I find that much of the problem is that there are these huge industrial areas that are not only far away from residential areas, there is also little or no chance of practical public transit. I know because I grappled with a job offer a number of years ago - and the commute would have required taking a bus to get a bus to get a train, then another trip on a bus followed by either a fifteen minute walk or waiting for another bus. Of course, I could jump in the car - leaving here at 5:30am and not getting back home until 7:30-8pm.

Not to ignore recycling - we need to live smarter by beginning to eliminate crazy long commuting to and from jobs. It just serves the taxman, who reaps the benefits of super high gas prices because of the laws of supply and command...


----------



## groovetube

yes.

sometimes big letters are needed for simple things to be apparent.

Anyway, I had my chuckle.


----------



## JumboJones

groovetube said:


> you are quite the pair.
> 
> Here's some help in case...
> 
> City of Toronto: Solid Waste Management - Yellow Bag Program (Commercial collection)
> 
> It is more than an 'in' thing here.


A lot of businesses not eligible: City of Toronto: Solid Waste Management - Yellow Bag Program (Commercial collection)

So what does an industrial business do? They do like we used to do where I work, subscribe to one service and dump everything in there. 

I guess the pay per bag must be working real well. I'm sure it has nothing to with the roadside dumping that seems to be a problem for TO. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

oh. So now it's time to change your tune a little.

We've gone from no recycling program, to, well some may not be eligible. And roadside dumping has been a problem for many many years. So let's can the nonsense.

The fact is, if you were actually at all interested, the recycling programs in Toronto have been improving rather rapidly in the last few years. Toronto is just now moving towards a similar model for residential owners to pay by how much garbage they throw out not too. Not surprisingly, the every same people with your opinions are generally the first to holler and scream about it.

So your little rant about the 'in' thing in Toronto was indeed, ridiculous now wasn't it.


----------



## Macfury

Jumbo: He just can't get around the fact that you were talking about two different places.


----------



## groovetube

alright this has gone beyond 2 year old stage.

The pair of you are too much.

I think we've seen enough now.


----------



## Macfury

Why don't you write it in a larger typeface?


----------



## Adrian.

Hahahaha.

FAIL!


----------



## groovetube

ha ha it's morning and you're still on about it.


----------



## Macfury

I consider midnight to be "night". But I checked unread threads at 11:00 a.m. and...well...there you were back at it after a brand new sunrise!


----------



## EvanPitts

I'm not even sure what the whole dispute was about? I think it is against the Constitution to force citizens to use specially coloured yellow bags... :lmao: 

All I know is that Suzuki is outside the builting right now - digging through the garbage. "No Mr. Suzuki, I am not going to recycle those condoms. If you want to reuse them, that's your own deal..."


----------



## Macfury

Why would he want condoms, EvanPitts? He's probably working on a few extra kids to add to the five he's already produced to further burden the planet's environment.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

This is now officially the authoritative gas thread, anyway.

I'm GratuitousApplesauce and I approve of this message.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> This is now officially the authoritative gas thread, anyway.
> 
> I'm GratuitousApplesauce and I approve of this message.


Why I oughta...


----------



## EvanPitts

Macfury said:


> Why would he want condoms, EvanPitts? He's probably working on a few extra kids to add to the five he's already produced to further burden the planet's environment.


It was the only thing in my garbage that I could think of that could possibly be "Recycled". I think Suzuki is now demented enough to do such a thing. The "Outtakes From David Suzuki Commercials" would be quite the hoot: like when he crawled through a boarded up window at the Hell's Angels clubhouse to unplug the lights they were using for their Grow-Op - "why are you wasting all of this power when you can grow tomato plants outside?" Or the one where he is in a Women's Prison - "why are you all taking showers on your own - you can save power by showering together!"

I am sure that Mr. Suzuki is followed by enviro-green-groupies, and has spead his seed, ur, message, far and wide across this nation...


----------



## JumboJones

EvanPitts said:


> I am sure that Mr. Suzuki is followed by enviro-green-groupies, and has spead his seed, ur, message, far and wide across this nation...


Ummm tree hugging birkinstock hunnies, love the o'natural women.


----------



## MacDoc

Must be something in the water  



> *G8 ministers endorse greenhouse gas cuts by 2050*
> Updated Mon. May. 26 2008 7:22 AM ET
> 
> The Associated Press
> 
> KOBE, Japan -- The G8 environment ministers are calling for an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, declaring developed countries should take the lead in battling global warming.
> 
> Their statement Monday after three days of meetings in Kobe, Japan also acknowledges calls for midterm emissions reduction targets for 2020, but does not specify any goals.
> 
> The ministers from Japan, the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Russia tried to set the stage for action on climate change at the G8 summit in Toyako, Japan in July, and to revive momentum for wider UN-led talks on a new global warming pact.
> 
> Their statement cites the need for global gas emissions to peak within 10 to 20 years, and calls on developing countries with rapidly expanding greenhouse gas emissions to work to curb the rate of increase.
> 
> But while signalling the need for midterm targets, the ministers made only an indirect mention of a UN scientific finding that rich countries should make reductions of between 25 per cent and 40 per cent by 2020 to avoid the worst effects of warming.
> 
> The European Union has pledged a 20 per cent emissions reduction by 2020 and has offered to raise it to 30 percent if other nations sign on. The United States, however, has not committed to a midterm goal, demanding commitments from top developing countries such as China first. Japan has also not yet set a 2020 target.


----------



## Macfury

Good. Push it off to 2050 so we don't have to experience that nonsense now. By then the temperatures will have declined to such a degree that people will wonder what they can do to jack them up.


----------



## SINC

Kyoto and now Kobe?

Can't we do anything without Japan?

Come to think of it, it could very well be the reason for the failure of the movement to date.

A western perspective might help.


----------



## Macfury

The Kobe Accord: Eat More Beef!


----------



## EvanPitts

SINC said:


> Can't we do anything without Japan?
> Come to think of it, it could very well be the reason for the failure of the movement to date.
> A western perspective might help.


The next conference should be held in Tombstone, Arizona - western and at the same time, an appropriate and memorable name.


----------



## Macfury

The Tombstone Accord--sounds like a fitting memorial for Western economies.


----------



## FeXL

Closing Ozone Hole May Have Major Impact On Global Warming, Possibly Not For The Better



> "We were surprised to find that the closing of the ozone hole, which is expected to occur in the next 50 years or so, shows significant effects on the global climate," said Lorenzo M. Polvani, one of two principle investigators and professor of applied physics and applied mathematics at SEAS. "This is because stratospheric ozone has not been considered a major player in the climate system."


I guess I'm a bit surprised at the last statement in the quote. Why wouldn't it be?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I guess I'm a bit surprised at the last statement in the quote. Why wouldn't it be?


Because they don't have much of a clue about atmospheric science. Just as water vapour is largely ignored as the most plentiful greenhouse gas. They don't create climate models--the terminology is carefully chosen. They create climate _scenarios_, which are fanciful tales rigged to frighten people and extract research funding. Who needs to think about ozone when you already have a scenario worked out?


----------



## MacDoc

carefully chosen indeed.......



> Ozone Hole Recovery May Reshape Southern Hemisphere Climate Change And Amplify Antarctic Warming
> 
> ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008) — A full recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole could modify climate change in the Southern Hemisphere *and even amplify Antarctic warming,* according to scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> The study authors calculated that when stratospheric ozone levels return to near pre-1969 levels by the end of the 21st century, large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns* now shielding the Antarctic interior from warmer air masses to the north* will begin to break down during the austral summer. The circulation patterns are collectively known as a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, or SAM.


the reality which you choose to deny nonsensically is that the ozone hole has kept the centre of the southern continent cooler than expected. That temporary condition will cease - just as La Nina has stopped cooling North America now.

Pathetic.....



> Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change. “This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where t*here is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. *That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”
> 
> In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on: “This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; *this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt*. We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”


*Dr. Richard H. Gammon *
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography 
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

here you go - email -* [email protected]* tell him he's delusional.

Give it up - your entire attitude is tiresome and wrongheaded and represents excruciatingly what society does *NOT* need right now....blind nonsense.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, you certainly have a propensity for overusing the quote function,. I read the article as did FeXL.

Why on Earth would I e-mail that fellow to tell him he's delusional? He's merely wrong. And your dogmatic, doctrinaire approach to this new "Earth Religion" is becoming a bit of an embarrassment.

You can say Freeman Dyson is wrong if you like as well. Better yet, just claim he's an idiot or in the pay of big oil.

Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson


> All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Give it up - your entire attitude is tiresome and wrongheaded and represents excruciatingly what society does *NOT* need right now....blind nonsense.


Either that or your "buy it all, believe it all" swallowing of the current poison out there has your belief structure paralyzed.

One's as bad as the other.


----------



## MACinist

... and I thought this was something to do with Growth Hormones.


----------



## Macfury

MACinist said:


> ... and I thought this was something to do with Growth Hormones.


It might, if these hormones can cause someone to have a swelled head.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Why on Earth would I e-mail that fellow to tell him he's delusional? He's merely wrong.


This is the basis of most of the contention around this issue: people have different opinions and ideas about what is happening and what should be done, but not all opinions are created equal. So while we can find plenty of people who are climate-change-deniers (and even more who insist that human activity has no impact on global climate), unless a so many of these critics are reputable climatologists that it represents a significant debate within the field (which is does not), it's irrelevant.

Thus, quoting climatologists is relevant to the discussion, but quoting theoretical mathematicians, medical doctors, lawyers, economists, or alien robots is not.

Your opinion, and my opinion and Freeman Dyson's opinions are not nearly as relevant to the discussion as those of professional scientists working in the field. This is just like the various medical doctors, lawyers and physicists who support creationism. Their opinions are worth exactly as much as that of any other layperson who has no training or research experience (i.e. not very much).

While I respect Dyson's opinions about mathematics and physics, and his discussion about the role of science in society has some credibility, his opinions on global climate and the mechanisms underlying climate change are no more relevant than those of the electron microscopists across the hall, or those of golf-pros, ceiling-tile manufacturers, or any other random person you might meet.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

Dyson's opinions in this case are not on global warming per se, but on the ability of scientists to generate accurate opinions of what is going on with the Earth's climate, using the only tools they apparently have--computer models. Since the IPCC heralds its computer modeling capability as its strong suit (while occasionally declaring that they have no ability to predict future climate) Dyson's opinions as a mathematician and physicist are entirely relevant.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Dyson's opinions as a mathematician and physicist [regarding the accuracy of computer modeling] are entirely relevant.


They are somewhat more relevant than a complete layman's, yes. But they are by no means as credible as the peer-reviewers and research scientists in the field. Dyson knows some of the math, and is very well-versed in the use of computer models within *his* field (which is not climatology), but he is not a credible scientist in the domain under discussion, so his considerable gravitas in physics does not pertain.

It is also worth noting that Dyson does not dispute anthropogenic global warming, but simply argues that the reliance of current predictions on models that do not take into consideration all the factors are bound to make them inaccurate, and therefore potentially damaging to the credibility of science (a valid point, IMO).

I agree completely with Dyson, that we should no longer be arguing about it, but should be planting trees and taking other measure to sequester carbon as quickly as we can, and once we reach equilibrium, we need to ensure that for every kiloton of carbon we release, we sequester a kiloton somewhere else.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

Dyson notes that we don't even have enough information yet to decide whether we want more or less carbon in the air. Whether it would be beneficial or harmful, and to what degree any additons and subtractions of carbon in the atmosphere, of which humans are capable, will have an effect.

Planting trees or practising low-till agriculture as suggested by Dyson, is one way one could capture carbon--if we wanted to, or felt it would be beneficial.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Dyson notes that we don't even have enough information yet to decide whether we want more or less carbon in the air.


When you're dealing with a life support system that is working (and has been working for millions of years), and you're not sure what effects a given change might have, what would be the prudent course of action? Hint: dumping megatons of GHGs into the atmosphere over a very short period of time might not be the best idea. 

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

Except that we are:
a) not certain that the carbon has an effect (or if you're convinced that it has an effect, a _net_ effect beyond other conditions we know little about)
b) not certain that adding more carbon or withdrawing it would have any additional effect
c) not certain what potential effect would be created by stopping it (e.g., an ice age, harm to plant growth)

I suggest we control water vapour first as it is the most abundant and pernicious GHG. Let's see what kind of a difference that would make.


----------



## FeXL

A rather dubious honor...



> China has clearly overtaken the United States as the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, a new study has found, its emissions increasing 8 percent in 2007.


I also found the first comment after the article interesting. How much of it is true, I don't know. However, it does lend itself to some interesting dialogue...


----------



## Macfury

Maybe China _wants_ a warmer planet?


----------



## FeXL

Interesting analysis:

Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense



> In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.


----------



## JumboJones

Gore getting desperate proof public cooling on GW hoax


----------



## MacDoc

Proof??!!!! omg - ya sure - proof you'll swallow just any old codswallop put in front of your right wing face.
Ever heard of ENSO....no??- didn't think so.

Tim Ball - pardon my nausea.

You are hilarious..let see - your sources...



> Ball and the oil industry
> 
> Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, '06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.
> Ball inflates credentials
> 
> Ball and organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball.
> Ball and the NRSP
> 
> Ball is listed as an "Executive" for 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."
> 
> DeSmog recently uncovered information that 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.”
> Ball's research history
> 
> Ball retired from the University of Winnipeg in 1996 and a search of 22,000 academic journals shows that, over the course of his career, Ball has published 4 pieces of original research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.
> Ball sues researcher and Calgary Herald newspaper
> 
> On Sept. 1, Ball, launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems. Here are the original Statements of Claim and Defence.


Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball) | DeSmogBlog

Meanwhile back in the real world....



> Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change
> 
> May 14, 2008
> 
> A new NASA-led study shows human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa.
> 
> Temperature change map of North America Image at right: Areas of significant changes to Earth systems observed in North America over the last 20 years, represented by various symbols, are linked with areas of rising temperatures, noted in red. Credit: NASA (Larger image)
> 
> Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period. The study, to be published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe.
> 
> "This is the first study to link global temperature data sets, climate model results, and observed changes in a broad range of physical and biological systems to show the link between humans, climate, and impacts," said Rosenzweig, lead author of the study.
> 
> Rosenzweig and colleagues also found the link between human-caused climate change and observed impacts on Earth holds true at the scale of individual continents, particularly in North America, Europe, and Asia.
> 
> Photograph of a forest Image at right:When permafrost melts, the layer of loose soil deepens and trees lose their foundations and tip over. Similar impacts across Earth are likely due to human-caused climate change. Credit: Jon Ranson
> 
> To arrive at the link, the authors built and analyzed a database of more than 29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.
> 
> Observed impacts included changes to physical systems, such as glaciers shrinking, permafrost melting, and lakes and rivers warming. Biological systems also were impacted in a variety of ways, such as leaves unfolding and flowers blooming earlier in the spring, birds arriving earlier during migration periods, and plant and animal species moving toward Earth's poles and higher in elevation. In aquatic environments such as oceans, lakes, and rivers, plankton and fish are shifting from cold-adapted to warm-adapted communities.
> 
> The team conducted a "joint attribution" study. They showed that at the global scale, about 90 percent of observed changes in diverse physical and biological systems are consistent with warming. Other driving forces, such as land use change from forest to agriculture, were ruled out as having significant influence on the observed impacts.
> 
> Satellite image of Siberia Image at right:Impacts from warming are evident in satellite images showing that lakes in Siberia disappearing as the permafrost thaws and lake water drains deeper into the ground. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory. (Larger image)
> 
> Next, the scientists conducted statistical tests and found the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. The team concluded observed global-scale impacts are very likely because of human-caused warming.
> 
> *"Humans are influencing climate through increasing greenhouse gas emissions," Rosenzweig said. "The warming is causing impacts on physical and biological systems that are now attributable at the global scale and in North America, Europe, and Asia."*
> 
> On some continents, including Africa, South America, and Australia, documentation of observed changes in physical and biological systems is still sparse despite warming trends attributable to human causes. The authors concluded environmental systems on these continents need additional research, especially in tropical and subtropical areas where there is a lack of impact data and published studies.
> Reference
> 
> Rosenzweig, C., D. Karoly, M. Vicarelli, P. Neofotis, Q. Wu, G. Casassa, A. Menzel, T.L. Root, N. Estrella, B. Seguin, P. Tryjanowski, C. Liu, S. Rawlins, and A. Imeson, 2008: Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature, 453, 353-357, doi:10.1038/nature06937.
> Media Contacts
> 
> Leslie McCarthy, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y., 212-678-5507 [email protected]


_*29,000 data series pertaining to observed impacts on Earth's natural systems. The data were collected from about 80 studies, each with at least 20 years of records between 1970 and 2004.*_

don't let a few establish facts....a mere 29,000 data sets and 80 studies over 30 years.....get in the way of your ideological farce....

grow up......


----------



## Macfury

Come back to the church kids, or ol Reverend Doc'll whup ya!


----------



## bryanc

Yes, the church of empirical and reproducible facts, testable & falsifiable hypotheses and peer-reviewed publications makes me all warm & fuzzy.

To each their own. Of course there's only one reality, and what you believe won't have any impact on it (apart from whatever impact your behavior has on external reality).

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc: wouldn't dream of impinging on your fuzzy reality. Yes, of course we've tested all of these hypotheses and it's now time to build a new world 'round the precious dreams of enviro-nuts and computer salesmen.


----------



## EvanPitts

I'm still scared of Canada being sucked into the Suzukiverse. I for one have no problems with penguins. And I don't want some skeevy dude coming into my house unplugging things, just because his superpowers are derived from working for the CBC.

I think Suzuki is scarier than Bush for two reasons: Bush only has a few months left so he wants to eat all the free food he can while he is a denizen of the White House; and Bush has a wife to kick his heinie if he does anything too bizzaro. Plus, they don't have Bush's severed skull on all of the billboards in town, so that is three reasons...


----------



## JumboJones

EvanPitts said:


> I'm still scared of Canada being sucked into the Suzukiverse. I for one have no problems with penguins. And I don't want some skeevy dude coming into my house unplugging things, just because his superpowers are derived from working for the CBC.
> 
> I think Suzuki is scarier than Bush for two reasons: Bush only has a few months left so he wants to eat all the free food he can while he is a denizen of the White House; and Bush has a wife to kick his heinie if he does anything too bizzaro. Plus, they don't have Bush's severed skull on all of the billboards in town, so that is three reasons...


Those photos and commercials are scary, I think he should be ashamed of them, oh wait I think he is. 

Suzuki hangs his head in shame.


----------



## Max

Great shot... the fact that it's Suzuki certainly alters the context, but it's a great shot nonetheless.

I happen to like Suzuki. I am however surprised that the righteous lynch mob hasn't already risen up and stormed down on him to burn his house and eat his children.


----------



## JumboJones

Max said:


> I happen to like Suzuki. I am however surprised that the righteous lynch mob hasn't already risen up and stormed down on him to burn his house and eat his children.


 I hope you're not serious, you wouldn't want to offend any of those that treat lynching and eating children as a "serious" subject. Because you never know this may actually happen.


----------



## groovetube

based on this thread, it wouldn't be a shock.


----------



## Max

No, it would not. However, we can take all take a deep breath and remind ourselves that the amount of gas such threads emit is in inverse proportion to their utility.


----------



## FeXL

Tres cool...

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution.



> In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## JumboJones

Climate-change researchers should use more data to avoid errors: study


----------



## EvanPitts

Max said:


> I happen to like Suzuki. I am however surprised that the righteous lynch mob hasn't already risen up and stormed down on him to burn his house and eat his children.


I think Suzuki does actually have an important message, but it is utterly contaminated by the whims of the CBC that control the agenda. Instead of attacking those things that cause the problems, like the major polluters and bad urban "planning" - they are all about attacking the dude that likes to play cards (I suppose because toxic wastes are emitted by the plant that made the cards, the inks,the paper, etc.). This is typical of the CBC.

Nothing they like more than to pander to the Fiberal Party, to grab another year of funding so they can slurp back the free sandwiches and booze while accomplishing nothing of note. So to give them some "credence", they force Suzuki into some of the silliest possible messages. The CBC makes Suzuki look stupid. Again, typical of the Canadian Banana Company...


----------



## Max

What! The CBC controls the agenda... you mean to say that Suzuki is little more than a powerless puppet made to dance by the nefarious policy wonks at the CBC? It's a good tale but I can't buy it myself. Too evil empire for my tastes.

On the other hand, I work with a fellow who'd probably love to hear you rant on about the CBC. He worked there once, for many years straight. It was early in his career and he freely admits he's very grateful for the experience nowadays as a veteran professional but - he's also quite happy to be free of their byzantine, bureaucratic culture. He reserves for the CBC a stratospheric level of caustic disgust. Funny how things go.


----------



## FeXL

Unfortunate, for both sides of the argument.

Abstract:


> “Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”


Linky.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Even the fine folk at the IPCC admit that their projections are only that--stories about what _might_ happen given scenario A or B. They refuse to call them predicitons.


----------



## MacDoc

Awwww how cute - a little high fiving in the denier crowd......

Have you read the paper??

Hydrologists....not climate specialists.....take 8 localized data sets

Station Climate Latitude (°) Longitude (°) Altitude (m) Data source 
Albany (USA) Sub-tropical 31.53N 84.13W 60 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ 
Athens (Greece) Mediterranean 37.97N 23.72E 107 De website van het KNMI 
Alice Springs (Australia) Semi-arid 23.80S 133.88E 547 De website van het KNMI 
Colfax (USA) Mountainous 39.11N 120.95W 735 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ 
Khartoum (Sudan) Arid 15.60N 32.50E 380 De website van het KNMI 
Manaus (Brasil) Tropical 3.17S 60.00W 60 De website van het KNMI 
Masumoto (Japan) Marine 36.20N 138.00E 611 De website van het KNMI 
Vancouver (USA) Mild 45.63N 122.68W 10 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/

and then extrapolate.....to global. 

When it shows up in Nature let us know.

In the meantime.....weather versus climate

RealClimate



> But how can climate be predictable if weather is chaotic? The trick lies in the statistics. In those same models that demonstrate the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it turns out that the long term means and other moments are stable. This is equivalent to the 'butterfly' pattern seen in the figure above being statistically independent of how you started the calculation. The lobes and their relative position don't change if you run the model long enough. Climate change then is equivalent seeing how the structure changes, while not being too concerned about the specific trajectory you are on.
> 
> Another way of saying it is that for the climate problem, the weather (or the individual trajectory) is the noise. If you are trying to find the common signal that is a signature of a particular forcing then averaging over a number of simulations with different weather works rather well. (There is a long standing quote in science - "one person's noise is another person's signal" which is certainly apropos here. Climate modellers don't average over ensemble members because they think that weather isn't important, they do it because it gives robust estimates of the signal they are usually looking for.)
> 
> The ensemble approach, and indeed the multi-model ensemble approach, used in IPCC then derives directly from Lorenz's insights into his serendipitous numerical problem.


8 measurement points do NOT provide meaningful data ....as the paper demonstrates.....

They then take this jump to from 8 points to global....... 

On the other hand - meterologists.....



> *Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Apr. 6, 2008) — The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists.
> 
> A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.
> 
> In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate.
> 
> *To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate.*
> 
> The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past."
> 
> The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions.
> 
> Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
> 
> Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide. Increased efforts in the U.S. over the past few years to build better climate models have paid off, and according to the authors' measure of reliability, one of the U.S. models is now one of the leading climate models worldwide.
> 
> Although model-based projections of future climate are now more credible than ever before, the authors note they have no way to say exactly how reliable those projections are. There are simply too many unknowns involved in the future evolution of climate, such as how much humans will curb their future greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> The study titled "How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?" is due to be published this Friday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.


*Abstract from the paper*



> Information about climate and how it responds to increased greenhouse gas concentrations depends heavily on insight gained from numerical simulations by coupled climate models. The confidence placed in
> quantitative estimates of the rate and magnitude of future climate change is therefore strongly related to the quality of these models. In this study, we test the realism of several generations of coupled climate models, including those used for the 1995, 2001, and 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> *By validating against observations of present climate, we show that the coupled models have been steadily improving over time and that the best models are converging towards a level of accuracy that is similar to observation based analyses of the atmosphere. *


so odd that you didn't make note of that study - bet Stevie McIntyre et al ignored it too 

I assume you DO know Pelke's personal stand on AGW??



> Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
> 
> Filed under: Climate Science Misconceptions, Climate Science Reporting, RA Pielke Sr. Position Statements — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 7:00 am
> 
> There continues to be misunderstandings on my viewpoint on the role of humans within the climate system. This weblog is written to make sure it is clear, and can be used whenever someone asks the question as to where does Pielke Sr. stand on this issue.
> 
> As I have written in the Main Conclusions of Climate Science
> 
> “Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”


from his own site
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News » Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change


----------



## Macfury

Thanks for the links to partisan sites, MacDoc.


----------



## FeXL

Global Warming Forecasts Not Taking Into Account Nanoscale Atmospheric Aerosols



> Arizona State University researchers have made a breakthrough in understanding the effect on climate change of a key component of urban pollution. The discovery could lead to more accurate forecasting of possible global-warming activity, say Peter Crozier and James Anderson.


Good news.


----------



## FeXL

EU lawmakers get cold feet over CO2 curbs



> The European Union's main tool against global warming could be altered to lighten the impact on heavy industry and reduce the chances of the EU tightening its CO2 reduction goals.


and



> "However ambitious we are with climate legislation, we can't make European companies uncompetitive in the global market, particularly high-energy users, and that's what the Industry Committee will be looking at," said Welsh socialist MEP Eluned Morgan.


----------



## SINC

Seems we are not alone is rethinking the approach to CO2. About time too. :clap:


----------



## JumboJones

You mean companies can't compete when Countries like China can pollute to their hearts content? I would have never seen that coming.


----------



## FeXL

Linky



> In an op-ed in a Polish weekly I commented recently on a remarkable decrease of global temperature in 2008, and over the past decade. Not surprisingly the op-ed evoked a strong reaction from Polish co-workers of IPCC, denying the existence of cooling. Surprising, however, was that the criticism dwelled upon a “global climatic conspiracy”, and “colossal international plot”. I did not use these words nor even hinted at such an idea. The idea was probably apparent from the data and facts I presented, showing weaknesses of the man-made global warming hypothesis. Without irrational political or ideological factors, it is really difficult to understand why so many people believe in human causation of the Modern Warm Period, which was never plausibly proved by scientific evidence. Some of these factors I will discuss here.


----------



## MacDoc

Do you even understand what ENSO is??

Keep up the tripe - very suitable.

Why is the sea level rising??

YOu dig any deeper for nonsense and you'll suffocate.










You know better than these Canadian climate specialists......spare us the crap



> *Scientists make climate plea to Harper*
> 
> Mike De Souza , Canwest News Service
> Published: Tuesday, June 24, 2008
> 
> OTTAWA - More than 100 leading climate scientists have launched a new offensive challenging the federal government's climate change plan and urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper along with other Canadian politicians to accelerate efforts to crack down on human activity linked to global warming.
> 
> In an open letter sent to the prime minister, opposition leaders and Canadian premiers on Tuesday afternoon, the scientists warned that the existing national climate change policies would fail to address the dangerous impacts of global warming. They also warned that new research suggests human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could do more damage to the earth than was previously predicted in the last international assessment of climate change science from 2007.
> 
> "New analyses show that global greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, sea level(s) rising and Arctic sea ice decreasing faster than projected only a few years ago," said the letter, signed by 130 Canadian climate science leaders from the academic, public and private sectors. "Water shortages are predicted in the western Prairies, the Okanagan and in the Great Lakes basin. Earlier targets to avoid human interference with the climate system are now seen to be inadequate."
> 
> Many scientists believe that putting a price on the release of greenhouse gas emissions should be an essential part of a climate change strategy, says Dr. Gordon McBean, a climatologist from the University of Western Ontario who organized the letter campaign.
> Many scientists believe that putting a price on the release of greenhouse gas emissions should be an essential part of a climate change strategy, says Dr. Gordon McBean, a climatologist from the University of Western Ontario who organized the letter campaign.
> 
> In the spring of 2006, the scientists sent their first letter to the newly elected Harper government urging it to develop a national climate change strategy, but the new letter says the government isn't moving fast enough.
> 
> More than 200 Canadian experts contributed to the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report from 2007 which was awarded a share of the Nobel Peace Prize for raising awareness about the threat of global warming.
> 
> Although they are not economists or public policy experts, many scientists believe that putting a price on the release of greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat in the atmosphere should be an essential part of a climate change strategy, said Dr. Gordon McBean, a climatologist from the University of Western Ontario who organized the letter campaign.
> 
> "Addressing greenhouse gas emissions will require a polluter-pay approach and absolute emission caps," said the letter. *" Adaptation to the inevitable impacts of climate change is now imperative and we need a national adaptation strategy to minimize those impacts and gain whatever benefits there may be. We are concerned that the pace with which action is being taken in Canada does not reflect adequately the urgency of the threat."*


Grow up  -


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: It's a fascinating article and I would have accepted his conclusions, except he once apparently ate salad with *oil* and vinegar dressing and thus his opinion has already been co-opted.


----------



## SINC

*January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months*



> January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
> January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
> Also see the recent post on what the last 10 years looks like with the same four metrics - 3 of four show a flat trendline.
> Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:


*



“Anthony Watts compiled the results of all the sources. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it’s the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down."

Click to expand...

*See the other data here:


----------



## Macfury

SINC: You forgot to include the temperature reading up somebody's butt which is where the realdata must be collected. There'll be a huge nonsense graph up here by the end of the day witht he IPCC's worthless handprint all over it.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Do you even understand what ENSO is??


Yup. Jus' Googled it. Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button. It's a piece o' software. Unfortunately, it only seems to work on PC's. I'm a Mac guy, thanks anyway.



MacDoc said:


> Keep up the tripe - very suitable.


Pot, meet kettle...



MacDoc said:


> Why is the sea level rising??


I'm sure you've got a dozen opinions on that, too. With hundreds of links to back it up. All bolded & colored like my five year old does.

Only difference is, she stays in the lines. Nor does she jump up & down, rending her hair and screaming when someone shows her another way to do things. She also uses more colors than black & red.

She would also quote a small precis of the article she linked to instead of listing pages and pages of drivel that may or may not interest anyone perusing that particular thread at the time. 

She's actually quite mature.



MacDoc said:


> YOu dig any deeper for nonsense and you'll suffocate.


First, don't flatter yourself, I don't dig these articles up. I come across them in the course of a normal days reading. 

Second, why is it that anyone who purports a point of view contrary to yours nonsensical?

Third, the only thing suffocating on these boards is the bile that spews from your lips. You are a very angry man, MacDoc. I'd get that looked at. Seriously.



MacDoc said:


>


Didn't bother clicking on the image link, I rarely do when you post them...



MacDoc said:


> You know better than these Canadian climate specialists......spare us the crap


Never said I did. I don't. 

And neither do you. 

I just posted a link to a different POV than that which you hold so dearly.

Despite what you may think to the contrary, I don't do it to antagonize you. I think that an intelligent decision is an informed one. On these very boards you've frequently accused others of drinking political kool-aid. The tone of your outbursts in these posts gives rise to guilt of the same in the scientific world. 

An old saw from an obscure European writer about a lady doth protesting too much comes to mind, non?



MacDoc said:


> Grow up  -


Ah, yes, MacDoc, the last bastion of maturity on these boards.

Trust me, the shrill tone of your posts is not an indicator of maturity. It tends far more to the childish end of the spectrum.

I was going to put you on ignore this morning. First time I've ever thought about doing that with anybody on ehMac. Or anywhere else, for that matter.

However, I've decided not to. If for nothing else, the sheer entertainment value will keep me in smiles for years.

Thank you for your well reasoned and thought out response, MacDoc. 

You have a helluva day, eh?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: The tantrums are too entertaining to "ignore permanently." I've never seen anyone become so angry over a difference of opinion. The case is closed! The discussion is over!! 

As the Earth and oceans cool measurably, we're told only idiots don't support global warming theory. 

It's really absurd.


----------



## FeXL

China warns of huge rise in emissions



> China is famously reticent with its greenhouse gas emissions data. But a new report penned by researchers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences says China's greenhouse gas pollution could more than double in two decades.


I guess the question I have to ask, and I know it's been asked before, is there any point, aside from a purely figurative one, in spending money (time & energy?) on reducing Canada's? On the face of things my first instinct is hell, yes. Deep down inside, however, I wonder.

To clarify, my _prima facie_ response comes from a belief that less pollution the world over is a good thing, rather than any deep seated belief or disbelief in anthropormorphic global warming.


----------



## Macfury

I believe that controlling the emisison of dangerous chemicals is worth pursuing, but not tilting at the windmill of carbon. China needs to control pollution--forget carbon dioxide.


----------



## EvanPitts

I think freaking out about "Carbon" and putting unworkable taxes on "Carbon" is entirely silly, especially when there are no practical alternatives.

Why bring in regulations that will achieve nothing but cost us a fortune when we can not enforce the current regulations?

Once pollution is under control, and alternatives are developed, including innovative new sources of power, improved socially engineered cities, jobs that are easily accessible - then we can take a chomp out of "Carbon". But to go nuts on "Carbon" is stupid when the Great Lakes still feature filthy contaminated areas, and while industry belched out dioxins (and whatever) like all get out.


----------



## FeXL

On this, I agree. More research is required.



> Boston (MA) - Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.
> 
> ...
> 
> One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.


Linky


----------



## MacDoc

How about the "unspun" article.... without the "interpretative bull**** in the headline.
Typical you would post it that way.



> *Methane Gas Levels Begin To Increase Again
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lake Baikal, southern Siberia, Russia, in winter. A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. (Credit: iStockphoto)
> 
> ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2008) — The amount of methane in Earth's atmosphere shot up in 2007, bringing to an end a period of about a decade in which atmospheric levels of the potent greenhouse gas were essentially stable, according to a team led by MIT researchers.
> 
> Methane levels in the atmosphere have more than doubled since pre-industrial times, accounting for around one-fifth of the human contribution to greenhouse gas-driven global warming. Until recently, the leveling off of methane levels had suggested that the rate of its emission from the Earth's surface was approximately balanced by the rate of its destruction in the atmosphere.
> 
> However, since early 2007 the balance has been upset, according to a paper on the new findings published in Geophysical Review Letters. The paper's lead authors, postdoctoral researcher Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, say this imbalance has resulted in several million metric tons of additional methane in the atmosphere. Methane is produced by wetlands, rice paddies, cattle, and the gas and coal industries, and is destroyed by reaction with the hydroxyl free radical (OH), often referred to as the atmosphere's "cleanser."
> 
> One surprising feature of this recent growth is that it occurred almost simultaneously at all measurement locations across the globe. However, the majority of methane emissions are in the Northern Hemisphere, and it takes more than one year for gases to be mixed from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere. Hence, theoretical analysis of the measurements shows that if an increase in emissions is solely responsible, these emissions must have risen by a similar amount in both hemispheres at the same time.
> 
> A rise in Northern Hemispheric emissions may be due to the very warm conditions that were observed over Siberia throughout 2007, potentially leading to increased bacterial emissions from wetland areas. However, a potential cause for an increase in Southern Hemispheric emissions is less clear.
> 
> An alternative explanation for the rise may lie, at least in part, with a drop in the concentrations of the methane-destroying OH. Theoretical studies show that if this has happened, the required global methane emissions rise would have been smaller, and more strongly biased to the Northern Hemisphere. At present, however, it is uncertain whether such a drop in hydroxyl free radical concentrations did occur because of the inherent uncertainty in the current method for estimating global OH levels.
> 
> *To help pin down the cause of the methane increase, Prinn said, "the next step will be to study this using a very high-resolution atmospheric circulation model and additional measurements from other networks." But doing that could take another year, he said, and because the detection of increased methane has important consequences for global warming the team wanted to get these initial results out as quickly as possible.*
> 
> "The key thing is to better determine the relative roles of increased methane emission versus an increase in the rate of removal," Prinn said. "Apparently we have a mix of the two, but we want to know how much of each" is responsible for the overall increase.
> 
> It is too early to tell whether this increase represents a return to sustained methane growth, or the beginning of a relatively short-lived anomaly, according to Rigby and Prinn. Given that, pound for pound, methane is 25 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the situation will require careful monitoring in the near future.
> 
> In addition to Rigby and Prinn, the study was carried out by researchers at Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Bristol and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. These methane measurements come from the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) that is supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Australian CSIRO network.


Methane Gas Levels Begin To Increase Again

Here Vex - email Prof. Prin and ask him what he thinks about your post

[email protected]

might as well cc Dr. Rigby while you are at it

[email protected] ....


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
Time to ban Howard Stern - since we all know his show is the primary source of methane because of all of the farting contests, including the world champion and leading expert on methane - Mister Methane!

Warming in Siberia leads to more microbes? What, it's only going to be -55 in winter, unlike the -58 they are used to?

Weren't the Argentinians working on the whole cow fart thing???


----------



## FeXL

<sigh>

Again, MacDoc you flatter yourself by implying that all I do every day is peruse summary articles with a spin on them different from the original to prove my point.

Let me explain to you exactly what I did, in short sentences:
1) Saw the link on a site I was perusing;
2) Clicked on the link;
3) Read the article;
4) Posted it here.

I did not:
1) Check to see if there was anything else on the internet that was related;
2) Check any authors' credentials;
3) Think to myself "This'll pi$$ off MacDoc";
4) Conduct any experiments to see if the data was accurate;
5) Or anything else.

I could care less if the title has a spin to it or not. From what I read from the original, the details in the summary are accurate. It's not hard to sift through the chaff of the summary to find the wheat. We do it with your posts all the time.

So you don't like the title. I don't care. Email Rick C. Hodgin and tell him. Not like you've ever been selective in finding articles that support your particular twist...

And, I'm glad they got the numbers out. However, the results appear to have asked more questions than they answered. This isn't a bad thing. It stimulates further discussion, further research and more accurate results.

Or is this a bad thing?

BTW, who is Vex? Was that supposed to be 'Fex'? If so, I'd appreciate Mr. FeXL from you. We ain't been swapping spit nearly long enough to have pet names...

Oh, & I'm glad you took the time to pull the researchers' email addys from your address book. Again, you have proven to all just how anal you really are.


----------



## EvanPitts

The fortunes of the Global Warming Industry go up and down like the price of gasoline or a hooker's pants these days...

Until we have real global warming, and I mean warm, ie. the abolition of winter - then the jury is out. All that "science" has shown is that they can measure temperatures and write them on paper - all else is speculation.

But it does give macDoc his own industry to play with - the posting of any kind of article from any Communist rag that they publish in Hogtown, except for the Sun - he doesn't read the Sun since they depricated the Sunshine Girl to the back of the paper...


----------



## EvanPitts

FeXL said:


> 4) Conduct any experiments to see if the data was accurate;


Neither did MacDoc. He just posts whatever, usually from some communist rag like the Star (a paper that does not have editors or writers of any worth), usually without and comment, and usually the whole length of the article so that it takes like, half a minute to download something that will not be read anyways.

The truth is carbon can not cause global warming because it is entirely a solid at regular temperatures, and hence, is Earthbound. Even carbon that is picked up in the wind precipitates out within a fairly short distance, because it is a solid that is heavier than air.


----------



## Macfury

I don't see that running that paragraph in bold makes any special case for Old Grumpy's viewpoint. FeXL wasn't spinning the article he cited.


----------



## FeXL

Not what I would consider a permanent solution, but perhaps a stopgap measure.



> Scientists say that a type of rock found at or near the surface in the Mideast nation of Oman and other areas around the world could be harnessed to soak up huge quantities of globe-warming carbon dioxide. Their studies show that the rock, known as peridotite, reacts naturally at surprisingly high rates with CO2 to form solid minerals—and that the process could be speeded a million times or more with simple drilling and injection methods.


Linky


----------



## EvanPitts

Of course, one doesn't have to resort to special drilling of rocks in Oman - all we need is to have some good old swamps, and let algae get down to the business of converting CO2 to Oxygen - just like in the good old days when swamps and bogs weren't all filled in for some ticky-tacky stapled together houses in the 'burbs...


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> The truth is carbon can not cause global warming because it is entirely a solid at regular temperatures, and hence, is Earthbound. Even carbon that is picked up in the wind precipitates out within a fairly short distance, because it is a solid that is heavier than air.


If this represents your understanding of science, it's no wonder you can't understand the evidence for global warming. 



> let algae get down to the business of converting CO2 to Oxygen


Here's a hint. Algae do not convert CO2 to oxygen. Photosynthesis uses water (H2O) as the terminal electron acceptor, which is how it produces oxygen. The resulting reducing power can be used (via the Rubisco enzyme) to synthesize complex organic carbon compounds from CO2, "fixing" the carbon. The problem is that, over the past few hundred years (mostly over the past few decades), we've burnt hundreds of millions of years worth of reduced carbon compounds. Scientists have known that this is not a sustainable approach for many decades, and have been saying so, but as usual, no one listens.


----------



## EvanPitts

bryanc said:


> If this represents your understanding of science, it's no wonder you can't understand the evidence for global warming.


As for Carbon: "All the allotropic forms are *solids under normal conditions* but graphite is the most thermodynamically stable." As it is a solid, even the finest powder will precipitate out of the atmosphere. If not, the atmosphere would become progressively smokier over the past half billion years as forests have burned down.



> Here's a hint. Algae do not convert CO2 to oxygen.


Odd, since: "Algae Bioreactors are used by some powerplants to reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2 can be pumped into a pond, or some kind of tank, on which the algae feed. Alternatively, the bioreactor can be installed directly on top of a smokestack. This technology has been pioneered by Massachusetts-based GreenFuelTechnologies."

Photosynthesis is: "a metabolic pathway that converts light energy into chemical energy. Its initial substrates are carbon dioxide and water; the energy source is sunlight (electromagnetic radiation); and the end-products are oxygen and (energy-containing) carbohydrates, such as sucrose, glucose or starch. This process is one of the most important biochemical pathways, since nearly all life on Earth either directly or indirectly depends on it as a source of energy. It is a complex process occurring in plants, algae, as well as bacteria such as cyanobacteria."

Hence, unlike the phony science you are peddling, where cars are entirely evil in all regards, the rise in CO2 emissions are more related and directly proportioned to the fact that we have drained or paved over millions of square miles of swamps - places where algae would be able to get down the the business of converting CO2 back into Oxygen. And "Carbon" doesn't factor into it, since solid Carbon does not remain suspended in the atmosphere for very long (though it can be an annoyance when it precipitates all over the lawn furniture...)


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> As for Carbon: "All the allotropic forms are *solids under normal conditions* but graphite is the most thermodynamically stable."


Um, yeah... but we're not talking about elemental carbon, we're talking about *carbon compounds*... things like carbon dioxide, methane, etc.. Carbon compounds can be gasses, liquids or solids, and they make up the major greenhouse gasses (the topic of this thread). The properties of elemental carbon are not relevant.



> Odd, since: "Algae Bioreactors are used by some powerplants to reduce CO2 emissions. The CO2 can be pumped into a pond, or some kind of tank, on which the algae feed. Alternatively, the bioreactor can be installed directly on top of a smokestack. This technology has been pioneered by Massachusetts-based GreenFuelTechnologies."


Yes, as I said, the reducing power generated during photosynthesis can be used to convert CO2 into organic carbon compounds. But it can't convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, which is what you said.



> Hence, unlike the phony science you are peddling,


You mean the kind that can be observed and reproduced experimentally? That's the kind of science I do for a living. What kind do you do?



> the rise in CO2 emissions are more related and directly proportioned to the fact that we have drained or paved over millions of square miles of swamps - places where algae would be able to get down the the business of converting CO2 back into Oxygen.


As I said, photosynthesis (in algae or any other organism) does not convert CO2 into oxygen. This is high school biology (you might want to ask a local high school graduate about the Calvin Cycle, since it appears you aren't interested in accepting the word of a university biochemistry professor). However, you are partially correct in that our short-sighted demolition of swamps, and other ecosystems has exacerbated the problem, because plants *fix* carbon. But it is the combustion of the photosynthetically reduced carbon that has released the excess CO2.

The important point to understand is that our civilization's use of biologically-fixed carbon compounds as a fuel source has resulted in the oxidization of these compounds (from complex organics, into CO2), and represents the near-instantaneous undoing of millions of years worth of photosynthesis. Plants can, and will, take that CO2 back out of the atmosphere and recycle it into complex organics again, but it will take millions of years... and our paving the swamps just slows it down even more.

Good luck with that "science"... let us know when you overturn the basic paradigm of photosynthesis.

Cheers


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

EvanPitts said:


> Hence, unlike the phony science you are peddling, ...


Good line to direct at bryanc, Evan. Bravo! Fragged by your own excessive bloviation. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

Thought it was eructation......hmmm. 

Gavin Schmidt's comments on Fexl post.....

_are you aware of this spin....

Global Warming May Be a Natural Cycle, Not Caused by Man

Global Warming May Be a Natural Cycle, Not Caused by Man - Worldwide increase in methane levels back up MIT study - Softpedia


on this article
Methane Gas Levels Begin To Increase Again
Methane Gas Levels Begin To Increase Again

deniers seem to be having a field day with it...._

Gavins response



> These people are so dumb it's scary.


....can't say I disagree.


Now for the less than with it ......



> *Gavin A. Schmidt*
> 
> He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications.


you might make a foolish claim that Bryanc is slightly out his field......

You care to tell Gavin that??.....here ya go....
[email protected]

RealClimate


----------



## SINC

Sad to see so many gullible types gobbling up the fanciful global warming stories when the earth is actually cooling.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Isn't it incredible to watch? This may be the modern version of The Emperor Has No Clothes.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> Sad to see so many gullible types gobbling up the fanciful global warming stories when the earth is actually cooling.


All the ice fields and glaciers world wide are receding. Travel to Banff and Jasper and see it for yourself.

The northern passages in our far north continue to have longer and longer seasons that they are not frozen over and can be traveled through. Russians and Nordic European countries report the same thing.

Ask anyone living in Churchill Manitoba or anywhere in the Northern Territories how their climate has dramatically warmed up the last few decades.

Can this happen if the world is cooling? No.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> All the ice fields and glaciers world wide are receding. Travel to Banff and Jasper and see it for yourself.


That's not true at all. Some are advancing while others are retreating. Check the records and you'll see this has happened before.


Example:

DailyTech - Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> That's not true at all. Some are advancing while others are retreating. Check the records and you'll see this has happened before.
> 
> 
> Example:
> 
> DailyTech - Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years


That is one year, the temperature was 3 degrees cooler than normal. According to the article heavy snowfall that year, first time in 250 years an increase was reported.

So one increase in 250 years means to you that overall the world is cooling?


----------



## Macfury

It's just ONE glacier in flux. 

TheStar.com | World | California glacier defies odds, keeps growing

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Good info in there.

Thanks MF


----------



## MazterCBlazter

OK MacDoc,

MacFury has come out with facts backing his position on some glaciers retreating, some advancing.

Please state your position or counterpoint.


----------



## FeXL

Also good news.

Under a Sooty Exterior, A Green China Emerges.



> On an island at the mouth of the Yangtze river near Shanghai, they are currently building the world’s first eco-city, powered by renewable electricity, with citywide water recycling and plans for a car-free transport system. Similarly, the recently completed 1,200-kilometer railway into Tibet employed “green construction” methods, according to a paper in Science last year. And the Shanghai World Expo in 2010 is devoted to green urban design.


----------



## Dr.G.

YouTube - Nathan Thurm interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


----------



## FeXL

Good news.



> A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small.


Another piece to the puzzle.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

When I looked into glaciers in flux, and talked to some scientists and climatologists about it, they said that a small percentage of the worlds glaciers and ice fields are growing. The vast majority are receding.


----------



## MacDoc

What "puzzle" would that be??


----------



## FeXL

Dust Responsible for Most of Atlantic Warming



> The results: More than two-thirds of this upward trend in recent decades can be attributed to changes in African dust storm and tropical volcano activity during that time.
> 
> This was a surprisingly large amount, Evan said.
> 
> The results, detailed in the March 27 issue of the journal Science, suggest that only about 30 percent of the observed Atlantic temperature increases are due to other factors, such as a warming climate.


Things that make you go hmmm...


----------



## SINC

Hmmmmmm . . . :clap:


----------



## MacDoc

Why would it make you go hmmmmmm

First net glacial loss ls cooling the upper atlantic and hurricanes spin off the African continent as part of the pattern of their development....

the article states quite clearly



> *"This makes sense, because we don't really expect global warming to make the ocean [temperature] increase that fast,*" Evan said.
> 
> This adjustment brings the estimate of global warming's impact on the Atlantic more in line with the smaller degree of ocean warming seen elsewhere, such as the Pacific.
> 
> Of course, this doesn't discount the importance of global warming, Evan said, but indicates that newer climate models will need to include dust storms as a factor to accurately predict how ocean temperatures will change.


One of the major efforts underway right now is to get a handle on the complexities of particulates in models as they are both positive and negative forcings depending on the circumstance and the type of particulate.



> ELEASE : 09-009
> 
> 
> Report Calls Aerosol Research Key to Improving Climate Predictions
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Scientists need a more detailed understanding of how human-produced atmospheric particles, called aerosols, affect climate in order to produce better predictions of Earth's future climate, according to a NASA-led report issued by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program on Friday.
> 
> "Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts," is the latest in a series of Climate Change Science Program reports that addresses various aspects of the country's highest priority climate research, observation and decision-support needs. The study's authors include scientists from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Department of Energy.
> 
> "The influence of aerosols on climate is not yet adequately taken into account in our computer predictions of climate," said Mian Chin, report coordinating lead author from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "An improved representation of aerosols in climate models is essential to more accurately predict the climate changes."


NASA - Report Calls Aerosol Research Key to Improving Climate Predictions

Dust and volcanic ash are areosols as well and dust is part of human induced climate change in many parts of the planet.

The desertification of the Sahel has led to greater dust storms



> In semiarid grasslands, such as the Sahel region, dust storms are often generated where the ground has been stripped of vegetative cover by cultivation or grazing. The path of dust from a single desert storm can be traced as far as 4,000 km (2,500 miles).
> 
> 
> West Sahel countries appear in yellow. (Image courtesy of the Africa Data Dissemination Service from the USGS. A new browser window will open.)	The Sahel, or Sahelian Zone, lies south of the Sahara Desert in North Africa. This dry savanna environment is particularly prone to devastating drought years. Typically, several years of abnormally low rainfall alternate with several successive years of average or higher-than-average rainfall. But since the late 1960s, the Sahel has endured an extensive and severe drought.
> 
> Desertification occurs when land surfaces are transformed by human activities, including overgrazing, deforestation, surface land mining, and poor irrigation techniques, during a natural time of drought. Desertification in the Sahel can largely be attributed to greatly increased numbers of humans and their grazing cattle.


From the Dust Bowl to the Sahel (DAAC Study) : Feature Articles

These are all Anthro impacts on climate change.....even to the point where kids in the West Indies were getting ill from African dust.
African dust clouds are associated with increased paediatric asthma accident and

The head in the sand hmmmmm has no place....it's utter stupidity and denial of reality in it's worst form.
The physics are clear, the evidence is clear - it's only a matter of how severe how fast....whatever the denidiots would like to try and claim otherwise....the energy gain continues and carbon is forever.

A temporarily cool Pacific doesn't change a damn thing except bring more snow pack to Upper North America and offset some of the heat gain by burying it in the ocean.

I'm sure Fargo is enjoying it's THIRD 100 year flood in 12 years.....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> One of the major efforts underway right now is to get a handle on the complexities of particulates in models as they are both positive and negative forcings depending on the circumstance and the type of particulate.


Translation: they don't know.


----------



## bryanc

Shocking Headline: Scientists admit lack of perfect knowledge, are kicked out of the magical thinking tent.

Of course they don't *know* that's why it's called "science." But what I can't understand is a bunch of people with exactly zero expertise in the field thinking their 'instinctive' judgement that climate change is 'natural' is somehow on equal footing as the consensus of thousands of climatologists with Ph.D.s and decades of research experience in the field. The hubris is amazing.

In a century or two, we'll know who was right. And if we prepared for the worst, we'll be in good shape regardless of what turned out to be true. On the other hand, if we ignored the warnings of the scientific community (as we usually do), and they turn out to be right (as they usually do) will be up Sh*t Creek without a paddle.

The prudent course of action is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

This is such a no-brainer that I can't understand why anyone argues about it anymore.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The prudent course of action is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
> This is such a no-brainer that I can't understand why anyone argues about it anymore.


You've already been told once. There is no reason to embark on a grotesquely expensive exercise in tilting at dragons. Nobody is asking for certainty, but the level of proof offered is a mishmash of conflicting half truths and science-fiction--in short, an embarrassment. 

I know you see scientists as some sort of superior caste, above the reproach of mere common men. It ain't so. 

You haven't achieved a degree in either politics, economics, music or philosophy and haven't spent 20 years toiling in these fields, but I see you expressing opinions on them all the time--and not just humble ones.

If you are happily convinced with your own opinions, live your life accordingly, but don't expect others to believe in ideas merely because you have stopped questioning them.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Nobody is asking for certainty, but the level of proof offered is a mishmash of conflicting half truths and science-fiction--in short, an embarrassment.


According to who? You? What expertise do you have that makes your opinion on this complex issue so much more significant than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you? 



> I know you see scientists as some sort of superior caste, above the reproach of mere common men.




I trust scientists to know their field. That is all. You are persistently obnoxious about this point and it's getting tiresome.



> You haven't achieved a degree in either politics, economics, music or philosophy


How do you know? As it happens I do have some training in philosophy. And as for music and politics, I think it's fair to say that everyone is allowed an opinion on these sorts of things, but I don't go around claiming that my opinions are more valid than others. I don't have any special expertise in economics and I don't claim that my opinion should be taken as having the same significance as that of an economist. More relevant to this discussion, if thousands of economists agreed on a given issue (something I've never heard of), I certainly wouldn't suggest that they're all idiots and people should listen to me instead.



> don't expect others to believe in ideas merely because you have stopped questioning them.


by all means question away. Just don't be so arrogant as to assume your obvious and trivial objections to the consensus on climate change haven't been considered. Get informed if you want to have a meaningful discussion. Don't just cherry pick popular media stories that support your position, try actually reading some scientific papers on the issues. The scientific community is well aware of solar cycles, sun spots, particulates and all these other objections we keep hearing about. They've been considered and taken into account and the evidence is still overwhelmingly pointing to anthropogenic effects (in addition to all those other factors that obviously do affect the climate).

As for the expense of shifting our economy onto sustainable energy, if you think that's expensive, consider the expense of failing to do so. Given that it is an absolute thermodynamic necessity that the energy budget of the planet be balanced, and that it currently is not, what do you think will happen when vast reserves of reduced carbon are no longer available? Do you think we can go to some energy-bank to get the trillions of kJ we need to run our industries and technologies? Or do you think everything will be fine if we just stop using energy once it runs out?

Global warming is almost certainly happening, and it is almost certainly at least partially our doing, but it's also just the most proximal of many environmental problems we have to deal with over the next few centuries. Reducing our population is the only ultimate solution, but given the choice between doing so gradually and voluntarily, and doing so in a Malthusian Catastrophe triggered by environmental chaos, I'd much prefer the former. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuel is a crucial step in avoiding the latter.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> According to who? You? What expertise do you have that makes your opinion on this complex issue so much more significant than the thousands of scientists who disagree with you?


I agree with the scientists who disagree with them--especially when they point out holes in their arguments that you could drive a truck through, including the use of blatantly faulty data and conclusions not warranted by the data. Similarly, like those scientists who disagree, I have no use for computer models that lay unquantifiable and unpredictable variables on top of each other, then try to squeeze something concrete out of it like someone trying to squeeze a quarter out of a penny.



bryanc said:


> I trust scientists to know their field. That is all. You are persistently obnoxious about this point and it's getting tiresome.


I trust them about the same as I trust other people--that is to say, some of the time, depending on what is being asked of them. If you are tired of addressing this point, stop addressing it.



bryanc said:


> How do you know? As it happens I do have some training in philosophy. And as for music and politics, I think it's fair to say that everyone is allowed an opinion on these sorts of things, but I don't go around claiming that my opinions are more valid than others. I don't have any special expertise in economics and I don't claim that my opinion should be taken as having the same significance as that of an economist. More relevant to this discussion, if thousands of economists agreed on a given issue (something I've never heard of), I certainly wouldn't suggest that they're all idiots and people should listen to me instead.


Because I have a near photographic memory and I recall you saying that you had "some" philosophy training. However, if you don't feel your opinions are as valid as others, I think you are a wise man to keep them under your hat.



bryanc said:


> The scientific community is well aware of solar cycles, sun spots, particulates and all these other objections we keep hearing about. They've been considered and taken into account and the evidence is still overwhelmingly pointing to anthropogenic effects (in addition to all those other factors that obviously do affect the climate).


You've been convinced. Huzzah! I won't try to convert you. It isn't that important to me.



bryanc said:


> As for the expense of shifting our economy onto sustainable energy, if you think that's expensive, consider the expense of failing to do so. Given that it is an absolute thermodynamic necessity that the energy budget of the planet be balanced, and that it currently is not, what do you think will happen when vast reserves of reduced carbon are no longer available? Do you think we can go to some energy-bank to get the trillions of kJ we need to run our industries and technologies? Or do you think everything will be fine if we just stop using energy once it runs out?


The "energy" budget of the planet is heavily in our favour. As costs rise, so will our energy options. I believe we will have no trouble releasing these reserves of energy. You sound like the people who were afraid of coal running out at the turn of the last century.



bryanc said:


> Global warming is almost certainly happening, and it is almost certainly at least partially our doing, but it's also just the most proximal of many environmental problems we have to deal with over the next few centuries. Reducing our population is the only ultimate solution, but given the choice between doing so gradually and voluntarily, and doing so in a Malthusian Catastrophe triggered by environmental chaos, I'd much prefer the former. Reducing our reliance on fossil fuel is a crucial step in avoiding the latter.


I'm not even that worried about the population. I only use it to point out that people who believe this shouldn't produce even one child.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The "energy" budget of the planet is heavily in our favour.


How do you figure? As it stands, we're oxidizing high-energy carbon bonds that were formed by photosynthesis millions of years ago, and we're doing so at a rate that far exceeds the rate at which extant plants can form new ones.

The only reason we can get away with this (temporarily) is that a lot of reduced carbon wound up being sequestered as oil, natural gas, and coal.

This is no different than someone who has money in the bank spending money vastly faster than they earn it. It's not sustainable. But the difference is, when the reduced carbon runs out, there's no where to go for a loan.

In terms of the absolute energy budget of the planet, we're actually not so badly off, because lots of energy (in the form of sunlight) is not currently being utilized. But unless we develop technologies to do so (wind, solar, wave, etc.) we're going to be in a very bad situation when it becomes clear that we can't keep burning the savings account (either because it's run out or because it's too environmentally damaging).

Fundamentally it's 'change now or change later.' And later may not be an option.

Finally, as has been demonstrated so clearly by the Europeans, there's lots of money to be made by developing and selling sustainable energy technologies. Rather than resisting this inevitable change, we should be embracing it and profiting from it.


----------



## bsenka

bryanc said:


> I trust scientists to know their field.


The Global Warming alarmists are not scientists. They are activists and funding whores.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Rather than resisting this inevitable change, we should be embracing it and profiting from it.


See, even with the science crowd, it's all about the money.


----------



## MacGuiver

I wonder how many sheeple sat in the dark here tonight and I wonder if Gaia was pleased? I fired up the Christmas lights to mark the occasion. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> How do you figure? As it stands, we're oxidizing high-energy carbon bonds that were formed by photosynthesis millions of years ago, and we're doing so at a rate that far exceeds the rate at which extant plants can form new ones.
> 
> The only reason we can get away with this (temporarily) is that a lot of reduced carbon wound up being sequestered as oil, natural gas, and coal.
> 
> This is no different than someone who has money in the bank spending money vastly faster than they earn it. It's not sustainable. But the difference is, when the reduced carbon runs out, there's no where to go for a loan.


Shale oil alone would carry us for centuries if we needed it. By the time energy becomes expensive enough, we'll adopt new technologies because it makes sense, not because some enviro-weenie is crying that we need to do it now.



bryanc said:


> Fundamentally it's 'change now or change later.' And later may not be an option.


Your supposition that "later may not be an option" is pretty weak sauce. How about: "change somewhere between now and later, incrementally, but only if the price of energy warrants it."




bryanc said:


> Finally, as has been demonstrated so clearly by the Europeans, there's lots of money to be made by developing and selling sustainable energy technologies. Rather than resisting this inevitable change, we should be embracing it and profiting from it.


There's nothing to prevent North American companies from developing "green" energy technologies and making a mint off them now. And no, the Europeans have not demonstrated that they are getting rich on green technologies at all.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> There's nothing to prevent North American companies from developing "green" energy technologies and making a mint off them now.


You watch too much tv.


----------



## Dr.G.

Earth Hour events got off to an unofficial start in the remote Chatham Islands in the southern Pacific Ocean where locals switched off their diesel generators, organizers said. Shortly afterward, 44 New Zealand cities and town joined in the event.

Here in North America, St.John's got things moving in a positive direction. I was amazed at how many more people participated than last year, including the city. It was a nice night, very dark and very quiet.


----------



## Macfury

I turned off the lights because I thought it would be fun for my little boy to have the candles on.


----------



## SINC

Here is an item that appears on my web site this morning on this subject. I think it sums up my feelings quite nicely:



> Hi Don,
> 
> I was totally appalled by the number of people on my street in Forest Lawn that did not take part in Earth Hour.
> 
> Looking out my living room window I could not believe the number of houses that had lights on inside and had outdoor lights on as well.
> 
> If people cannot do this for one hour how can we try to save our planet?
> 
> Sharon
> Forest Lawn
> 
> *SINC SAYS:
> 
> Sharon, I’m sorry to hear of your frustration, but as a neighbour of yours in Forest Lawn, I was one who did not participate. You see Sharon, a futile hour once a year is a joke to me. It is symbolic and nothing more. I chose instead to reduce my consumption by a substantial amount each day. What I saved in power in the past year makes that symbolic hour pale in comparison. The do-gooders who promote such things would better spend their time asking people to conserve 10 minutes a day worth of power or 3600 minutes a year. Now THAT 60 hours per year is worthwhile instead of the phony “hour a year” spectacle they now endorse. At the end of the day, does not my way of participating make so much more sense?*


----------



## Macfury

What kills me is that I give my kid a little fun with the candles and already some ninnies are saying that it had something to do with drawing attention to climate change. I hope the people in this part of town just thought I had gone to bed early or wasn't at home.

Last year I was at Whole Foods market and they said they would have entertainment and free treats for the kids but they lied. They dimmed the lights and lost my meat order because the lights couldn't be turned back on in the refrigerator room.


----------



## FeXL

Disclaimer: Never heard of the guy, don't know anything about his politics (or care), haven't verified his numbers, don't agree with at least some of what he says. Just thought he made some interesting observations & asked some salient questions...

Linky



> A few days before this year's Earth Day, America's ideological greens received a present they have been desiring for years: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – responding to a 2007 US Supreme Court ruling – officially designated carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. That spurred Democrats in Congress to push a major climate change bill. In the next 25 years, their massive cap-and-trade scheme would, according to a Heritage Foundation study, inflict gross domestic product losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family's energy bill by $1,241, and destroy some 1,145,000 jobs. Democrats want it passed by July 4.


----------



## MacDoc

Time better spent 










from Copenhagen - The Synthesis report was handed over this week
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/synthesis-report-web.pdf


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> from Copenhagen - The Synthesis report was handed over this week


Already picked to pieces:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/the-synthesis-report-copenhagen/



> Scientific credibility suffers when readily available, widely circulated information is left out of ostensibly scientific reports. People tend to notice the omission and sometimes develop the impression that the authors were fishing for papers that favored the position they want to sell and concealed the others in a basket.
> 
> Can you smell the rotting fish?


----------



## EvanPitts

^^^
I tend to agree, since none of these schemes offer real solutions. Carbon trading credits are nothing more than a scam, a way for some investors to score large money while producing or doing nothing. No employment is created, and people end up being punished because they are forced to live a certain wasteful lifestyle because our Governments still have not allowed for real conservation, real social engineering, real fuel efficiency standards, real punishments for polluters, and real transit systems.

The only true solution is to stop engaging in an ever more wasteful lifestyle, and start living smarter and more efficiently - which I do not think will happen until all of the fuel is gone, and we are forced into it.


----------



## FeXL

I've noted it before & it bears repeating: I just want solid evidence, good science, one way or another as far as Global Warming is concerned.

It now appears that climate data upon which many people have based their research & conclusions is flawed...



> Only by playing with data can scientists come up with the infamous 'hockey stick' graph of global warming.


and



> Whatever is going on here, it is not science.


Linky.


----------



## SINC

> Whatever is going on here, it is not science.


:clap:

Been saying that for years. The whole approach is planned paranoia to sell non-existent carbon credits.


----------



## MacDoc

Sure....



> *Four degrees of warming 'likely'*
> By David Shukman
> Environment correspondent, BBC News
> 
> *In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.*
> 
> The Met Office study used projections of fossil fuel use that reflect the trend seen over the last 20 years.
> 
> Their computer models also factored in new findings on how carbon dioxide is absorbed by the oceans and forests.
> 
> The finding was presented at an Oxford University conference exploring the implications of a 4C rise.
> 
> The results show a "best estimate" that 4C (measured from pre-industrial times) will be reached by 2070, with a possibility that it will come as early as 2060.
> 
> Previously we haven't looked at the impact of burning fossil fuels so intensely
> Richard Betts
> 
> Richard Betts of the Met Office Hadley Centre described himself as "shocked" that so much warming could occur within the lifetimes of people alive today.
> 
> "If greenhouse gas emissions are not cut soon then we could see major climate changes within our own lifetimes," he said.
> 
> "*Four degrees of warming averaged over the globe translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall."*
> 
> Big burn
> 
> The model finds wide variations, with the Arctic possibly seeing a rise of up to 15C (27F) by the end of the century.
> 
> Western and southern parts of Africa could warm by up to 10C, with other land areas seeing a rise of 7C or more.
> 
> In its 2007 assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the average warming by the end of the century would probably lie between 1.8C and 4C (3.2-7.2F), though it did not rule out the possibility of larger rises.
> 
> Key to the Met Office calculations was the use of projections showing fossil fuel use continuing to increase as it has done for the last couple of decades.
> 
> "Previously we haven't looked at the impact of burning fossil fuels so intensely," said Dr Betts.
> 
> "But it's quite plausible we could get a rise of 4C by 2070 or even 2060."
> 
> Dr Betts and his colleagues emphasise the uncertainties inherent in the modelling, particularly the role of the carbon cycle.
> 
> But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.
> 
> The presentation at Oxford's Environmental Change Institute came as negotiators from 192 countries were gathering in Bangkok for the latest set of prepatory talks in the run-up to December's UN climate summit.
> 
> Major governments of developing and industrialised nations are committed to a deal that would keep the global temperature rise to 2C, which many regard as a threshold for "dangerous" climate change


BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Four degrees of warming 'likely'

*Starting to sink in even at the state level in the US*

from above



> "*Four degrees of warming averaged over the globe translates into even greater warming in many regions, along with major changes in rainfall."*


*The temperature AND rainfall both have increased - this is observation not speculation in the study below and it will accelerate - the physics don't stop due to wishful thinking on your part.*_*....carbon is forever
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
*_ 



> Warming in Wisconsin
> *By 2055, state's climate could look more like Missouri's, study find*s


By 2055, state's climate could look more like Missouri's, study finds - JSOnline

and more from that study...


> *Observed historical data:*
> 
> -Average annual temperatures in Wisconsin have increased +1.1°F, with a peak warming of 2-2.5°F across northwest Wisconsin, closest to Minnesota.
> 
> _-*Observed* *warming* since 1950 has been greatest in winter, with an average increase of 2.5°F across Wisconsin. Winter temperatures in northwest Wisconsin (near Minnesota) have increased by 3.5-4.5°F.
> 
> -Wisconsin as a whole has become wetter, with an increase in annual precipitation of 3.1 inches. *This observed increase in annual precipitation *has primarily occurred in southern and western Wisconsin._
> 
> *Future climate projections:*
> 
> -Average annual temperatures in Wisconsin will increase 4 to 9 degrees by 2055. That's four times the already observed increase since 1950.
> 
> -The warming is projected to be largest in winter, with projected increases of 5-11°F by the mid-21st century across Wisconsin, with the greatest warming across northwest Wisconsin (again, near the Twin Cities and Minnesota).


UW Madison Climate Study: Biggest warming near Minnesota? | Updraft | Minnesota Public Radio

Grow up...


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Sure....
> 
> Grow up...


Right. I quit slurping the Kool-Aid years ago. You kiddies keep on slurping.


----------



## EvanPitts

FeXL said:


> I've noted it before & it bears repeating: I just want solid evidence, good science, one way or another as far as Global Warming is concerned.
> 
> It now appears that climate data upon which many people have based their research & conclusions is flawed...
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> Linky.


I think we should put the whole "global warming" thing aside - because it is unprovable and we can't do anything about it because all global warming will entirely be caused by natural processes, like the increase in solar activity, and that we can end up with massive global warming the moment some Indonesian volcano goes tango-uniform.

What we need to do is to demand that our politicians stick to the path of reducing greenhouse gases and pollution. Dioxins, PCBs, and other industrial pollutants will be our ruin long before "Carbon" has anything to say about it. Of course, "Carbon" and "Global Warming" are simply a facade set up by politicians and industrialists to shove off any progress far into the future, so they can continue to milk fat profits. And it has entirely worked, this scam has clearly lead to zero progress when it comes to pollution, or reducing waste.

In fact, any measures taken to reduce waste through recycling have only been accomplished because of the inability to find a location for new, massive landfills, the twenty year system of approvals and appeals to build new incinerators, and the giant costs of shipping truckloads of garbage into someone elses backyard.

I think that we should have some way of stuffing any politician that wastes time and effort on "Carbon Market Solutions" or trying to eliminate "Global Warming" should go to the penalty box - since what we need are politicians with a vision of eliminating excess, waste, and pollution of varius forms through progressive minded social engineering, and massive tax penalties against companies that engage in retrograde, wasteful processes.


----------



## EvanPitts

SINC said:


> :clap:
> 
> Been saying that for years. The whole approach is planned paranoia to sell non-existent carbon credits.


And to provide a refuge where industries and individuals can continue in their massively wasteful ways without anyone caring one iota about pollution. This is evidenced by cars that are less fuel efficient now than twenty years ago, and by companies like GM that are allowed to produce 50 year old smog belching engines because they are exempt from standards like LEV and ULEV...


----------



## eMacMan

Probably said this before but if man is a major contributor to GW it is more through wholesale deforestation than through CO2 production. After all nature all by her lonesome produces many times more CO2 than the human race. What humans have done is removed some of natures ability to convert that CO2 to oxygen.

Intelligent logging and a strong attack against actual pollutants would be far more beneficial than pouring $$$$$ into Al Gore's vault.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> What humans have done is removed some of natures ability to convert that CO2 to oxygen.


Ugh! I don't know where to start.

I know your heart's in the right place, eMacMan, but it's exactly this sort of posting that makes me want to pull my hair out.

When talking about music, art, or religion, everyone's opinions may be equal. But when you're talking about science, the only opinions worth considering are those of people who actually know something about the science. While, I agree with your opinion, you're clearly coming to it from complete ignorance (CO2 is not made into oxygen... the oxygen released by photosynthesis comes from water), so it's not really helpful. Sorry.


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> I think we should...


As always, you're entitled to your opinions. But until you have some scientific support for your claims, they aren't worth the electrons they inconvenienced.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Ugh! I don't know where to start.
> 
> I know your heart's in the right place, eMacMan, but it's exactly this sort of posting that makes me want to pull my hair out.
> 
> When talking about music, art, or religion, everyone's opinions may be equal. But when you're talking about science, the only opinions worth considering are those of people who actually know something about the science.


So, you consider yourself somehow superior to the rest of us? 

Spare me your wisdom. Please.


----------



## EvanPitts

eMacMan said:


> Probably said this before but if man is a major contributor to GW it is more through wholesale deforestation than through CO2 production.


Deforestation is only a small part of it, since trees contribute CO2 once they burn to the ground. The real users of CO2 are swamps, wetlands and peatbogs, stuff that we routinely drain or fill in, much to our detriment.



> Intelligent logging and a strong attack against actual pollutants would be far more beneficial than pouring $$$$$ into Al Gore's vault.


Eliminating waste will not reap short term profits, so I can not see Wall Street changing any time soon.


----------



## EvanPitts

bryanc said:


> As always, you're entitled to your opinions. But until you have some scientific support for your claims, they aren't worth the electrons they inconvenienced.


Of course, you say that without having one single shred of evidence that "Global Warming" is even occurring - since all of the "facts" are based on climatic measurements that date back no further than 150 years.

I have not seen any evidence that supports "Global Warming" that manages to discount any effect that fluctuations in solar output makes, nor have I seen any theory that discounts the fact that we have not have had massive volcanism that, as witnessed by the global cooling after Pinatubo. It is all a falsehood, a fake industry that peddled gangsterism based on fear mongering, that detracts people and governments from the tasks of living smarter and more efficient lives, and instead, proposes preposterously stupid "alternatives" that will see to even more massive pollution problems.

What I am saying is that we have to get away from the creation of bogus "science", which is little more than the new age religion of Global Warming - and get back onto the path of reducing pollution, living smarter and more effiicently, since pollution is the far greater threat than a slight fluctuation in global temperature.

While we hold the collective beleif that we have "global warming" and that we have to "do something about it" - the gangsters can and will continue in their massively wasteful ways. So you can prance all you want about "science" - I prefer to use actual facts that one can see. For instance, the massive problems with coal ash in the US, which they showed on 60 Minutes. Entire regions have been made uninhabitable as part of the 130 Million tons of coal ash generated every single year, massive poisoning of natural systems, displacement of people, economic calamity, all to generate power for ever increasing demand. Coal ash contributes not one iota to "Global Warming", not one iota - but it does poison entire regions, and contributes to massive acid rain fallout, of which, acid rain contributes not one iota to global warming, but instead, ruins thousands of lakes, destroying forests and ecosystems.

While we have the "global warming" industry, we are doomed to such garbage as Kyoto or Copenhagen - meetings that are wastes of time and effort, that cost us large because it delays mankind from taking the steps that we need to take, allowing gangsters to reap short term profits while frittering away and wasting resources.

What is sad is that we did make some progress in the past, by banning PCBs, slashing acid rain and eliminating CFCs. We made some progress in cleaning up toxic hotspots, and in cleaning up the practices of some large scale industries, but "global warming" has changed that paradigm, since cash and resources are now being wasted because they have been removed from important projects, and effort has been entirely removed from anything remotely resembling pollution control or efficiency, and is now squandered in such garbage as "sequestering carbon".

Canada should accept the mantle of global leadership by rejecting falsehoods like Kyoto or Copenhagen, and instead, work on living smarter lives: by the elimination of pollution, of waste reduction and reuse, of banning energy wasting products like giant SUVs and energy wasting computer equipment, of social engineering where more people can simply walk to work, or at least use public transit, rather than having a million cars on the QEW every day, jobs that people can telecommute to, the elimination of connurbation and the movement of jobs to underdeveloped places and allowing a rural lifestyle to prosper, etc.

Kyoto was doomed because it was absurd, catering to the select few that would reap huge short term profits while squandering resources and polluting like craziness. Copenhagen is yet another folly, which will accomplish nothing because it is designed to be an abject failure that has no goal and no point.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> So, you consider yourself somehow superior to the rest of us?


I consider peer-reviewed scientifically supported theories far more valuable to the discussion than opinions based on ignorance. This has nothing to do with my opinions of myself or anyone else.

Opinions that are based on hopelessly flawed understanding of the basic science are of no value, regardless of whether or not you or I agree with them.

You, of course, are free to have whatever opinions you want. Just don't expect anyone to take them seriously unless you can support them with objective, reproducible data that meets the criteria of science.


----------



## SINC

I guess you missed this post:



FeXL said:


> I've noted it before & it bears repeating: I just want solid evidence, good science, one way or another as far as Global Warming is concerned.
> 
> It now appears that climate data upon which many people have based their research & conclusions is flawed...
> 
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> Linky.


Not all science is correct and some of it is just plain wrong.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Science is just another religion that doesn't deserve to be on it's high pedestal anymore.

Scientists are constantly changing their so called facts about what is. Scientific so called fact has proven to be wrong time and time again and is just as corrupt as any other religion or business.

"Peer reviewed" = opinionated narrow minded pompous asses that over rate themselves immensely determining the accepted flavor of the day of what is considered to be the way things are.

Offer a scientist funding for his "work" or threaten to take it away will always determine the outcome of what the public is told the facts are. Industry and governments have always used scientists to tell the public all kinds of BS to indoctrinate them to think, believe, and act in specific ways.


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> Of course, you say that without having one single shred of evidence that "Global Warming" is even occurring - since all of the "facts" are based on climatic measurements that date back no further than 150 years.


You are simply illustrating your ignorance of the science with statements like this.



> I have not seen any evidence that supports "Global Warming"


Your ignorance is of no concern to the scientific community. Should you wish to make a contribution, spend the time necessary to become educated in the field, and deal with the facts.

Perhaps you are right. But as it stands, you have no credibility in this discussion because you have no expertise on the subject.

If I were to proclaim that the evidence that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy is completely flawed, and that this theory is just a lot of hype designed to get certain physicists more grant money, I would certainly be entitled to my opinion. But as a biologist, with no training in physics and only a rudimentary understanding of higher mathematics, making such a claim would be not only worthless, but also inexcusably arrogant, because I don't have the expertise necessary to critically review the evidence.

I make no claims that my expertise allows me to unequivocally support the current models regarding climate change. I have reviewed much of the biological data (which dates back millennia, not 150 years, as you suggest), and am in complete agreement with the rest of the scientific community regarding its implications. However I am unqualified to analyze most of the relevant data, so I must either accept the judgment of people more qualified, or, at the very least, withhold judgement on that data.

You, and many others here, loudly proclaim your disbelief regarding global warming and anthropogenic climate change, and yet you provide no evidence that you even remotely grasp the science underlying these theories. It's like listening to religious fundamentalists decrying the theory of evolution.

If you want to be taken seriously, get informed.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> Science is just another religion that doesn't deserve to be on it's high pedestal anymore.


If science was a religion, we'd have a lot less trouble raising money.

Science is the diametric opposite of religion. No two things could be less similar.



> Scientists are constantly changing their so called facts about what is.


Facts don't change. But the scientific understanding of nature is always in flux. This is one of the obvious differences between science and religion. Science is self-correcting. If a theory is wrong, it will be invalidated by evidence and either changed or replaced by a new theory that does a better job of explaining the facts.

If people understood what scientific theories were, they wouldn't be so surprised when they change, nor would they find this indicative of flaws in the scientific method. Changes in our understanding is the progress of science. That's the whole point.



> "Peer reviewed" = opinionated narrow minded pompous asses that over rate themselves immensely determining the accepted flavor of the day of what is considered to be the way things are.


I suggest you look up the word "hubris"... you may find a picture of yourself in the dictionary.



> Offer a scientist funding for his "work" or threaten to take it away will always determine the outcome of what the public is told the facts are. Industry and governments have always used scientists to tell the public all kinds of BS to indoctrinate them to think, believe, and act in specific ways.



Actually, you may not find yourself under "hubris"...try again under "arrogant prick"


----------



## MazterCBlazter

How to Lie with Statistics


----------



## MacDoc

:clap:

Suggested reading

Climate book - new and very up to date - worth the time
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

Background
Introduction - Summary

Good explanation carbon cycle and atmosphere
Pathfinder 201 - Carbon Cycle and Greenhouse Warming

:: CLIMATE CHANGE FAQ ::

I also favour analogue signals from diverse environments to support the models and digital observations.
Since change is playing out most dramatically and rapidly in the north these summaries from multiple disciplines are invaluable to get a larger of picture of the actual changes going on.

This one gives you a real overview of the strong signals from biota and cryosphere

Arctic Report Card


----------



## MazterCBlazter

> "Peer reviewed" = opinionated narrow minded pompous asses that over rate themselves immensely determining the accepted flavor of the day of what is considered to be the way things are.
> I suggest you look up the word "hubris"... you may find a picture of yourself in the dictionary.
> 
> 
> Offer a scientist funding for his "work" or threaten to take it away will always determine the outcome of what the public is told the facts are. Industry and governments have always used scientists to tell the public all kinds of BS to indoctrinate them to think, believe, and act in specific ways.





bryanc said:


> I suggest you look up the word "hubris"... you may find a picture of yourself in the dictionary.
> 
> 
> Actually, you may not find yourself under "hubris"...try again under "arrogant prick"


You are just emotionally upset because I hit the nail right on the head.

The scientific system is not much different from the legal system. Industry and business know this. The outcome of scientific evidence is determined largely by the size of the scientific team you can afford to hire. The big name high priced scientists you can get onto your team of experts willing to bend the facts towards the desired viewpoint. 

I have friends with Ph. D's that have been and some still are on the corporate payrolls of some big corporations in California. Their only function in the corporation that employs them is so that the corporation can say they have so many PhD's on staff. Once in a while they do a presentation or participate in the think tank. It's hilarious. They are paid good money just to be yes men. A friend of mine that had passed away was one of those Ph. D's. He introduced me to his co- workers and friends on staff. Some of them were smoking pot on the rooftop of the building. Some were doing acid. They had a full gym and recreation facilities. They could get a massage every day if desired. Some of them just slept and wrote books. I sure wish I could get a job like they had.

Will corporations and governments continue to fund scientists if they tell them and the public things they don't want to hear? How often has big tobacco, big oil and big pharma paid scientists to lie to us?

Take a step sideways to the lawyers that they employ. With their science buddies they go to court and deny that smoking is bad for you, or that they aren't damaging the environment, etc. That OJ Simpson got off had a lot to do with the high priced lawyer he could afford to hire.


Lawyers and scientists. Both are exactly the same. They create and argue what they consider to be "the law". Most just do their masters bidding.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> You are just emotionally upset because I hit the nail right on the head.


No, I'm upset because you are saying that I, and the thousands of people I work with are liars.



> I have friends with Ph. D's that have been and some still are on the corporate payrolls of some big corporations in California. Their only function in the corporation that employs them is so that the corporation can say they have so many PhD's on staff. Once in a while they do a presentation or participate in the think tank. It's hilarious. They are paid good money just to be yes men.


Guess what. That ain't science. That's selling out. Selling out has always paid better than honest hard work.



> Will corporations and governments continue to fund scientists if they tell them and the public things they don't want to hear?


No. That's why corporations and governments aren't where science is done. Science is done by publicly funded researchers at public institutions who publish their work in publicly accessible, peer-reviewed journals.



> Most just do their masters bidding.


The only master science has is nature. And yes, we are forced to accept what nature gives us as facts.


----------



## EvanPitts

SINC said:


> Not all science is correct and some of it is just plain wrong.


Just like scientific "theories" like the phisgiston theory, Galton's theory of racism and eugenics, etc.

None of this has anything to do with science or peer review - it all has to do with the royal scam that is being pulled in front of us. The sketchy and inconclusive "science", no matter how much peer review it gets, is used to back up the Theory of Global Warming - while obvious and solid science with literally tons of peer reviewed and entirely accepted research entirely demonstrates that pollution is poisoning and killing the environment, and having outrageous impacts upon the global ecosystem.

Not one scientific paper has even attempted to connect even one extinction of one single species of life conclusively to Global Warming - while a myriad of scientific papers has entirely demonstrated that pollution has caused the extinction and near-extinction of tens of thousands of species.

Of course, the point is made that "Global Warming" is caused by "Carbon", and that the miniscule increase in world temperature is somehow a disaster for the near future, with massive flooding and giant storms ready to clobber the human race - and that not even one of those papers points to any fluctuation in solar output or sunspot count. In fact, all of those papers blame "Carbon" as the cause of all our woes; and not one paper points to the endless waste of resources or the endless engagement in stupid activities as being detrimental.

There is also the point that wetlands and swamps are never discussed, never written about or peer reviewed. No one can score fast profits by having a swamp, or by having wetlands. It is far better, in the view of "science" to build giant levee systems and giant dams so that rivers are no longer free to cleanse the land and provide nutrients, since swamps are "bad". No one ever discusses the millions of square miles of swamps that have been drained in connection with "Global Warming" - just as no one ever discusses the influence of the Sun on "Global Warming".

Global Warming has become a catch word that represents apathy and lethargy. It is simply easier to blame someone else for waste, while putting forth papers that "prove" something illogical. The nuclear industry pegs the coal industry as polluters because it is for their own profit to find data like that, even though they entirely ignore the massive and permanent ecological damage done at sites like the Hanford Reservation. The US blames China for Carbon emissions, even though the US is by far the most wasteful country when it comes to energy, resources, and the largest creator of waste in the world.

I think "science" has become distracted. We have major tasks to attend to when it comes to pollution, as well as the major tasks of reworking our social and economic systems. All of these wilt to die, as "science" comes up with daft ways of sequestering carbon so that we never get to the point of living a sustainable and efficient lifestyle that is equitable to all. It comes down to profit driven motives, and eliminating pollution or adding public transit or having people live near their workplaces is simply not profitable. Just like farming is not profitable, because no one can score massive short term profits by growing things, so it is entirely the motive of big business to stomp out farming at all costs, as farming and fresh food is a threat to the industries that crank out artificial food created from petroleum byproducts.

It does not take a scientist to recognize these facts, they are entirely self evident. Since the rise of "Global Warming", we have seen little or no progress when it comes to those things that we need to prioritize: pollution is endemic, waste is expanding like never before and we are more of a throwaway society than ever before, wetlands and swamps are not being restored, farming is not being reestablished as a sustainable business, we do not telecommute and there is no impetus for meaningful public transit. Instead, we attack industries like the Oil Sands because they are evil - not that endlessly driving giant SUVs around is the source of the evil, or wasteful electronics products that suck back power like nothing else, or inefficient street systems that create massive waste, etc.

These are the points entirely missed by those who think that "science" is somehow great if it embraces the falsehoods of Global Warming and Carbon Market Trading...


----------



## EvanPitts

bryanc said:


> You are simply illustrating your ignorance of the science with statements like this.


Ok, then show me the detailed daily temperature records that have been kept since time immemoriam. You see, you can't, because temperatures have only been recorded for the past 150 years, and global records of sea temperatures only cover perhaps the past 40 years, since people like the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Mayans, the Chinese, etc. did not launch satellites in order to perform such measurements and make such records.

You tend to ignore some of the real science that is out there, like the fact that at one time, dinosaurs lived in the high arctic, and that the remains of forests have been found on Ellesmere Island as well as Antarctica. Thus, the world has been through much warmer epochs, as well as much colder epochs. These are facts, entirely supported by scientific data and observations, facts entirely supported by peer review and entirely accepted by the scientific community.

The fake science behind Global Warming is entirely inconclusive, because it talks about minute variations in average temperatures of a handful of degrees, or because ice is melting somewhere. It is false not because it is a theory, but that it has become an illogical mantra, supported by entire industries that use it to deflect the real and serious issues away from them. It is cheaper for a corporation to buy fake "carbon" in a fake trading market, then take the tax write off, than it is to engage in the reduction of pollution or to modernize or use science to advantage.

Global Warming is the commoditization of fear, that blames soot and grime for all evils - while sidelining important initiatives, such as reducing waste and pollution, and using science and technology as a tool to improve the life of everyone, to live more efficiently, and to preserve life. Global Warming allows and encourages waste and stupidity simply because it preaches that it is entirely OK to seal waste in caves, so people can continue to live lives steeped in stupidity.



> Perhaps you are right. But as it stands, you have no credibility in this discussion because you have no expertise on the subject.


You don't either - so what's your point?

You do not know my qualifications, nor should it matter, because we do not live in a technocracy where all decisions are made by a select few scientists appointed to their positions simply because they are the most elite out of all elitists. We live in a democracy where people are free to voice their opinion and to demonstrate their understanding of the truth.

What I see is that you wish to engage in the quasi-religious mantra of Global Warming, which is your right because all people in a democracy are entitled to delude themselves with falsehoods.

It is exactly the same manner in which you seem to think that science is somehow diametrically opposed to religion - which is entirely a falsehood because they function for different reasons and for different purposes. It is your right to delude yourself with Atheism, its a free society, but don't for one moment degrade those with religious beliefs as being somehow incapable of understanding science. Science and religion are entirely compatible with each other, since they deal with different aspects of our existence, and serve different purposes.

It is not that I disagree with any science that comes from the worshippers of Global Warming - rather, I see it as a sideshow of freaks that have no future in any other endeavour, and that they have managed to purloin massive funding and support from those that wish to engage in endless waste and the endless degradation of the environment.

What we need to do as a nation is stand up and demonstrate leadership in the world by rejecting filthy, profit driven agreements like Kyoto and Copenhagen, and rather, take leadership in the elimination of waste and pollution. Pollution will destroy life far faster and more thoroughly than three or four degrees of Global Warming, and waste will shove civilization off the cliff faster than the flooding of a few coastal cities caused by said warming.

It is not that the religion of Global Warming is incompatible with the science of Waste and Pollution - they are compatible, but we must reject flights of fantasy, that is it somehow ok to waste in a willy-nilly fashion because we can inject it into caves - but rather, work towards the elimination of waste and pollution, which, in the end, will take those factors off of the table of any notion of Global Warming, making said effect that of solar activity and of natural processes that we can not control.



> If I were to proclaim that the evidence that there is a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy is completely flawed, and that this theory is just a lot of hype designed to get certain physicists more grant money, I would certainly be entitled to my opinion.


No one is talking about commoditizing black holes or sequestering dark matter. Global Warming, on the other hand, is an attack on those things that are not far fetched, far away and theoretical, but rather, right in our back yard working to kill life and ruin the natural system.



> You, and many others here, loudly proclaim your disbelief regarding global warming and anthropogenic climate change,


You have demonstrated your lack of comprehension for the points that I and others are making. People are not discounting Global Warming or climate change, those things are self evident. What we are discounting is the need to resort to costly and crazy measures to "do something about it". We reject the notion of having "Carbon Markets" because that only commoditized misery for short term profit motives. Instead, we say that we reject doing something about Global Warming, but rather, work towards a sustainable and logical lifestyle that is free of excessive waste and excessive consumption.

It is those things that we can do that need to be worked on. We can generate clean, renewable power - it is fact and is easily engineered and implemented. However, solar and wind power can not sustain our infinite use and waste of power. We can eliminate commuting and congestion by spreading out workplaces and integrating them into neighbourhoods, as well as returning to grid based city streets where people can walk everywhere with no problems. We can change industrial processes, to modernize them and make them more efficient and less polluting and less wasteful. We can insist on manufactured items that are durable and will last, so that we do not need to scrap items quite so often. We can insist on smarter use of lighting, or work towards practical solid state lighting that is efficient, just as we can insist that all homes be well insulated and well built.

Global Warming, on the other hand, preached that we inject waste into caves and other nonsense, while doing nothing, not even lifting a single finger, to do anything about waste or pollution. It is a feel good religion, where if you can't see the garbage and waste, we must feel good that we are doing something positive.

I also dispute the fact that we have global warming, simply because we have not had many volcanic episodes, and thus, have not had the global cooling that we experienced after events like Tambora, Krakatoa and Pinatubo. The whole Global Warming deal can be wiped off the map if one big volcano flips its top - while waste and pollution are persistent and ruinous for all.

As for becoming informed - it is obvious that I am far more informed because I entirely see that Carbon Trading is a scam that works for the goals of short term profits, and that Al Gore is a scam because he uses 7 times more energy than regular folk (but yet preaches that we need to be efficient as he sits in front of his three giant Cinema Screens to surf the Web he invented)...


----------



## Max

Bryan, best of luck to you. Some of your detractors have you at a disadvantage, as they feel free to define redefine science without resorting to that nasty nuisance of using actual scientific method, all the while helping themselves to generous dollops of ego so as to magically prove you are less informed.

Clearly, you have your work cut out for you.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> Ugh! I don't know where to start.
> 
> I know your heart's in the right place, eMacMan, but it's exactly this sort of posting that makes me want to pull my hair out.
> 
> When talking about music, art, or religion, everyone's opinions may be equal. But when you're talking about science, the only opinions worth considering are those of people who actually know something about the science. While, I agree with your opinion, you're clearly coming to it from complete ignorance (CO2 is not made into oxygen... the oxygen released by photosynthesis comes from water), so it's not really helpful. Sorry.


Let's see trees convert CO2 to H20. As a greenhouse gas water vapour is I believe 5 times more effective than CO2. So I assume you favour denuding the entire planet of its forests in order to fight global warming?beejacon


----------



## MazterCBlazter

bryanc said:


> No, I'm upset because you are saying that I, and the thousands of people I work with are liars.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what. That ain't science. That's selling out. Selling out has always paid better than honest hard work.
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's why corporations and governments aren't where science is done. Science is done by publicly funded researchers at public institutions who publish their work in publicly accessible, peer-reviewed journals.
> 
> 
> 
> The only master science has is nature. And yes, we are forced to accept what nature gives us as facts.


I have known plenty of scientists and professors. Not all of them are angels. They certainly are not any more honest than the general population, although many of them are extremely arrogant and consider themselves superior to and above the rest of the population. They are mostly highly indoctrinated to their extremely narrow viewpoints. 

Humans will always have a spectrum of people from super honest and benevolent to super corrupt and evil. The scientific community is every bit as dishonest and deceitful as the rest of the population.

Scientific and technological advancement is largely funded by corporate, military, and political interests. I do not buy into science being this pure thing being done for the benevolence of the world on a quest for pure truth. Publicly funded = government funded = they better not say any facts the government doesn't want them to hear.

The gullible masses think that you see someone called a scientist in a lab coat, with a stick pointing at a chart only speaks fact and truth. They aren't much different than a priest spouting his religious interpretation of the way things are. Both are highly indoctrinated to specific ways of thinking.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> "I make no claims that my expertise allows me to unequivocally support the current models regarding climate change. I have reviewed much of the biological data (which dates back millennia, not 150 years, as you suggest), and am in complete agreement with the rest of the scientific community regarding its implications. However I am unqualified to analyze most of the relevant data, so I must either accept the judgment of people more qualified, or, at the very least, withhold judgement on that data."


I am +1 with bryanc views

My only quibble with the science surrounding Global Warming is the scientist that predicted polar melting got it wrong. Those scientists were too conservative. All glaciers are melting faster than predicted. 



bryanc said:


> "If science was a religion, we'd have a lot less trouble raising money.
> 
> Science is the diametric opposite of religion. No two things could be less similar."


True statement bryanc until the opinionated get a hold of scientific teachings and treat them like religious teachings. The opinionated will embrace that, that appeals to them and reject that, that does not. 

I have said before on this forum when it comes to science and especially physics if you can’t do the math then what you believe is largely a matter of faith.

At that point everyday science becomes much like everyday religion a matter of faith, belief and opinion.



SINC said:


> “Been saying that for years. The whole approach is planned paranoia to sell non-existent carbon credits.”


I agree with SINC on the point of people making the air a commodity, a commodity to sold and owned. I think this is the wrong way to proceed.

I think we should stop producing pollution with a by-product of widgets and start producing and selling widgets sustainably. Even if GHG production is not a serious matter, reducing the other pollutant as a by-product of reducing GHG production will benefit us all.


----------



## EvanPitts

MazterCBlazter said:


> I have known plenty of scientists and professors. Not all of them are angels. They certainly are not any more honest than the general population, although many of them are extremely arrogant and consider themselves superior to and above the rest of the population.


It is also true that it is incorrect to equate scientists and professors who are engaged in the sciences as researchers and engineers to the "Global Warming" industry. Many of these people have been sideswiped in the mass rush to set up Carbon Markets and to get Al Gore a bigger and even more power hungry mansion. "Global Warming" and "Carbon" have as much to do with science and fact as the Wizard of Oz and flying butt monkeys have with the free market economics of Taiwan.



> I do not buy into science being this pure thing being done for the benevolence of the world on a quest for pure truth. Publicly funded = government funded = they better not say any facts the government doesn't want them to hear.


This is exactly the method that science uses - that it continually asks questions and looks to make revisions or changes in understanding. It is entirely correct to call out "scientists" who are on the take and babbling about "Global Warming" simply because it is those scientists who are prepared to throw out all other established facts, facts such as acid rain kills of lakes and forests, and that pollution kills entire ecosystems - all things that are tossed out the door, only to be ignored because they now choose to preach that it is OK to waste and endlessly use non-renewable resources, and to divert research money away from progress and alternative energy, because it can all be blamed on "Carbon", commoditized so people can score fat profits, and all of this be shamelessly pumped into holes in the ground and easily ignored.

Science calls out to be asked "what's this about Global Warming?" And even if Global Warming is a real thing, then it is right for science to look at natural causes, like solar output fluctuations or volcanism or whatever - while rejecting that we actually need to "do" anything about a natural process, and rather, get back on the wagon and start attacking the real problems that we can solve, like eliminating waste, economizing on energy, better social engineering, sustainable living, etc.

To say that science supports "Global Warming" simply because we can, with enough engineering and know how, just pump our wastes into the ground, is foolish.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

BigDL said:


> True statement bryanc until the opinionated get a hold of scientific teachings and treat them like religious teachings. The opinionated will embrace that, that appeals to them and reject that, that does not.
> 
> I have said before on this forum when it comes to science and especially physics if you can’t do the math then what you believe is largely a matter of faith.
> 
> At that point everyday science becomes much like everyday religion a matter of faith, belief and opinion.


I agree that only that which can be proven mathematically can stand up to scrutiny. Only mathematical expression can be pure and flawless.

The trouble with things like biology, archaeology, astronomy is that much of what it is known and considered fact really is guesswork. 

If humans were deep ocean dwellers with gills instead of lungs and we could not breathe the air our view on things would be quite different as would the technology and science that we create. Scientific experiments done in water whether with chemicals or physics of motion and gravity would have developed completely differently than on dry land. Think of the heavy breathing apparatus that would have been necessary to travel above the oceans. 

All scientific "facts" that we catalog and create outside of mathematics are completely different in other worlds where atmospheric pressure, gravity, temperature, radiation are not the same as the surface of planet Earth.

Other than mathematics what we consider science is not black and white. It is different shades of grey and other mixtures of colors. All too often they try to make things black and white and fit things neatly catalogued into little boxes. 

So Bryan, you said I called yourself and your colleagues liars. How about "human", and not above other humans but just as susceptible to human strengths and weaknesses: even in their work as the rest of the race is?


----------



## chasMac

BigDL said:


> Even if GHG production is not a serious matter, reducing the other pollutant as a by-product of reducing GHG production will benefit us all.


But don't you think that is rather disingenuous? What you are saying is twisting science for your own ends: the attention garnered by GHG production may be mis-placed, or based on falsehoods, but if it achieves a redution in pollution, that's cool? Seems very, very 'unscientific'.

If smokestack emissions are causing cancer, or plastic nurdles destroying the oceanic ecosystem, let's address that, for those hugely valid reasons. No need to address GHG production if you are unsure about it. We got enough to worry about.


----------



## EvanPitts

BigDL said:


> My only quibble with the science surrounding Global Warming is the scientist that predicted polar melting got it wrong. Those scientists were too conservative. All glaciers are melting faster than predicted.


They also do not understand the process as part of the history of the world, which has seen subtropical forests on places as far north as Ellesmere Island that were patrolled by dinosaurs that adapted to extended dark conditions for half the year; as well as substantial glaciation that has extended down almost as far as the Equator.

None of these theories address solar output and sunspot counts. Sunspot counts have been diminishing over the past few cycles, and if the pattern holds, we are in a prelude for a Maunder Minimum, which would indicate cooler climate.

Nothing in the realm of the "Global Warming" industry addresses pollution, except to trivialize it and suggest that pumping it into the ground is the ultimate solution. Agreements like Kyoto and Copenhagen are doomed to failure because they do not address the roots of the problems we face, but rather, preach to doomdayers about the impending cataclysm of days that are two degrees warmer, and that the solution to it is to trivialize the common man, create massive markets for the elites where they can commoditize essential elements like air and water for profit driven motives, and put pollution on the back burner in order to aggrandize an ailing economic system that does not function for the betterment of the world.

Nor do these documents address the need for forestry reserve lands, as well as swamps, wetlands and reserves where animals and plants are free to live without being contaminated by humanity. Nor do they address the need to alleviate poverty, nor reduce waste and pollution. All it is is a scam to set up a fake business of trading carbon credits, which is nothing more than the commoditization of human misery, and paying cash for the right to wipe thousands of species of life off of the face of the world.



> I have said before on this forum when it comes to science and especially physics if you can’t do the math then what you believe is largely a matter of faith.


What math is needed to see that we are being poisoned by the toxic wastes we make, and that the cycle will not stop because there is no fast profits off of living in harmony with nature. The only math needed is to see that:

Carbon Market = More Profits Reaped While Not Doing Anything Constructive

As well, if we are having "Global Warming", then why did this summer absolutely suck, with temperatures far below normal - as well as the furies of last winter, which was crazy cold? Where's the math in that? And what does the math even mean if not one scientist bothers to stand up and ask the key question of what impact does the current fluctuation in solar output mean to the equation.



> I think we should stop producing pollution with a by-product of widgets and start producing and selling widgets sustainably. Even if GHG production is not a serious matter, reducing the other pollutant as a by-product of reducing GHG production will benefit us all.


However, reducing pollution and eliminated GHG goes entirely against the mantra of the Global Warming industry. Global warming preaches that pollution and GHGs are not problems at all, that pollution and GHGs can be entirely pumped into the ground to be forgotten, along with all other waste, so long as it is sequestered - and instead, Carbon becomes the incarnation of the devil and must be commoditized along with air and water, all to reap huge profits from human misery.

Sustained production of materials is entirely doable and requires industry to become more flexible and adopt CNC machining processes. However, we have too much at stake when it comes to those things that are "proprietary" and "unrepairable", and hence, our economic system depends on endlessly replacing those throw away things that are imported, rather than any serious production of high quality goods. We can do much to change our current situation, but we must remove ourselves from the mantra and religion of Global Warming, and return to that of the reduction of pollution and the rationalization of our lifestyles.


----------



## EvanPitts

chasMac said:


> If smokestack emissions are causing cancer, or plastic nurdles destroying the oceanic ecosystem, let's address that, for those hugely valid reasons. No need to address GHG production if you are unsure about it. We got enough to worry about.


Perhaps he shared the same view I have - that we need to return to such grassroots issues like smokestack emissions, or the proper disposal of plastics, or whatever. Reducing and eliminating GHG is a cornerstone of protecting the world - but not because of some phony notion that eliminating GHG will aid and assist Global Warming, but rather, because GHGs are poisoning us and our environment.

The problem is that for years, we made significant progress when it came to such things, all by grassroots efforts, first by banning items like DDT and PCBs, then in reducing Acid Rain and CFCs. All of this was great, and we should have been world leaders in the effort. But this has been derailed by the defeatist notion of Global Warming, that we can continue in our waste filled lifestyles, burning more energy today than yesterday, simply because we can conveniently pump waste into the ground to be sequestered. And our job is done and deemed a success the moment some volcano pops it's top and cools the planet by 4 degrees for half a decade.

Not that I think research into Global Warming should be banned or anything - but rather, that we get back to putting effort into those very real things that we need to deal with, all of which revolve around pollution and waste, rather than trying to figure out how to reduce the output of the Sun by 10%, or other nonsense.

The root of the problem is that we are addicted to transporting everything from crazy remote places simply because the workers there are basically slaves, so we can have ample goods at WalMart that we can purchase, then promptly throw out a few days later.

Global Warming does nothing to reduce such waste, or to encourage conservation efforts, or to ameliorate pollution - all it says is that the end is nigh, so go ahead and blow the budget because it can be conveniently shoved into a landfill or pumped into the ground.


----------



## FeXL

More grist for the mill:

Burying CO2: Fix or folly?



> In sum, the marriage of a brave new technology with a political fix for an immediate climate problem could have negative long-term consequences for Canadian taxpayers and water drinkers without stabilizing the climate. If we ultimately decide to move forward on the sequestration of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide in underground saline aquifers, we need strong regulations, clear liability, effective oversight, sound science and a transparent decision-making process. To do otherwise would be sheer folly.


Hmmm, sound science. Those words again...


----------



## SINC

Just one more way of saying there is far too much bad science out there where it concerns global warming.


----------



## MacDoc

> There's Still Time To Cut The Risk Of Climate Catastrophe, Study Shows
> 
> ScienceDaily (Oct. 5, 2009) — A new analysis of climate risk, published by researchers at MIT and elsewhere, shows that even moderate carbon-reduction policies now can substantially lower the risk of future climate change. It also shows that quick, global emissions reductions would be required in order to provide a good chance of avoiding a temperature increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level — a widely discussed target. But without prompt action, they found, extreme changes could soon become much more difficult, if not impossible, to control.


continues

There's Still Time To Cut The Risk Of Climate Catastrophe, Study Shows












> _To illustrate the findings of their model, MIT researchers created a pair of 'roulette wheels.' This wheel depicts their estimate of the range of probability of potential global temperature change over the next 100 years if no policy change is enacted on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. (Credit: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change)_


You really want to gamble???










that's all we have....

You really think you know better than the top climate researchers on the planet.....or that some retired mining engineer with no credentials know better????

You want to gamble the kids future on that.......???? pretty stupid approach...


----------



## SINC

I've said it so many times now, but there is nothing wrong with reducing carbon output or pollution, but science needs to stop with the doom and gloom, all aimed at our wallets via carbon credit sales. Non existent carbon credit sales I might add.

When "science" finally admits it is a get rich, fear mongering scheme to line the pockets of the Al Gores of the world, will be the day bad science dies.

Until that happens, it is just so much malarky mixed with questionable fact that it is simply not believable.


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> Let's see trees convert CO2 to H20.


WTF are you talking about?!?

Photosynthesis converts CO2 to reduced carbon compounds (3 phosphoglycerate in the case of C3 plants, and oxaloacetate in the case of C4 plants) by nicking electrons from water.

No CO2 is converted to water, and no oxygen is liberated from CO2.

You just don't understand photosynthesis.

As for all the discussions of what science is and isn't, and what science supports and doesn't support, I just don't have time for it right now. I'll try to come back later.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> The trouble with things like biology, archaeology, astronomy is that much of what it is known and considered fact really is guesswork.


Absolutely not. One of the great strengths of science is that it helps us specifically understand when we don't know something. We can take guesses, but we know that we can't have any confidence in them until they are supported by empirical observation. While "guesswork" may play a role initially, nothing that is "known" in science is guesswork.



> All scientific "facts" that we catalog and create outside of mathematics are completely different in other worlds where atmospheric pressure, gravity, temperature, radiation are not the same as the surface of planet Earth.


Care to provide an example? Because, as far as I know you are absolutely and completely wrong here.



> So Bryan, you said I called yourself and your colleagues liars. How about "human", and not above other humans but just as susceptible to human strengths and weaknesses: even in their work as the rest of the race is?


Of course scientists are human and fallible. But the whole purpose of the scientific method is to find and correct errors. More to the point, you're suggestion that all scientists will sell out to who or whatever agency is providing money, twisting their interpretations to fit the perceived desires of some financial overlords is both incorrect and offensive. Most scientists make very significant sacrifices specifically because they won't compromise their integrity in the way you're suggesting is so common, and society owes them a great deal because of it.


----------



## bryanc

MazterCBlazter said:


> Publicly funded = government funded = they better not say any facts the government doesn't want them to hear.


Our public funding agencies are all managed independently from political interference. Grant funding is decided by researchers with relevant expertise, not by political 'masters.'

Government may or may not like what it hears, but it has no impact on what the science says.

I will agree, however, that anti-science administrations (like the Bush administration in the US, and the Harper administration in Canada), are perfectly capable of cutting research budgets, and have done so most egregiously. They just don't get to choose what projects they cut the funding to.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

It can’t happen here. That’s what most scientists will tell you about fraud in science. Science is magically self-correcting, fraudsters are isolated incidents, fraud is something that happens in those other professions. Well, they’re all wrong, as Horace Freeland Judson shows in his new book The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science. While estimates of fraud — faking evidence, omitting or distorting evidence, and plagiarism — are naturally hard to come by, even very conservative studies place it as high as 10% — a staggering number to those who place their trust in Science.

Judson is at various times a historian, philosopher, sociologist, journalist, and student of science, but he combines all this into a detailed book that combines the best of each field — the journalism is thrilling and readable, the science accurate, the history and social causes analyzed, and so on. Judson seems to know everything about the subject — he’s at every major event, he interviews every major figure at their home, and so on. The result is a through book.

The book traces the cultural context of fraud, analyzes the history of fraud (Mendel, Darwin, Pasteur, Freud — all committed fraud to some extent), gives a very detailed description of many modern cases of fraud (including a whole chapter on the famed “Baltimore affair”), then discusses the problems of peer review and authorship, which most people think prevent fraud, then onto the future of science with open access publications on the Internet, and closing with how institutions can respond to end fraud.

Judson paints a picture of a scientific community that is trapped in its own sense of infallibility. Whistleblowers brings evidence fraud to the university president and he (almost always a he) brushes them off saying “it doesn’t happen here”. And anyway, science is self-correcting. The whistleblower goes public and gets fired — they’re inventing a fuss, tarnishing the name of the university. The government’s Office of Research Integrity investigates and concludes it is fraud but the case is appealed to a board of lawyers who don’t understand the science, are not allowed to look at the scientific evidence, and almost always overturn the case, making specious arguments like “if this data was fraudulent, it wouldn’t look so messy”. Even in the rare case when fraud is generally conceded, all the usual figures trot out the usual “few bad apples” claim — the rest of science is just fine, they say. When Congress dares hold hearings on the matter, the scientists being questioned rile up their colleagues by claiming that government is attacking scientific freedom.

So, in the end, the whistleblower ends up disgraced and unemployed, usually viciously attacked in public. The fraudster might have to go to another university or even retire early if it’s really bad. And the department head who let it happen under him gets no blame and so has no incentive to change things. And so fraud goes on, uninvestigated, unimpeded.

What’s the fraud like? A few examples:

William T. Summerlin (chief of transplantation immunology at Sloan-Kettering) claimed he could transplant onto animals corneas, glands, and skin that would normally be rejected — sometimes even across species. He was discovered only after three years of this when a lab assistant noticed that the black “skin graphs” were drawn on with a marker (all the rest of his work turned out to be fake as well).

John Long (a resident) studied Hodgkins’s cell lines at Mass General in collaboration with MIT. A year later, a junior colleague charge fraud and it was discovered that the cell lines were from monkeys and healthy people.

Elias A. K. Alsabti (a researcher at Boston University) had published sixty papers by his mid-twenties, when it turned out that most of them were papers published in obscure foreign journals with only slight changes (like a new title).

Vijay Soman, an assistant professor at Yale, was asked to peer review a paper by Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard. He sent back a negative review, delaying publication, then turned around and submitted the same paper to another journal. He was found out when, in an amazing twist of fate, Helena Wachslicht-Rodbard was asked to peer review Soman’s paper and recognized it as her own.

John Darsee had published dozens of papers with completely made up data — and done an incredibly bad job making up the data. (One paper claimed a father had four children — conceived when he was 8, 9, 11, and 12 years old, respectively.) To cover up this fact, Darsee had practiced “gift authorship” — adding people as co-authors even when they didn’t do any work. Darsee had been at Harvard for three years before he was discovered by some postdocs, even then it took the university five months to admit the fraud.

Stephen Breuning (University of Pittsburgh) studied the long-term effects of certain tranquilizers on mentally ill patients. His research found they were seriously damaging the patients and it causes mental hospitals to change procedures. Two years later, Breuning’s mentor at the University of Illinois began to suspect that Breuning couldn’t possibly have time to do all the work he claimed to be doing. — and sure enough he made it up. Sparague (the senior of the two, remember) sent a report to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), which funded Breuning. Breuning was forced to resign and NIMH appointed an investigator — who proceed to investigate Sprague. Seeing that Breuning’s work was not being investigated and corrected, Sprague went public. His federal funding was cancelled. Sprague was asked to testify before Congress, in response the University of Pittsburgh threatened a libel suit.

That’s a small sample — the cases go on and on. Kudos to Judson for shedding light on a topic few know even exists.
​


----------



## MazterCBlazter

bryanc said:


> More to the point, you're suggestion that all scientists will sell out to who or whatever agency is providing money, twisting their interpretations to fit the perceived desires of some financial overlords is both incorrect and offensive. Most scientists make very significant sacrifices specifically because they won't compromise their integrity in the way you're suggesting is so common, and society owes them a great deal because of it.


Pompous Hogwash.



> Scientists are not quite as honest as might be hoped


Fraud in science: Liar! Liar! | The Economist


----------



## EvanPitts

FeXL said:


> More grist for the mill:
> 
> Burying CO2: Fix or folly?
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, sound science. Those words again...


Folly - since all of these schemes simply promise that we can continue the unbridled squandering of our resources without putting forth any real effort at making progress towards sustainability.


----------



## EvanPitts

SINC said:


> I've said it so many times now, but there is nothing wrong with reducing carbon output or pollution,


Not only is there nothing wrong with reducing pollution - it is something that we need to put maximum effort into doing. We were attacking pollution, with all kinds of programs, regulations and efforts put forth - all of which was shoved off the tracks by the fools that embrace Global Warming and the need to pump "Carbon" into the ground and hide it.

Carbon Markets are a scam to liberate money by commoditizing misery - just like when the big corporates started selling people water.


----------



## EvanPitts

bryanc said:


> Our public funding agencies are all managed independently from political interference. Grant funding is decided by researchers with relevant expertise, not by political 'masters.'


What country are you posting from? In Canada, "research" is entirely politicized and subverted to corporate interests as well as various factions of elitists at university campuses, and is used as a tool in order to engage in further acts of graft and corruption in the name of "fundraising". Perhaps this is different in your country?



> I will agree, however, that anti-science administrations (like the Bush administration in the US, and the Harper administration in Canada), are perfectly capable of cutting research budgets, and have done so most egregiously.


Is that any different from the anti-science administrations of St. Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau - brutal decades which saw most talent flee this country and take refuge elsewhere?

Bush was only "anti-science" because he could not accept that butchering babies for "scientific" experiments was valid, in the same way that Mengele butchering people was questionable "science". I do not see how any of this has anything to do with the Global Warming Industry, and the myriad of fake research being done to pursue the turgid goals of unbridled waste and consumption, and how the whole myth has risen and derailed the very real need to control waste and pollution by various means.


----------



## EvanPitts

It's interesting to see that Bryanc completely agrees with my points, seeing that he has not responded to any of them. beejacon

There has been a lot of scammers in science - just as there have been many scammers in religion. It is human nature. I think that relying on science as a panacea and a miracle cure is just not wise - but rather, a measured approach based on scientific reasoning and processes, with review and critiques, is very important. That is the self-correcting feature at work.

The problem with "Global Warming" is that it is snake oil, a miracle cure all by which we simply can choose not to make any progress or address any issues. Reducing pollution and waste means major changes need to occur, with lots of science and technology at work to address those problems and to foster positive change - but doing those things simply do not carry the simplistic notions and good feelings of addressing "Global Warming" by sweeping all such things under the rug, with Carbon Credits as a sop to those that might have a tinge of remorse.

Of course, buying trees as "Carbon Offsets" is the biggest scam of all - instead, we should be buying vast tracts of land, and seeing it restored to a natural state, with swamps, wet lands, peat bogs, bush lots, prairies, and everything else that is natural and good. We simply have to live more efficiently, with better city planning that discourages connurbation, of social engineering that brings commerce and industry back into neighbourhoods, of practical high speed rail networks with the banning of air travel except for those areas that can't be served by other means, etc...

All of that means progress and innovation, with jobs for people to do, a new economic system, of empowering people, and ending the reign of poverty. However, the big corporates do not wish to have such a system because it will be their ruin, and hence, they put forth Global Warming as their new profit center, where they can continue in the unbridled rape of land, sea and resources without end, all for the almighty dollar that they worship.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Bryanc, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are an honest man and that you sincerely believe what you are saying. I am not buying the bill of goods you are trying to sell. 

Wood floats in water, not air. Scientific observation in air yields different results than in water. Feathers fall faster in a vacuum than in air, etc. If we lived in a vacuum or in water scientific laws would be different. I made these very elementary points and you don't get it.

I see Frank Ogdens point about a University Degree causing brain damage. Those that lead sheltered lives that go directly to university to direct employment in their ivory tower lack perspective and understanding.


----------



## Max

_Wood floats in water, not air. Scientific observation in air yields different results than in water. Feathers fall faster in a vacuum than in air, etc. If we lived in a vacuum or in water scientific laws would be different. I made these very elementary points and you don't get it._

Sometimes wood doesn't float. It gets waterlogged. Rather like some theories, you see.
Really now, who doesn't get what? Many posts in this thread makes me wonder: if there is such a thing as 'bad science,' there must also exist its cheerful companion, bad arguments.

_I see Frank Ogdens point about a University Degree causing brain damage. Those that lead sheltered lives that go directly to university to direct employment in their ivory tower lack perspective and understanding._

I sympathize to a degree with those who scorn higher education, but the corollary of your statement is not true either; people who skip university (or lack the ability to get there in the first place) are not automatically granted enlightened status and/or magical elevation of wisdom.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> _Wood floats in water, not air. Scientific observation in air yields different results than in water. Feathers fall faster in a vacuum than in air, etc. If we lived in a vacuum or in water scientific laws would be different. I made these very elementary points and you don't get it._
> 
> Sometimes wood doesn't float. It gets waterlogged. Rather like some theories, you see.
> Really now, who doesn't get what? Many posts in this thread makes me wonder: if there is such a thing as 'bad science,' there must also exist its cheerful companion, bad arguments.
> 
> _I see Frank Ogdens point about a University Degree causing brain damage. Those that lead sheltered lives that go directly to university to direct employment in their ivory tower lack perspective and understanding._
> 
> I sympathize to a degree with those who scorn higher education, but the corollary of your statement is not true either; people who skip university (or lack the ability to get there in the first place) are not automatically granted enlightened status or and magical elevation of wisdom.


I strongly agree with your last point, Max. My 11 years in university and four degrees do not automatically provide me with an "enlightened status", but this, coupled with real-world experiences, have provided me with knowledge and common sense. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max

Same to you, Dr. G!


----------



## Dr.G.

Great minds think alike. Excelsior.


----------



## EvanPitts

Max said:


> Sometimes wood doesn't float. It gets waterlogged. Rather like some theories, you see.


And sometimes wood flies - like Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose. Wood on other worlds may have different properties, like if a planet had higher atmospheric pressures and lower gravity, wood might be able to float with no problems.

It is like the theorized Carbon worlds - where most things are made out of diamonds...

The problem with this thread is that it has become an attack of various forms, none of which needs to be here. There is no need for attacking religion, since religion is not a factor at all in the pollution crisis; and there is no need to attack science, because science and technology and those engaged in it are actually the solution.

The main problem is that there is a train of thought that makes the observation that the world is warming up, and that warming is entirely caused by human factors (rather than any natural cycle, or solar fluctuations, or whatever), and that the solution is to commoditize Carbon, creating markets and feasting on money. All the while, this train of thought is endlessly engaged in thinking that science will come up with some way of shoving all of this waste into the ground so that mankind can continue to defile nature and live an unsustainable lifestyle of opulence and stupidity.

This train of thought can not release themselves from this consequence, can not imagine for one moment that it would be better for mankind to concentrate on those things that are achievable, that being the reduction of waste, of creating efficiency, of scrapping the notion of a throw away society, of not only using renewable sources for energy, but also to engage in conservation of various sorts. Rather, they wish to use the excuse of Global Warming to justify a program of rampant excess and the unbridled creation of toxins and pollution because "science" can come up with some way of shoving this back into the ground.

The argument for Global Warming fails not because the temperature may be going up or not - but because it grasps at the golden grail where not one iota of anything needs to be rethought or sacrificed.

"Science" brought us many follies, like that the solution for flooding along the Mississippi River was the construction of thousands of miles of levees, dams and engineering works - rather than just moving the towns onto higher ground.

It's the same process by which we observed that people in Africa were "destitute" and were nothing more than "dirt farmers" because they chose a lifestyle that is low stress and is in harmony with the environment. We rushed ahead and tried to pawn off our methods, which saw the local people herded into cities built beside malarial swamps and rivers, then wonder why they died in droves. Same when we saw them without clothing, or simply wearing wraps, so we bundle up our discards and ship them over, which destroyed thousands of locally based textile industries, which ended up increasing the level of poverty.

What is needed is to stop the fixation on Global Warming, and to end the wasteful use of money when it comes to these stupid treaties that go nowhere. In fact, garbage like the GATT and the WTO have done more to trivialize the billions of marginalized people, and have lead to the unprecedented levels of waste because under those treaties, no one is allowed to buy anything that is locally made.

It is all about unintended consequences - and the unintended consequence of the Global Warming Industry is the unbridled levels of waste and pollution that humanity is rushing towards; rather than clamping down and tackling the very real problems that we face, like pollution, toxins, economics, the abolition of poverty and slave wagery.


----------



## Max

_All the while, this train of thought is endlessly engaged in thinking that science will come up with some way of shoving all of this waste into the ground so that mankind can continue to defile nature and live an unsustainable lifestyle of opulence and stupidity._

Science is not an entity. Nor is it an independent agent of change. Please stop referring to it that way. Science is something we attempt to study, ascertain, divine laws from through careful research and experimentation. The application of knowledge derived from scientific method is often what we loosely call technology. Maybe that's what you're talking about here.

_This train of thought can not release themselves from this consequence, can not imagine for one moment that it would be better for mankind to concentrate on those things that are achievable, that being the reduction of waste, of creating efficiency, of scrapping the notion of a throw away society, of not only using renewable sources for energy, but also to engage in conservation of various sorts._

This is so torturously worded, I'm wondering what you are referring to and which traits you are anthropomorphically ascribing to what. If you want to challenge science, it's best to use rational approaches, no?

_Rather, they wish to use the excuse of Global Warming to justify a program of rampant excess and the unbridled creation of toxins and pollution because "science" can come up with some way of shoving this back into the ground._

Ahh, the ubiquitous, nefarious "they." Rather like the boogeymen. Well, even though I think your argument is typically bursting with hyperbole and hazardous twists and turns, on this matter you and I can agree - that is, if I'm reading you right! Yes, depending on technology to save us from ourselves is probably not the brightest thing we can do. Alas, what else is there to do but try flinging said technologies at the proverbial wall, one instance after another, time and time again, and see what sticks? After all, we can't even agree on much of anything in this single thread - why we would expect to reach a global consensus on environmental degradation seems like an implausible dream to me. All our gathered evidence suggests that politics will fail us. We lack a global political body that the planetary masses can believe in.

Technology, that perilous two-edged sword, may be the only useful tool we have left.


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> In Canada, "research" is entirely politicized and subverted to corporate interests as well as various factions of elitists at university campuses, and is used as a tool in order to engage in further acts of graft and corruption in the name of "fundraising".


Because no sane person would take such an extreme position based on third-hand information, I take it you have extensive personal experience in the funding of Canadian research. May I ask on which of the major NSERC funding committees you have served? What was your role that provides you with such an idiosyncratic and intensely negative view of what is generally considered one of the best and least politicized academic granting agencies in the world?


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> It's interesting to see that Bryanc completely agrees with my points, seeing that he has not responded to any of them.


Your points, as usual, are so full of hyperbole, wild leaps, unsupported conclusions, and tortuous logic, that I have very little idea what you're talking about most of the time.

I will leave them to people who have more time to dissect your word-salad.


----------



## bryanc

EvanPitts said:


> The main problem is that there is a train of thought that makes the observation that the world is warming up


Factual observation: the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans is rising.



> and that warming is entirely caused by human factors (rather than any natural cycle, or solar fluctuations, or whatever)


Theory: this increasing temperature is exclusively the result of human activity.

But you've already gone off the rails, because no one in the scientific community has proposed or supported such a theory.



> the solution is to commoditize Carbon, creating markets and feasting on money.


Political/economic position: by creating a market for GHG emission, we could use the power of competition (rather than legislation and the associated inefficiency of government bureaucracy) to reduce pollution.

This now has nothing to do with science and is well beyond my expertise. From what I've read, right wing economists like the idea, and left wingers would prefer to have government do the job. While generally leaning to the left, I'd rather see things done with as little government as possible, so I'd like to see more discussion of this idea, but I can't say I'm convinced it would work.



> this train of thought is endlessly engaged in thinking that science will come up with some way of shoving all of this waste into the ground so that mankind can continue to defile nature and live an unsustainable lifestyle of opulence and stupidity.


Engineering solution: Waste products can be buried for long term storage.

Again, nothing to do with science, but it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


It seems to me that you're completely confused about what science is and isn't. Only the first point in your "train of thought" is even remotely related to the science of climate change, and it's so oversimplified that it doesn't even bear discussing. This supports the position I was taking earlier. You and several other people around here who take very strong stances on this issue, clearly haven't even the vaguest idea of the scientific basis of the argument. So you are simply arguing from a position of ignorance. Even if some of your conclusions are correct, they're correct by accident. You don't know enough about the topic to generate a supportable position.


----------



## EvanPitts

bryanc said:


> Factual observation: the temperature of the atmosphere and oceans is rising.


Factual observation you choose to ignore: the world has been though phases of much higher temperatures, as evidenced by the remains of sub-tropical forests on Ellesmere Island, populated by dinosaurs that had specific adaptations to the low light environments of the high north.



> Theory: this increasing temperature is exclusively the result of human activity.


That has never been shown conclusively, and even if the increase in temperature can be attributed to human activity, it is still far within the bounds of temperature that the Earth has seen historically.



> Political/economic position: by creating a market for GHG emission, we could use the power of competition (rather than legislation and the associated inefficiency of government bureaucracy) to reduce pollution.


Wrong - because they propose a Carbon Market, and do not plan on doing anything at all about GHGs. the Carbon Market is just a way of allowing large corporates to continue in wasteful and polluting practices, while making spare profits from a fake market and by shoving smaller concerns out of business once the large corporates have cornered the fake Carbon market.

Competition will not reduce pollution - it will only increase because the largest font of pollution is not from industries making things, but from shipping penny-ante goods all over the world because competition means that corporations will always go to the cheapest producer of a product, while taking the subsidized costs of transportation as a tax write off.

The legislative route entirely worked, and worked well. We decided that DDT was a noxious toxin that was causing mass extinction - we prohibited it entirely, and the ecosystem rebounded. We did the same with PCBs, with their prohibition in their entirety. We also put large curbs on Acid Rain - which saw lakes and forests rebound; as well as the banning of CFCs, of which we will have benefits, from the restoration of the Ozone Layer, as well as the advancement of technology.

The legislative approach also worked in the case of the Automotive industry, where emissions standards and fuel efficiency were promulgated. But once we stopped the legislative approach and depended upon "markets" and "competition"... What we witnessed was an unbridled race between the manufacturers on who could install the biggest and most inefficient engine into the biggest truck or SUV, while they ignored entire segments of the market that demanded decent and efficient cars.

The legislative approach worked wonders on the Great Lakes, where we no longer have rivers in Ohio bursting into flames, and we no longer have geologists suggesting that we mine the bottom of Hamilton Harbour because there are more heavy metals there than in a heavy metal mine. If it remained up to the competition and markets, the Great Lakes would be a toxic cesspool that would make the Aral Sea look like a freshwater paradise.

It is nice to think of a world where competition would foster conservation, but it doesn't happen, because it is all about short term profits. The only way corporate boards will see anything different is if there is the threat of massive fines, confiscation of their property, and long jail terms.



> While generally leaning to the left, I'd rather see things done with as little government as possible, so I'd like to see more discussion of this idea, but I can't say I'm convinced it would work.


My preference is that we levy massive punative punishments upon those that continue to engage in pollution and wastefilled ways, while giving free enterprise full reign if they take all the measures possible into engaging in sustainable methods of accompishing their tasks. A company that engages in green practices should have less onerous taxation and more benefits; while a company that looks at quarterly profits while engaging in waste and pollution should be crushed. We can only do this by having specific legislative goals in mind, of significant reductions in waste and excesss.

It also requires the Government to lay down ground rules and creating an environment by which responsible companies can profit from green practices. Those companies that allow for telecommuting, or branch out and locate where people live, would benefit; at least for those companies where such things are feasible. Zoning is a major hurdle, we need to have business and industry integrated into neighbourhoods - because more pollution is created by people commuting long distances to and from work than most companies create by doing their thing.

I have no problem with people having a van or a truck. I do have a problem with people having those kinds of vehicles simply to commute long distances to work, and without any effort at car pooling. A big truck does not create waste, only when it is used for stupidity. Locating work places near where people live has many benefits. Not only does it save on gas, it encourages walking, which is excellent exercise, and would increase the health of the nation while curbing the spiral of health care costs.

No Kyoto or Copenhagen can do any of this - they are phony documents that do nothing to eliminate waste or reduce pollution. They are utterly reliant upon a doomsday scenario of Global Warming, and that our "plan" to eliminate this is to continue on our wasteful ways, of burning unprecedented amounts of energy away with such abandon, like importing American corn when there are massive corn fields three miles away from the store. But we will have a "Carbon Market", where the corporates can spend money on Carbon Credits so they can continue to waste and squander resources, and they end up getting that money by cmmoditizing water and reaping profits from an essential element that should be free for all.



> Engineering solution: Waste products can be buried for long term storage.
> Again, nothing to do with science, but it doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


it entirely has everything to do with science, since it is the raison d'etre of the Global Warming Industry, well, next to the almighty dollar.



> Only the first point in your "train of thought" is even remotely related to the science of climate change,


That is because I care not one iota about "climate change" and "calamity" - but rather, take the stand that we should return to the precepts of reducing pollution, reducing energy consumption, reducing opulence and waste, reduce squandering resources, and also believe that we should do these things because it will benefit the entire world. Pollution and toxins will cause the extinction of mankind long before a two degree rise in temperatures ever will.

It's nice to look at Al Gore's films and think about Armaggedon, because it is a sop, it releases everyone from responsibility because it is all about Carbon Markets and Green Industry that will save the day. Nothing in the mantra even hints at personal responsibilities, that we all need to curb our greed and excess, and that all business needs to act responsibly; and that it is entirely ok for Al Gore to fly around the world a hundred times a year, injecting massive amounts of pollution directly into sensitive parts of the atmosphere because there is no profit to be had by having high speed rail anywhere. it also demonizes the satanic coal fired power plants, rather than just saying that we are dependent upon them because we waste far too much energy on stupidity - like having to drive to another city to buy some screws because the neighbourhood hardware store has 



> You don't know enough about the topic to generate a supportable position.


I think my position is entirely supportable - because it is those things we need to do, because no amount of Global Warming - Pump Waste Into The Ground will do us any good at all. The only thing that will be damaged by attacking waste and pollution are those dinosaur industries and businesses that rely on waste and pollution in order to reap obscene profits. If we follow the Global Warming crowd, then we are doomed to useless scraps of paper like Kyoto, and ever increasing control by the multinational corporates that will commoditize all of the essentials of life.


----------



## KC4

> This is big. Al Gore is now saying carbon dioxide isn’t actually to blame for most of the warming we saw until 2001:
> 
> 
> Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.


The full article: Gore clears carbon dioxide of most blame | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog


Gore: World's First Carbon Billionaire


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, Gore as usual and at his best when he's full of sh!t.

If there was a Nobel prize for the worst Nobel prize ever given, Gore would be a hands down winner.


----------



## MacDoc

> ore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.


You guys are worse than pathetic.....to the point of embarrassment ....

Do you even read your own posts...

Methane is short lived but powerful - orginally 25 x the impact over the short period in the atmosphere.....
It's no where near the impact of C02 which is effectively permanent.
Carbon is forever : article : Nature Reports Climate Change
The C02 released 100 years ago is still warming the climate - the cows farts then are not.

The recent paper has determined that methane has an impact 33 times instead of 25 times and that* as POLICY approach reducing methane may have faster return in the short term view.*

The original paper



> Published online 29 October 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1049
> News
> *Aerosols make methane more potent*
> Air pollution linked more closely to climate concerns.
> 
> Katharine Sanderson
> 
> Aerosols' complicated influence on our climate just got more threatening: they could make methane a more potent greenhouse gas than previously realized, say climate modellers.
> 
> Drew Shindell, at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, and colleagues ran a range of computerized models to show that methane's global warming potential is greater when combined with aerosols — atmospheric particles such as dust, sea salt, sulphates and black carbon.


Access : Aerosols make methane more potent : Nature News

The policy aspect....



> Methane impact on global warming 'much greater than thought'
> 
> Methane has a much greater impact on global warming than previously thought according to a new study *that could change the way the world tackles global warming.*
> 
> By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
> Published: 12:00PM GMT 30 Oct 2009
> 
> Methane is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping Photo: PAUL WINTER/GETTY IMAGES
> 
> *Already, scientists consider methane as the second* most damaging greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide. It is mostly emitted by agriculture, most famously from cows burping but also from ploughing soil and allowing vegetable matter to rot. Landfill is also a major cause of methane and the burning of coal and natural gas.
> Before it was thought every tonne of methane was around 25 times more damaging to the atmosphere than every tonne of carbon dioxide.
> 
> However a new study by the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies has found methane is 33 times more damaging if the effects of interaction with other airborne pollutants is included.
> The report, published in Science, found that the warming effects of methane are increased through its interaction with aerosols like sulphate molecules.
> The finding has implications for any climate change deal decided by the UN in Copenhagen in December.
> 
> At the moment targets are focused on cutting carbon dioxide but scientists are now arguing for more emphasis on cutting other greenhouse gases as well -especially *because methane breaks down more quickly in the atmosphere so cuts will have a more immediate effect.*
> 
> Dr Chris Huntingford, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said the study could influence climate change negotiations.
> 
> "This is an excellent analysis demonstrating that methane emissions have the potential to add more future warming than hereto realised. *This new research complements the well-established result that carbon dioxide emissions have been responsible for a large fraction of the global warming observed since pre-industrial times," he said*.


Methane impact on global warming 'much greater than thought' - Telegraph

Got it now?? 

Pathetic hardly covers it........I'd almost move it to purposefully stupid.......anythong to deny reality

This graph is based entirely on measured changes.....not a model in sight.....










Get over it.....

*it's warming
we're responsible for most of it
nations are meeting in Copenhagen right now to discuss best method of dealing with it..*

This paper provides an opportunity for additional tools to slow the warming asmethane capture or avoidance has a very different series of approaches than C02.

For instance....eat more kangaroo......
Eat kangaroo to help fight climate change

You know it might be a good idea to learn about the geo-systems of only planet you have......

start here

Climate book - new and very up to date - worth the time
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf

Background
Introduction - Summary


----------



## FeXL

Speaking of pathetic and, I daresay, embarrassing...

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit hacked.

From the author of the blog:


> An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
> 
> We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to
> be kept under wraps.
> 
> We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents
> 
> The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files.
> 
> It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people.


From one of the emails in the hacked/distributed info:


> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I’ve just completed *Mike’s Nature trick* of adding in the real temps
> to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
> 1961 for *Keith’s to hide the decline*. Mike’s series got the annual
> land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
> N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
> for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
> data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
> Thanks for the comments, Ray.
> 
> Cheers
> Phil
> 
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email [email protected]
> NR4 7TJ
> UK


Emphasis mine.

While I cannot attest to the validity of the information, if a tenth part of this correspondence is legit, then "It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag."

<grabs the popcorn...>

Edit: Apparently Phil Jones confirms the leak is real.


----------



## Macfury

Good one FeXL! I have no doubt that this type of thing goes on all the time for issues "too important" to be swayed by actual data. 

I recall the crusade by one guy who actally went to visit all of the temperature monitoring stations listed in the U.S. and was horrified to find that many of them were damaged or virtually inoperative, while a large number were originally located in fields and forest, but were now--due to development--surrounded by malls, sub-divisions, even exhaust vents. No adjustment was ever made for the change in micro-climate.


----------



## FeXL

Update-

Another email from the data:



> From: “Michael E. Mann”
> To: Tim Osborn
> Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400 Tim, Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000 AD 1400 AD 1600 I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you’ll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case—its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600—its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are! Let me know if that helps. Thanks, mike p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. *This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…* the hadley papers 1059664704.txt


Again, emphasis mine.

Linky.


----------



## FeXL

More from Moose & Squirrel.

Make of it what you will.


----------



## ehMax

FeXL said:


> Speaking of pathetic and, I daresay, embarrassing...
> 
> University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit hacked.
> 
> From the author of the blog:
> 
> 
> From one of the emails in the hacked/distributed info:
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine.
> 
> While I cannot attest to the validity of the information, if a tenth part of this correspondence is legit, then "It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag."
> 
> <grabs the popcorn...>
> 
> Edit: Apparently Phil Jones confirms the leak is real.





Macfury said:


> Good one FeXL! I have no doubt that this type of thing goes on all the time for issues "too important" to be swayed by actual data.
> 
> I recall the crusade by one guy who actally went to visit all of the temperature monitoring stations listed in the U.S. and was horrified to find that many of them were damaged or virtually inoperative, while a large number were originally located in fields and forest, but were now--due to development--surrounded by malls, sub-divisions, even exhaust vents. No adjustment was ever made for the change in micro-climate.


This really is getting to the point of pathetic and embarrassing on ehMac. 
Let's ignore overwhelming scientific data and consensus, the fact that major conferences from all nations are organized to deal with the program, the fact that this was one of the major topics with Obama's visit to China, and rely on random blogs of leaked information found on Russian FTP sites. 

Seriously, it's ridiculous and quite personally, its embarrassing the level of discussion about such an important issue has deteriorated to this.


----------



## SINC

Very interesting . . .



> Fromhil Jones To: ray bradley ,[email protected][snipped], [email protected] [snipped]
> 
> Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
> 
> Date:Tue,16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
> 
> Cc: [email protected][snipped],t.osbo[email protected][snipped]
> 
> Dear Ray,Mike and Malcolm,
> 
> Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature* trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.*


----------



## Macfury

ehMax said:


> This really is getting to the point of pathetic and embarrassing on ehMac.
> Let's ignore overwhelming scientific data and consensus, the fact that major conferences from all nations are organized to deal with the program, the fact that this was one of the major topics with Obama's visit to China, and rely on random blogs of leaked information found on Russian FTP sites.
> 
> Seriously, it's ridiculous and quite personally, its embarrassing the level of discussion about such an important issue has deteriorated to this.


The nations of the world are becoming excited about the possibility of taxing their citizens to death and individual politicians are hoping to extend their power--no secret behind this movement.

Apparently you haven't read Jones' admissions that the data really was hacked.


----------



## SINC

ehMax said:


> This really is getting to the point of pathetic and embarrassing on ehMac.
> Let's ignore overwhelming scientific data and consensus, the fact that major conferences from all nations are organized to deal with the program, the fact that this was one of the major topics with Obama's visit to China, and rely on random blogs of leaked information found on Russian FTP sites.
> 
> Seriously, it's ridiculous and quite personally, its embarrassing the level of discussion about such an important issue has deteriorated to this.


Exposing fraud is in no way embarrassing. In fact it is a public service and you ought to be proud some members have the courage to do so.

This is not deterioration in any way, rather it is righting a serious and well engineered deception.

As for your Russian FTP site comments, did you miss reading the part about the British admitting the documents are authentic?


----------



## bgw

Now the authoritave news sites are getting in on the hacked news. Here is a article from the Telegraph in the U.K.


----------



## FeXL

ehMax said:


> This really is getting to the point of pathetic and embarrassing on ehMac.
> Let's ignore overwhelming scientific data and consensus, the fact that major conferences from all nations are organized to deal with the program, the fact that this was one of the major topics with Obama's visit to China, and rely on random blogs of leaked information found on Russian FTP sites.
> 
> Seriously, it's ridiculous and quite personally, its embarrassing the level of discussion about such an important issue has deteriorated to this.


I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Mayor.

The information appears to be real and the hack has been confirmed. 

It's not like I'm sitting here rubbing my hands together in glee. 

I'm not. 

Actually, I'm quite disappointed because, frankly, this will make all science suspect in the eyes of many, no matter what the outcome. This certainly is not what science or society needs, now or ever.

I've said it before & I maintain it today: I don't care what the outcome is, as long as the conclusion arrives via good, hard science.

I haven't hanged anyone yet. I sincerely hope that this is all explainable. If, in fact, it does represent fraud, then I hope the fraudsters receive what they deserve.

Time will tell.


----------



## bgw

FeXL said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way, Mr. Mayor.
> 
> The information appears to be real and the hack has been confirmed.
> 
> It's not like I'm sitting here rubbing my hands together in glee.
> 
> I'm not.
> 
> Actually, I'm quite disappointed because, frankly, this will make all science suspect in the eyes of many, no matter what the outcome. This certainly is not what science or society needs, now or ever.
> 
> I've said it before & I maintain it today: I don't care what the outcome is, as long as the conclusion arrives via good, hard science.
> 
> I haven't hanged anyone yet. I sincerely hope that this is all explainable. If, in fact, it does represent fraud, then I hope the fraudsters receive what they deserve.
> 
> Time will tell.


Yes, this could be the beginning of a big problem. The snake oil salesmen of the world are rejoicing. We've had compromised medical studies, biased climate studies, etc. Homeopathy, etc. will be come popular, and in the end more people will suffer.


----------



## ehMax

SINC said:


> Exposing fraud is in no way embarrassing. In fact it is a public service and you ought to be proud some members have the courage to do so.
> 
> This is not deterioration in any way, rather it is righting a serious and well engineered deception.


I'm sure 9/11 conspiracy theorists, alien abduction alarmists, moon landing hoax advocates and other tin-foil conspiracy theorists feel they are doing a public service as well. 

This has nothing to do with courage or any shred of logical reasoning... when we start discrediting overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of rumours of exposed email exchanges found on a secret Russian FTP server, the plot has been lost. 

I'm not saying anyone should blindly believe anything, but a shred of objectivity would be nice.


----------



## ehMax

bgw said:


> Now the authoritave news sites are getting in on the hacked news. Here is a article from the Telegraph in the U.K.




"James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. 

It's become a frenzied fanatical movement with extremes on both sides. Quite frankly, the noise has become tiresome and what's lost is any resemblance of objectivity.


----------



## SINC

ehMax said:


> This has nothing to do with courage or any shred of logical reasoning... when we start discrediting overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of rumours of exposed email exchanges found on a secret Russian FTP server, the plot has been lost.


I point out once again that the hacked material has been confirmed as authentic by the authoring agency it was stolen from. That speaks volumes as to its authenticity. And since they have admitted they are real e-mails, they also admit they took part in the doctoring of data to eliminate the fact that the earth is cooling, not warming.

That makes the Russian FTP site you keep referring to irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: No sense in attacking someone's religion, eh?


----------



## BigDL

ehMax said:


> I'm sure 9/11 conspiracy theorists, alien abduction alarmists, moon landing hoax advocates and other tin-foil conspiracy theorists feel they are doing a public service as well.
> 
> This has nothing to do with courage or any shred of logical reasoning... when we start discrediting overwhelming scientific consensus in favour of rumours of exposed email exchanges found on a secret Russian FTP server, the plot has been lost.
> 
> I'm not saying anyone should blindly believe anything, but a shred of objectivity would be nice.


Mr. Mayor when the smoke and mirrors are present don't you dare be rational. Funny of the 615 climate scientists, publishing in peer reviewed journals, as mentioned here;


cbc The Current said:


> Jim Prall devotes a lot of time and energy to keeping tabs on climate skeptics and climate scientists. He is a computer network manager at the University of Toronto. And he keeps a huge database of scientists who subscribe to -- and dissent from -- the view that climate change is both dangerous and caused by humans. He tracks how much they publish, where they publish and what their research is actually about. So we asked him to walk us through his database and his methods.
> 
> According to Jim Prall's database, of the 615 scientists who have published more than a hundred peer-reviewed papers on climate change, the skeptics are outnumbered 601 to 14.


 linky 
 http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/82170-health-lies.html

601 scientists in the field colluded to embarrass me and you. It's the brave 14 along certain Ehmacians who know the truth have all virtue and can see what is there. When it's big coal, big oil and big dirty electrical generation that are trying to save us from the United Nations, the International Government conspiracy to taxes us all into oblivion. Of course the 601 scientists will be the OverLords of the NEW WORLD LOGIC and TAX CONSORTIUM CO-OP and COLLECTIVE.


----------



## KC4

SINC said:


> I point out once again that the hacked material has been confirmed as authentic by the authoring agency it was stolen from. That speaks volumes as to its authenticity. And since they have admitted they are real e-mails, they also admit they took part in the doctoring of data to eliminate the fact that the earth is cooling, not warming.


Everybody finds taking responsibility for great work easy. I have to admire the courage of those who take responsibility for questionable or less than admirable actions. 

Now the REASON(S) they took responsibly is also intriguing. Did they do so because they have plausible explanations and are prepared to provide them? Did they do so because the cat is uncontrollably out of the bag and somebody there had the wisdom to realize that this is the best way to do (long term) damage control? (Although it's gonna hurt like hell for a bit...and somebody's bound to lose their job, at the minimum) 

Or is it a combination of, or none of the above? I don't know of course, so will not even hazard a guess. Only time will tell. 

I find it sad to see what appears to be probably otherwise very intelligent people possibly being swayed off their morals by an unrelenting NEED to be right. The end may be great but it doesn't necessarily justify the means. 

I also have to wonder in these types of situations if there is some job protectionism going on. If you and your colleagues have worked like hell at something for years to prove /achieve a desired end result, but then find out though the process that maybe your fundamental data isn't what you predicted/need, it's awfully tempting to fudge the numbers.

Reminds me of my past working on the development, auditing,review and approval of various Oil & Gas projects. When the oil or gas reserve data turned out less than required to make a project fly, we used to joke that the project's proponents better get out there quick and bury some more dinosaurs in the field to make those numbers go around. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc

Tempest meet teapot....

Regardless of whether there is anything material in the specific it's like questioning stem research because a S Korean researcher scammed peer review.

Meanwhile



> *American Physical Society sets climate deniers straight
> in no uncertain terms....*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite seven months of intense effort to recruit physicists to sign a politically motivated petition disputing anthropogenic climate change, a mere, 0.45% of the American Physical Society’s 47,000 members signed on.
> 
> It’s a humiliating defeat for the climate change Deniers who make such false claims as ”many scientists dispute’ and ‘there is no consensus. The Petition drive was announced in the prestigous journal Nature, APS publications, numerous popular and electronic media, as well as heavily promoted by the petition organizers. Despite all of that effort and publicity, a mere 0.45% was all that they could manage.
> 
> Consider that the success rate for Nigerian email scams is estimated to be 0.1% to 0.2%, ie roughly speaking about the same. (Tip of the Hat to Grumbine for the genesis of seeking a comparison)
> continues
> 
> 
> 
> Only 0.45% of Physicists sign Denier Petition Greenfyre’s
> 
> The physics don;t change despite wishful thinking on the part of some....
> and that's hardly all recently
> 
> 
> 
> Last month, scientific institutions released a statement about climate change.
> 
> Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. …
> 
> contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science
> 
> If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.
> 
> Who were those minor little organizations that put their institutional power and reputation behind those words?
> 
> American Association for the Advancement of Science
> American Chemical Society
> American Geophysical Union
> American Institute of Biological Sciences
> American Meteorological Society
> American Society of Agronomy
> American Society of Plant Biologists
> American Statistical Association
> Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
> Botanical Society of America
> Crop Science Society of America
> Ecological Society of America
> Natural Science Collections
> Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
> Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
> Society of Systematic Biologists
> Soil Science Society of America
> University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
> 
> APS’s continuing review of the petition is what led to it not being among them.
> 
> And, a month later, the APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement and, implicitly, joins those 18 institutions in seeking to inject science into the policy discussion about how best to tackle climate change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 18 leading scientific organizations send letter to Senators affirming the climate is changing, “human activities are the primary driver,” impacts are projected to worsen “substantially” and “If we are to avoid the most s
> 
> I found it amusing that the denidiots were trumpeting HadCru3 just recently as contradicting NASA on a small measurement statistic
> 
> Anything to avoid acknowledging reality
> 
> _it's getting warmer
> we're primarily responsible._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but *in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole.* (Credit: Copyright UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao)_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.
> 
> Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."
> The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.
> If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across US
> 
> put away the tin foil hats....you;ll sweat a lot if you don't
Click to expand...


----------



## groovetube

wait but mannyP says all the ice is growing. It's cooling, and getting better, not worse. This can't be right macdoc. 

And mr macfury on da interweb says it ain't so either. He said google told him.


----------



## MacDoc

Gavin's comments

snip



> *The CRU hack*
> Filed under:
> 
> * Climate Science
> 
> — group @ 20 November 2009
> 
> As many of you will be aware, a large number of emails from the University of East Anglia webmail server were hacked recently (Despite some confusion generated by Anthony Watts, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Hadley Centre which is a completely separate institution). As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here. We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.


continues

RealClimate: The CRU hack

•••

Maybe Manny should wonder why some interior glaciers in the Eastern Antarctic the driest desert in the world are showing modest gains .... ( like this is new )

He should also keep his sunblock SPF high for his kids....

Some anthro influences are surprisingly complex....and connected....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> *American Physical Society sets climate deniers straight
> in no uncertain terms....*


160 members signed a petition to have the ACS review a fanciful social advocacy statement that is clearly not backed up by science. A six-member panel decided they liked the statement. You make it sound like it was put to some sort of vote, or that the majority actually supported the original statement.


----------



## MacDoc

and* 99.45% of the APS members rejected the premise of the petition* despite high profile ads and appeals in the likes of *Nature* and *Science* journals.....
only 0.45% supported it ..

It's a monumental face plant and indicative of the stupid lengths climate reality deniers will go to try and manufacture controversy....
Manufactroversy

And of course you fail to comment on the other international science bodies that are in full agreement.
_It's warming and will continue to do so
We're primarily responsible due mostly to fossil fule use
Time to avoid the most serious consequences of fossil fuel carbon release is limited_

The science and the world nations at Copenhagen have moved on despite the wailing and gnashing from the denidiots.
Policy and best practice is far from settled or obvious....you'd gain more credibility focusing on that where there is real issues to be decided and dealt with rather than flat earthing the physics of GHG which have been established for over a century....

Why there might even be common ground on the poor results of carbon trading - but you can't even get past the basic physical reality of climate change.....so you get assigned to woo woo land.....and well deserved.


----------



## Macfury

They didn't reject it, they just failed to get into the fight to try to sway the six-member committee. It was never up for a vote. The dissenting members were enough to get the committeee to vote again, and they supported their original positions.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> As people are also no doubt aware the breaking into of computers and releasing private information is illegal, and regardless of how they were obtained, posting private correspondence without permission is unethical. We therefore aren’t going to post any of the emails here.


Ha! Illegal it is. Irrelevant it is not.


----------



## SINC

People can post all the long winded articles they want. The only relevant fact here is that the Brits admitted the e-mails posted are authentic and they clearly show an attempt at a coverup. No more need be said.


----------



## groovetube

that's right sinc. you just hold on tight to that.


----------



## MacDoc

The physics don't change - neither does the tin foil hat crowd.

Funny Sinc et al did not post up this



> Apr 24, 2009
> *Their Own Scientists Refuted Fossil Fuels Industry Climate Change Denial*
> 
> by Turkana
> Oh, the charm of the fossil fuels industry. In an effort to prevent public awareness of the growing climate crisis they do so much to create, they concocted an astroturf front with the Orwellian moniker Global Climate Coalition. The purpose of which was, of course, to deny its industry's role in creating climate change. Thereby exacerbating the problem of climate change. Which does, actually, make it a coalition on global climate. A coalition determined to recklessly play a giant chemistry experiment with the climate, as long as its industry can make massive profits off it.
> 
> According to today's New York Times:
> 
> _For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
> “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue
> _
> And it should come as no surprise, then, to learn that this astroturf front was so determined to deny its industry's role in causing climate change that it actually engaged its own scientists. Who engaged in acts of science. And determined that, um, well, the fossil fuels industry does actually contribute to climate change. Oops.
> 
> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
> 
> “_*The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,”* the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995_.


Now that's from the oil industry's own scientists way back almost 15 years ago.
and you think a few emails will change the reality of what the world is meeting in Copenhagen to deal with??.....

what was that about coverups Sinc....?? it's been clear for years where that particular word is best applied.
You don't want to say more because you HAVE nothing to say on the science......

_It's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible
The world is meeting in Copenhagen to deal with it
_

No amount of wiggle and smirky sound bites gets by that reality - try and divert attention all you want.


----------



## SINC

Copenhagen is already being billed as a failure before it even starts. No agreement will be reached there is the prediction commonly agreed upon. Another waste of time. :yawn:


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> wait but mannyP says all the ice is growing. It's cooling, and getting better, not worse. This can't be right macdoc.
> 
> And mr macfury on da interweb says it ain't so either. He said google told him.


I must have really made a mark for you to single me out in a separate thread. :lmao:

The proof is in the pudding. I even had proof to backup my claim the ice is growing up north despite your insistance that it's but a "smidge". But, feel free to continue the ad hominem attacks. 

P.S. You'll note that the map MacDoc shows is of the US whereas mine were of the arctic. Just a geography lesson for ya. :heybaby:


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> Ooh. Now it's getting personal.
> 
> I must have really made a mark for you to single me out in a separate thread. :lmao:


this is an internet forum manny (duh). It's really, not that serious. You make a dumb statement, and I make fun of it. So what.

I take pretty much most things here with a grain of salt, a hair of humor (or more at times), and go back to the real world where face to face conversation is king.


----------



## MannyP Design

Of course you do... continue.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Copenhagen is already being billed as a failure before it even starts. No agreement will be reached there is the prediction commonly agreed upon. Another waste of time. :yawn:


no one really wants to do anything about it Sinc. It's about money. o it's really no big surprise to me at all. Harper and co. (insert any other canadian leader really) are just as happy (relieved?) that the others don't want to commit, so they can come home, act really concerned since the recent study shows 3/4s of Canadians are embarrassed apparently that we are do nothings, and say well we really tried! Really we did!

Oh come on. Huge money interests in the tar sands, billing Canada as an "energy superpower" (ontario can go %^%#@ itself) and just how stupid, do you think we are...

If things go down the road I expect they will, years down the road people will wake up to the environmental devastation of the tar sands, and likely Harper will be er, tarred ad feathered over it.

But it won't matter at all. The damage will be done, the huge money interests will have gone in, made their cash, and left us, or you in Alberta, with the cleanup bill.

And this is what we think, is good leadership.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> Of course you do... continue.


well if you are in Toronto at any time, you have an open invitation to my shop and you can see for yourself.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.


I see. So in in 1995 they were more sure of it than they are today, when the data no longer supports those conclusions. 

But it does make me laugh to see you screaming "Those scientists are funded by big oil!!!" every time you spot a "denier." Now you're wrapping yourself in a big fuzzy blanket because: "Even scientists funded by the oil industry agreed with global warming fears."

I guess oil money only taints them when you don't agree. You're a damned peach!


----------



## eMacMan

FWIW the opposing view is that warming is caused mainly by old Sol. As the oceans warm the CO2 they have trapped is released resulting in the close correlation between CO2 levels and warming.

If the alarmists view is correct that CO2 causes warming, then the additional CO2 released by the oceans as they warm should accelerate warming. Instead we saw a peak in 2007 a year or 2 after the solar activity peak. The past 2 years have seen a definite cooling trend which is reflected in the growth of the summer Arctic ice pack, one of the coldest Octobers on record here in Southern Alberta, and surprise surprise a very quiescent sun.

Now I know the Gored worshippers won't be convinced until Sinc and I are buried under a half mile of ice and snow but personally I go with the guys whose predictions are accurate. At this point the Sol group has the decided edge.

FWIW I never trust anyone that wears a Rolex. I did not worship Jerry Falwell, Jim Baker or Ted Haggerty any more than I buy into the Gospel according to Al Gore. So far I seem to be batting a thousand.


----------



## MacGuiver

This is interesting.

Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com

and for those that are going to automatically dismiss the story because its on Fox News

BBC News - Hackers target leading climate research unit

Seems hackers got into the files of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia and uploaded 61mb of confidential files on a russian server. Among the files are alleged incriminating emails of scientists discussing cooking the books.

I find it funny though that many mainstream media outlets didn't report the incident at all or failed to mention the alleged emails suggesting fudging data. CBC news had nothing, BBC reported the incident but left out the reports of damning emails.

Interesting.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave

Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


----------



## SINC

Yep, it's all about the money folks. Meanwhile GW has stopped dead in its tracks. 



> At least the weather in Copenhagen is likely to be cooperating. The Danish Meteorological Institute predicts that temperatures in December, when the city will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference, will be one degree above the long-term average.
> 
> Otherwise, however, not much is happening with global warming at the moment. The Earth's average temperatures have stopped climbing since the beginning of the millennium, and it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year.
> Ironically, climate change appears to have stalled in the run-up to the upcoming world summit in the Danish capital, where thousands of politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, business leaders and environmental activists plan to negotiate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. *Billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations.*


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Yep, it's all about the money folks. Meanwhile GW has stopped dead in its tracks.


Absolutely. Everyone climbs on board the carbon cash wagon the moment they're promised their cut of the proceeds.


----------



## groovetube

you guys are a quick study I tells ya.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





SINC said:


> People can post all the long winded articles they want. The only relevant fact here is that the Brits admitted the e-mails posted are authentic and they clearly show an attempt at a coverup. No more need be said.


on the balance of probabilities epic fail


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Everyone climbs on board the carbon cash wagon the moment they're promised their cut of the proceeds.


What carbon cash wagon? Is it licensed?


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Ha! Illegal it is. Irrelevant it is not.


Admissible it is not. No evidence. Failure! Failure! Failure!


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> on the balance of probabilities epic fail


Here is all the evidence you need:

Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable

Read it and weep.


----------



## MacDoc

Deniers chortle at purloined emails, real world climate gets more unstable, just what the climate researchers were dealing with, fancy that  

_one way or another gonna getcha getcha getcha_

*GB drowns...*



> Gordon Brown has pledged an extra £1m to help flood-hit communities in Cumbria, which yesterday suffered *the worst downpour in British history, with 314mm – more than a foot of rain – falling in 24 hours.*
> Brown announced the funding on a visit to the flood-stricken county where PC Bill Barker died after a bridge collapsed.
> More than 1,300 households across Cumbria have been affected, with hundreds of people displaced and more than 1,000 homes left without power. About 100 people remain in emergency shelters.
> A thorough search of houses affected by the flooding began this morning, as the emergency services advised people not to return to their homes yet and forecasters predicted fresh downpours.
> The Met Office has predicted another 15mm (0.5in) to 40mm (1.6in) of rain in Cumbria today. Four bridges collapsed in the county and 11 remain closed due to fast-flowing floodwaters.
> There are four severe flood warnings in force in Cumbria and 19 flood warnings across Scotland, northern England, the Midlands and Wales. There are flood watches in another 50 areas.


Flood-hit Cumbria braces for more rain | Environment | guardian.co.uk

*Australia cooks*



> *South Australia Experiences Record Heat*
> Source: Government of Australia Posted on: 17th November 2009
> 
> *Adelaide has experienced the first spring heatwave ever recorded across the entire Adelaide temperature record back to 1887* with 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November.
> Summary:
> First ever Spring Heatwave in Adelaide
> The highest ever average maximum temperature for Adelaide over the first 15 days of November
> Heat records broken across many Regional Centres


South Australia Experiences Record Heat | Gov Monitor

do keep denying reality....the climate community doesn't - neither do those meeting in Copenhagen

Do you really think the physical environment is paying any attention to the denidiots?
The energy gains continue regardless of whether you acknowledge reality or not.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc--this may come as a shock to you, but various places around the globe will experience records all the time: record high temperatures, record low temperatures, record drought, record rainfall in a certain period of time. It cracks me up to see you get so excited about isolated incidents, since you jump down the throatd of people who use a single cold winter as proof thst your precious warming is not occurring.



> Do you really think the physical environment is paying any attention to the denidiots?


The physical environment pays attention to nobody--warmists included--any fool can see that.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Here is all the evidence you need:
> 
> Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
> 
> Read it and weep.


 X No marks! Proves nothing! 
On the balance of probabilities the evidence is with the over whelming support of climatologists who say climate change is because of human activity.

Where is any evidence that the emails are relate to anything of any importance. What information fooled climatologists in published papers. Without evidence you have no argument. Just opinion. .


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> X No marks! Proves nothing!
> On the balance of probabilities the evidence is with the over whelming support of climatologists who say climate change is because of human activity.
> 
> Where is any evidence that the emails are relate to anything of any importance. What information fooled climatologists in published papers. Without evidence you have no argument. Just opinion. .


Which is precisely what you have. End of discussion.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Which is precisely what you have. End of discussion.


SINC: Clearly this one has touched the rawest of nerves. I love the comments in this thread saying that since the evidence was obtained illegally, it doesn't count!!!???

This is science, not some police procedural.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC: Clearly this one has touched the rawest of nerves. I love the comments in this thread saying that since the evidence was obtained illegally, it doesn't count!!!???
> 
> This is science, not some police procedural.


Yeah MF, they hate it when they find out they've been had.


----------



## groovetube

even more brainless, is the idea that a few, possibly discredited results, wipes out an entire majority of world climatologists overwhelming support, and evidence of man made global warming.

So once again, you guys hang on tight to this. Because, you really haven't got much else.

So far, a pair of internet 'superstars' haven't been able to show they are smarter than the entire world's climatologists position. We've had a few laughs about the bogus list of the apparent list that dissent, I wonder how long it'll be before that appears again.

Perhaps you smart fellahs can go et some papers published...


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> even more brainless, is the idea that a few, possibly discredited results, wipes out an entire majority of world climatologists overwhelming support, and evidence of man made global warming.
> 
> So once again, you guys hang on tight to this. Because, you really haven't got much else.
> 
> So far, a pair of internet 'superstars' haven't been able to show they are smarter than the entire world's climatologists position. We've had a few laughs about the bogus list of the apparent list that dissent, I wonder how long it'll be before that appears again.
> 
> Perhaps you smart fellahs can go et some papers published...


Sad to see the results of brainwashin', ain't it MF?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Sad to see the results of brainwashin', ain't it MF?


oh Sinc down boy. Surely you can see the lunacy of what you are suggesting.

I am not a climatologist, nor an expert on the subject. I couldn't possibly tell you for 100% sure the theories on climate change are bullet proof. Neither can you, ether way. However I have a few neurons that tend to fire most of the time that even I can figure this out.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> However I have a few neurons that tend to fire most of the time that even I can figure this out.


Great, go ahead and fire 'em up then. 

That way you can explain to us why the earth has been cooling for the past decade or so now.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> SINC: Clearly this one has touched the rawest of nerves. I love the comments in this thread saying that since the evidence was obtained illegally, it doesn't count!!!???
> 
> This is science, not some police procedural.


 Where are the data to support or the hypothesis? Conclusions can't have circular logic to reach a conclusion. See how that works.
Science relies on facts to sustain conclusions. 



Sinc said:


> Which is precisely what you have. End of discussion.


 Where are the facts the who, the what, the when, the where, the why. Opinions are not facts. What is the context for the emails under discussion. Are all the emails about one matter or a number of matters. Which published paper or papers were affected as a result of any action or non action?

I now see the faith or fantasy some members represent as science. Confusion between science fact and science fiction perhaps?


----------



## Macfury

THE...EARTH...IS...COOLING. Has been since 1998. I don't think we need to get too esoteric about this.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Here is all the evidence you need:
> 
> Alleged CRU Emails - Searchable
> 
> Read it and weep.


If you've ever doubted the CBC and other media outlets are so deeply biased and promoters of the leftwing agenda, they haven't reported a word of this story. You can bet if some hacker posted some alleged emails of Sarah Palin's with some hint of an affair or her favourite panties they'd be scrambling the jets to Alaska to give wall to wall coverage of the story. Just pathetic journalism. At least the BBC reported the breach though they chose to be mum on the alleged emails implicating fraud.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> THE...EARTH...IS...COOLING. Has been since 1998. I don't think we need to get too esoteric about this.


For the right thinking individual, it is what it is therefore it is and if you add a Palin "you betchya" and  the logic becomes ironclad. No further proof required.


----------



## adagio

How many of you have bothered to read anything in SINC's link? I suggest you might like to have a look. There is one hell of a lot of damning stuff there. The spin doctors are going to have their work cut out for them trying to clean up this mess. The cat is out of the bag. 

For fun Google "Hadley hacked".


----------



## MacDoc

Got your tin foil hat ready....??
better call the military....

.oh yeah they're already on it......



> *Nature Reports Climate Change *
> Published online: 19 November 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2009.120
> 
> *The war against warming
> Military and intelligence experts become increasingly focused on the "climate security" threat. Keith Kloor reports.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti, the UK's climate and energy security envoy_
> 
> PA
> Shortly before Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti came to Washington DC on 29 October to discuss the links between climate change and geopolitical instability, the stage was being set on both sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> In September, Morisetti was appointed as the United Kingdom's newly minted climate and energy security envoy. Later in the same month, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) announced it was opening a special centre on climate change, which would assess "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts and heightened competition for natural resources". In October, the UK government then unveiled a glossy, colour-coded map detailing how global warming could lead to water and food shortages, extended drought, mass migration and violent conflicts, if action to curtail greenhouse gases wasn't taken at the upcoming Copenhagen summit.


continues
The war against warming : article : Nature Reports Climate Change


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> For the right thinking individual, it is what it is therefore it is and if you add a Palin "you betchya" and  the logic becomes ironclad. No further proof required.


coffee. Spit out.
:clap:


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Great, go ahead and fire 'em up then.
> 
> That way you can explain to us why the earth has been cooling for the past decade or so now.


well you better get on writing that paper. There's an entire world's community of climatologists you and macfury need to prove wrong.

Get to it.


----------



## Macfury

Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International




> The planet's temperature curve rose sharply for almost 30 years, as global temperatures increased by an average of 0.7 degrees Celsius (1.25 degrees Fahrenheit) from the 1970s to the late 1990s. "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."





> Just a few weeks ago, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius -- in other words, a standstill.


----------



## groovetube

omg. you know, now that you guys have posted the same headline for like the tenth time, I think it's become proof positive.

Hallelujah is in order.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Don't repeat the fact that 2 +2 = 4 too many times, or people will begin to doubt it's true!


----------



## groovetube

you betcha!


----------



## bryanc

Yep. Them scientists don't know nutthin. As long as we've got a bunch of right-wing deniers, god-botherers, and oil company shills to keep us distracted, we can keep laughing at the climate nerds until it becomes somebody else's problem.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> ...we can keep laughing at the climate nerds until it becomes somebody else's problem.


No need to marginalize the climate nerds. Even though they're wrong, we can still afford them their dignity.


----------



## groovetube

hmmm.

anonymous libertarian internet troll, world climatologist community.

Tough one.

Becoming a real knee slapper this eh?


----------



## sharonmac09

Macfury said:


> Stagnating Temperatures: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International











This quote above is only a fraction of a snip of the whole article and this poster had conveniently omitted the crux of it. "In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal" is the salient point of the article. It also brought up that "it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate. For instance, currents in the world's oceans are subject to certain cycles, as is solar activity". 

If it's the ocean, then the warming trend will resume by the middle of the next decade. If it's solar activity, things will start to get warmer again much sooner, likely in the next few years. By then, "the natural cyclical warming will be augmented by the warming effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions".

In essence, the deniers are focussing on only one aspect of the whole picture and that is ITS COOLING! ITS COOLING! and ignoring the fact that this short cooling period is normal and they are refusing to focus on the long term significant threat of global warming.

Wake up folks, there is a high certainty that global warming is happening and we should take steps to ensure that its effects are at least minimized or at best eradicated. I think we should just in case. You don't want our grandchildren to look back at history and say what a bunch of heartless idiots!!!


----------



## used to be jwoodget

*Transparency*

It's interesting to speculate on what many of these email exchanges mean (context is difficult to assess especially with the rife jargon and missing information) but it would also be interesting to see what the email listservers of the climate change deniers contain. The rather elegant aspect of science is that it doesn't actually take sides and that history acts as the ultimate arbiter. One piece of compelling evidence can upset a million pieces of contrary evidence. There are many examples of scientists who come up with an idea that is pilloried at the time for going against the grain or dogma, that, nonetheless, proved true over the test of time.

I've read a number of the CRU emails and, to me, they largely show that scientists are human and exchange views and opinions.They are not of uniform opinion, they debate the merits of various approaches and statistical algorithms and they reveal personalities. Hopefully, this release of private correspondence will usher in more transparency when will be to the benefit of all.


----------



## sharonmac09

+1 :clap::clap:


----------



## Macfury

sharonmac09 said:


> View attachment 11325
> 
> 
> This quote above is only a fraction of a snip of the whole article and this poster had conveniently omitted the crux of it. "In reality, phases of stagnation or even cooling are completely normal" is the salient point of the article. It also brought up that "it is not just human influence but natural factors that affect the Earth's climate. For instance, currents in the world's oceans are subject to certain cycles, as is solar activity".


It's not conveniently omitted. I've argued all along that the world's climate is not a stagnant thing--that it changes all of the time and sometimes dramatically. The two quotes were addressing only climate change since 1998.


----------



## SINC

*Good Climate News Bad For Alarmists*

More worrisome is discovery of possible global-warming collusion:
*


> *This had been a disappointing fall for climate alarmists, even before Friday's revelation that for years some of the world's most prominent climate scientists may have been doctoring the evidence for global warming in order to sustain their thesis that man-made carbon emissions are making the world dangerously warm.*
> 
> First came the news that Arctic sea ice didn't melt nearly as much this year as it did two years ago, or even last year. While the area covered by ice at the end of the summer of 2009 was nearly a quarter smaller than the average of the past 25 years; nevertheless, it was almost 20 per cent greater than at the 2007 minimum.
> 
> Admittedly, the current ice is new. It is not as dense as old ice. Therefore, it is more prone to melting. A hot summer next year could make the one-million square kilometres of new ice disappear in a single season. Still, if this year's melt had been more than expected, rather than far less, that news would have been trumpeted far and wide.
> 
> There were almost no hurricanes this fall, either. And while the ice shelf in western Antarctica is melting-- slowly--the vast ice sheet in eastern Antarctica has been growing. This is significant, since it is the world's largest depository of ice.
> 
> Government of India scientists say their latest research shows the Himalayan glaciers are not receding, as UN and other alarmists contend. And Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, one of the godfathers of global warming computer modelling, the recipient of several international climate-study prizes and a lead author for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, admitted that owing to a natural change in ocean cycles, the world is about to experience "one or even two decades during which temperatures cool."
> 
> *Even Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, one of the leading sirens of the alarmist community, had to concede late last month that when it recalculated global temperatures for the past decade using the latest data and techniques, the average over the last 10 years had risen just 0.07 Celsius degrees, less than half the 0.2 degrees they and the UN had previous claimed. And when the natural phenomena of El Ninos and La Ninas were excluded, the change was exactly 0.0 degrees.*
> 
> In other words, there has been no warming at all since 1998.
> Then came Friday's bombshell.
> 
> Hackers have taken e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at Britain's Hadley Centre and posted them on the Internet.
> 
> Disturbing turn of events
> 
> *The messages appear to reveal (and I emphasize that for now they merely appear to reveal) collusion among many of the most prominent global warming theorists to doctor the scientific evidence supporting the theory that man-made emissions are raising the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere thereby trapping too much of the sun's heat and dangerously warming the planet.*
> 
> *The e-mails also show them expressing glee at the death of a prominent debunker of their alarmism --the passing of Australian John L. Daly in 2004 was "cheering news" --and strategizing about how best to keep opponents of the warming theory from getting published in peer-reviewed journals or being included in the UN's five-year reports on climate science.*
> 
> At least one e-mail seems to describe how best to destroy e-mails that might become subject to Access to Information requests: "Can you delete any e-mails you have with Keith...Keith will do likewise.
> 
> "Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?...We will be getting Caspar to do likewise."
> 
> Of course, the Hadley crew, as well as the (mostly) American scientists with whom they were having these little hidden plots, have explanations for why the hacked material is meaningless. Most revolve around their intentions being lost in a lack of context.
> 
> Perhaps the most damning message unearthed so far, though, is from the CRU's Phil Jones to a handful of the scientists who have devised "hockey stick" graphs to show that the temperature was stable for a millennium, then shot up in the 20th-century thanks to industrialization.
> 
> *Jones writes in November of 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years."*
> 
> He is referring to American Michael Mann, who devised the first hockey-stick chart, and his technique of grafting real observable temperatures to the ends of long lines of theoretical temperature records to cause a sharp upward hockey-stick-and-blade-like spike to any graph. Nature is a prominent science magazine that gives warming theorists plenty of space to publish their research.
> 
> *Jones admits using this "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in the middle of the 20th-century that might make current warming appear just a return to normal.*
> 
> In Friday's hacked messages there are also private admissions of flaws in warming claims and plans to suppress embarrassing discoveries that undermine the alleged climate consensus.
> 
> *In the end, this may amount to nothing. But if it were the warming skeptics who had been apparently caught out, you can bet it would be front-page news*.


Emphasis mine.

Good climate news bad for alarmists


----------



## sharonmac09

Macfury said:


> It's not conveniently omitted. I've argued all along that the world's climate is not a stagnant thing--that it changes all of the time and sometimes dramatically. The two quotes were addressing only climate change since 1998.


You have by admission admitted to deliberately misconstruing the contents of this article. These two quotes were taken out of context.


----------



## sharonmac09

*spin of the week from Lorne Gunter*

Lorne Gunter is the writer of the article just submitted by Sinc.

"Here's a piece of advice for Lorne Gunter and the rest of his ilk: If you want to be taken seriously, then don't give others the ammunition to discredit you; get some notable scientists and for God's sake, stop accepting funding from oil companies or any other industry whose best interest lie in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human activity."

[Attempted] Spin of the Week from Lorne Gunter Rebel


----------



## Vandave

sharonmac09 said:


> Lorne Gunter is the writer of the article just submitted by Sinc.
> 
> "Here's a piece of advice for Lorne Gunter and the rest of his ilk: If you want to be taken seriously, then don't give others the ammunition to discredit you; get some notable scientists and for God's sake, stop accepting funding from oil companies or any other industry whose best interest lie in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human activity."
> 
> [Attempted] Spin of the Week from Lorne Gunter Rebel


And what about government funding? Is that not equally biased? Government wants to get bigger as much as oil does.


----------



## groovetube

equally biased?

priceless.


----------



## SINC

sharonmac09 said:


> Lorne Gunter is the writer of the article just submitted by Sinc.
> 
> "Here's a piece of advice for Lorne Gunter and the rest of his ilk: If you want to be taken seriously, then don't give others the ammunition to discredit you; get some notable scientists and for God's sake, stop accepting funding from oil companies or any other industry whose best interest lie in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human activity."
> 
> [Attempted] Spin of the Week from Lorne Gunter Rebel


Yeah, when you've got nothing else attack the messenger.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Vandave said:


> And what about government funding? Is that not equally biased? Government wants to get bigger as much as oil does.


 The right facts of global warming err cooling can be ascertained here. This is the right answer say no more nudge nudge wink wink. Nods as good as a wink to a blind bat.



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




Know what mean eh! EH!


----------



## sharonmac09

SINC said:


> Yeah, when you've got nothing else attack the messenger.


You're not defending your position? I'm only debating the contents and will not stoop to disparage or insult you. Apparently you can't rebut my message.


----------



## bsenka

sharonmac09 said:


> Lorne Gunter is the writer of the article just submitted by Sinc.
> 
> "Here's a piece of advice for Lorne Gunter and the rest of his ilk: If you want to be taken seriously, then don't give others the ammunition to discredit you; get some notable scientists and for God's sake, stop accepting funding from oil companies or any other industry whose best interest lie in ignoring the overwhelming evidence that global warming is caused by human activity."
> 
> [Attempted] Spin of the Week from Lorne Gunter Rebel


David Suzuki gets a lot more money from energy companies than any of Canada's climate realists ever have, and the scientists Gunter usually quotes are some of the most notable experts on the planet (many of whom were lead writers on the IPCC reports).


----------



## sharonmac09

Vandave said:


> And what about government funding? Is that not equally biased? Government wants to get bigger as much as oil does.


No, it's not equally biased in the strictest sense of the word. Governments want to protect their countries and economies. The countries are being threatened by the high probability that their coastlines will disappear, severity of storms are increasing, heat waves' duration are lingering, etc. Our current economic systems are endangering our way of life. If our way of life is no longer prosperous, then the governments will no longer have sufficient money in their coffers to maintain our basic infrastructures.


----------



## sharonmac09

bsenka said:


> David Suzuki gets a lot more money from energy companies than any of Canada's climate realists ever have, and the scientists Gunter usually quotes are some of the most notable experts on the planet (many of whom were lead writers on the IPCC reports).


Can you supply some of the scientists' quotes that Gunter used?


----------



## groovetube

bsenka said:


> David Suzuki gets a lot more money from energy companies than any of Canada's climate realists ever have, ...


Really. These are donations from the actual corporation?

Is there a published list? A recent one like last year?


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





bsenka said:


> David Suzuki gets a lot more money from energy companies than any of Canada's climate realists ever have, and the scientists Gunter usually quotes are some of the most notable experts on the planet (many of whom were lead writers on the IPCC reports).


say no more say no more know what ya mean nudge nudge wink wink Suzuki he's a goer eh he likes to go know what I mean knew you would.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





> _David Suzuki gets a lot more money from energy companies than any of Canada's climate realists ever have, and the scientists Gunter usually quotes are some of the most notable experts on the planet (many of whom were lead writers on the IPCC reports)._


All that has to take place is this statement to be repeated once more with a you betcha and or a wink then it is a an ironclad gospel truth or the right science if you will. Know what I mean eh! Knew you would knew you would.


----------



## SINC

sharonmac09 said:


> You're not defending your position? I'm only debating the contents and will not stoop to disparage or insult you. Apparently you can't rebut my message.


Sure. Right. You're so much better informed and smarter than anyone else in this thread that I should bow to your superior intelligence? Spare me.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Sure. Right. You're so much better informed and smarter than anyone else in this thread that I should bow to your superior intelligence? Spare me.


Just read this with a homer simpson voice and it's much funnier.


----------



## SINC

sharonmac09 said:


> Can you supply some of the scientists' quotes that Gunter used?


What? You can't read either?

A quote from my original post:



> Perhaps the most damning message unearthed so far, though, is from the CRU's Phil Jones to a handful of the scientists who have devised "hockey stick" graphs to show that the temperature was stable for a millennium, then shot up in the 20th-century thanks to industrialization.
> 
> Jones writes in November of 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years."
> 
> He is referring to American Michael Mann, who devised the first hockey-stick chart, and his technique of grafting real observable temperatures to the ends of long lines of theoretical temperature records to cause a sharp upward hockey-stick-and-blade-like spike to any graph. Nature is a prominent science magazine that gives warming theorists plenty of space to publish their research.
> 
> Jones admits using this "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in the middle of the 20th-century that might make current warming appear just a return to normal.


----------



## sharonmac09

used to be jwoodget said:


> It's interesting to speculate on what many of these email exchanges mean (context is difficult to assess especially with the rife jargon and missing information) but it would also be interesting to see what the email listservers of the climate change deniers contain. The rather elegant aspect of science is that it doesn't actually take sides and that history acts as the ultimate arbiter. One piece of compelling evidence can upset a million pieces of contrary evidence. There are many examples of scientists who come up with an idea that is pilloried at the time for going against the grain or dogma, that, nonetheless, proved true over the test of time.
> 
> I've read a number of the CRU emails and, to me, they largely show that scientists are human and exchange views and opinions.They are not of uniform opinion, they debate the merits of various approaches and statistical algorithms and they reveal personalities. Hopefully, this release of private correspondence will usher in more transparency when will be to the benefit of all.





SINC said:


> What? You can't read either?
> 
> A quote from my original post:





> Perhaps the most damning message unearthed so far, though, is from the CRU's Phil Jones to a handful of the scientists who have devised "hockey stick" graphs to show that the temperature was stable for a millennium, then shot up in the 20th-century thanks to industrialization.
> 
> Jones writes in November of 1999, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years."
> 
> He is referring to American Michael Mann, who devised the first hockey-stick chart, and his technique of grafting real observable temperatures to the ends of long lines of theoretical temperature records to cause a sharp upward hockey-stick-and-blade-like spike to any graph. Nature is a prominent science magazine that gives warming theorists plenty of space to publish their research.
> 
> Jones admits using this "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures in the middle of the 20th-century that might make current warming appear just a return to normal.


I was actually responding to bsenka's post not yours.

As used to be jwoodget so eloquently stated, "It's interesting to speculate on what many of these email exchanges mean (context is difficult to assess especially with the rife jargon and missing information) but it would be interesting to see what the email listservers of the climate change deniers contain." 

Yes Sinc, it's true this hockey stick theory of measuring temperatures had been used as a standard but had been proven unreliable as the other methods continued to show consistent parallel temperature readings. Neither one of us are scientists and I don't profess to understand every stats and graphs released by them. The overwhelming majority do believe that there is global warming and I would rather that we do something about it while we still have time. If it materializes that there is no global warming then we have made the planet healthier. Nobody loses and everyone wins.


----------



## SINC

sharonmac09 said:


> Yes Sinc, it's true this hockey stick theory of measuring temperatures had been used as a standard but had been proven unreliable as the other methods continued to show consistent parallel temperature readings. Neither one of us are scientists and I don't profess to understand every stats and graphs released by them. The overwhelming majority do believe that there is global warming and I would rather that we do something about it while we have still have time. If it materializes that there is no global warming then we had made the planet healthier. Nobody loses and everyone wins.


I guess you still haven't taken the time to read this thread or the many others over the years that I have posted in.

Most recently I outlined how I spent over $30,000 on our home making changes to reduce consumption and save energy a few pages back in this very thread.

I have demonstrated that I have done my part in reducing my carbon footprint in more tangible ways than many of the so-called believers here.

But don't expect me to believe all the crap scientists spew on GW. Some of it is just plain fear mongering and a calculated campaign to cause panic to scare people into buying in to their carbon credit bullsh!t.

I won't be one of them, thanks.


----------



## sharonmac09

You have done the right thing by updating your appliances, windows, doors, etc to be more energy efficient. Most of us including me also did the same thing. This is however only on the consumer or end product level. The impending meeting of the climatologists, scientists and the countries' heads of state at Copenhagen would most likely reveal as to what the plan of action they can agree on to reduce CO2 at the industrial level.


----------



## SINC

sharonmac09 said:


> The impending meeting of the climatologists, scientists and the countries' heads of state at Coperhagen would most likely reveal as to what the plan of action they can agree on to reduce CO2 at the industrial level.


It has already been widely reported for many weeks now that there will be NO agreement reached at Copenhagen. It will not result in any world consensus. Watch it fail.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





SINC said:


> Sure. Right. You're so much better informed and smarter than anyone else in this thread that I should bow to your superior intelligence? Spare me.


Attaching the person rather than the facts of the topic under discussion equals epic fail NO marks. Start over at the beginner level.

The unanimous decision is awarded to sharonmac09. And the crowd goes wild.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> Just read this with a homer simpson voice and it's much funnier.


:clap::clap:


----------



## SINC

Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for*‘Dignity’

(


> C4L) – One failed resurrection of the old hockey stick prop, one “scientist” using thin data, and one entire research unit destroying what should have been secured are distasteful scandals that couldn’t have erupted at a worst time for global warming alarmists. Cooling temperatures and collapsed economies have already forced this once hot issue of yesteryear to the bottom of anyone’s list of concerns.
> 
> How embarrassing to have an “official” United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium caught most recently using an unscientific graphic from Wikipedia. The hockey stick graph selected had never been peer-reviewed, so it should not have been used, but it did back the global warming storyline being pushed. A citation to “Hanno 2009″ was even made as if the graph had been from a published and peer reviewed work. It wasn’t. Having now been caught out, the United Nations has hurriedly replaced it. Isn’t this all a bit sloppy for science?
> 
> Then, a UK “scientist” is exposed for having used inexcusably frail studies. This is the same “scientist” whose work has been relied upon to support the Hockey Stick all along. Tree-derived temperature data have long been controversial. Keith Briffa’s Yamal series has been the basis of multiple papers since 1990. But, recent inspection of Briffa’s work has exposed that just a few trees yielded any unusual proxy warming information. Far too few trees and far too-highly-selected trees, at that, were used for any work that could be called science.
> 
> Were there no other trees to study in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia? No, there were many other trees. Other scientists did study them. Briffa had to be aware of their work and results. Their resultant tree-ring studies did not yield any temperature “proof” that the Twentieth century was unusually warm. They were unhelpful in substantiating an infamous “hockey stick” graph of global warming. That “hockey stick” graph was the alarmists’ chief prop for at least seven years. It took several years for scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to prevail in proving the Mann Hockey Stick to be unscientific in both its mathematics and its base bristlecone pine data.
> 
> Flawed climate data should not be the basis for any mandated wrenching transformation of humankind.
> 
> On top of these two gaffes, it’s been barely a month since an entire government-funded research unit also violated basic scientific principles. It didn’t cherry-pick; it just wholly destroyed original raw data — data behind major studies claiming a global warming crisis. How credible can those studies be now? That’s a scandal. Data are stored and shared for the express purpose of all interested scientists who might work to replicate results. That is the scientific process. How convenient for that original data to disappear if it had been manipulated to produce certain results that backed climate change policies that require a global bureaucracy to monitor and ration energy use of developed countries. How convenient, indeed.
> 
> Our EPA has rested its own case to regulate carbon dioxide on studies that depended upon these destroyed records. The EPA is even a funder of that Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that destroyed the evidence. Convenience again. This scandal stinks. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has boldly petitioned the EPA to reopen global-warming rulemaking in light of this suspicious behavior.
> Despite these scandals, or perhaps because of them, alarmists will become even shriller in forthcoming weeks and months. The handwriting on the wall tells them taxpayers are tired of global-warming hysteria and mad about the certain cost burdens that will be dumped on them, so alarmists are launching last-ditch efforts to really scare everybody. Prepare for the sky to fall. That same handwriting even cautions that there is unlikely to be any climate change legislation passed in Congress this year, and unlikely to be any climate change concessions given away in Copenhagen in December by the US. But, before we shift our attention away from this old crisis, we should become aware of an item that surfaces in the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty Draft that could spell pure trouble, if implemented. Anthony Watts refers to this Draft as “wealth transfer defined, now with new and improved “dignity” penalty.”
> 
> 17. (a) Compensate for damage to the Lesser Developed Country’s economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity [emphasis added], as many will become environmental refugees; (p.122 of 181)
> 
> Dignity?
> 
> I find it distinctly undignified and fraudulent for persons to be held morally and financially accountable for unproved, unscientific alarms of man-caused catastrophic global warming. I understand that the International Socialist Party has been working on making this global agenda happen for a long time. Their Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio in 1992 and their Agenda 21 made that platform clear. I understand that these central planners feel entitled to such power and such wealth transfers by sheer perseverance. I listened closely to their claims and global plans for all of us through twenty-two United Nations sessions. But they have yet to make a rational case on climate change, among other things. Their proponents still avoid even debating the issue. Meanwhile, global-warming policies appear decidedly more catastrophic to productive humans than any two degrees of potential warming could ever become.
> 
> Let the world leave scandals, fraud and extortion behind, if it would. Let us move toward the real dignity of the human spirit. Let us create the dignity possible through social cooperation based on private property and division of labor in free market societies. That would be dignity I could get my arms around


.

Source: Campaign for Liberty

Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for ‘Dignity’ Dprogram.net


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





SINC said:


> Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for*‘Dignity’
> 
> (.
> 
> Source: Campaign for Liberty
> 
> Global Warming Scandals and Extortion for ‘Dignity’ Dprogram.net


Opinion is fact. Wink Wink say no more say no more. Know what you mean. Know what you mean. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.


----------



## groovetube

still posting the same thing we have little info about.

They say if you post it at least 20 times, it becomes fact.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: I hope that information such as that presented in your previous post continues to be met by such weak opposition.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> SINC: I hope that information such as that presented in your previous post continues to be met by such weak opposition.


The alarmists now have a huge dilemma. They fudged the data to get the results they wanted. They then destroyed good data that failed to support their hypothesis. Makes it really difficult to defend their view even if it were correct. Makes it even more difficult to persuade people that they should divert $6000 a year of the families income to the Gore gang.

Yep that last figure is the latest guesstimate of the cost to American families to meet carbon reduction goals. Canada as usual will be somewhat higher due to a colder climate and GST.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Yep that last figure is the latest guesstimate of the cost to American families to meet carbon reduction goals. Canada as usual will be somewhat higher due to a colder climate and GST.


Whoops eMacMan, there you go using partial alarmists methods to draw conclusions. Guesstimating? Tsk, tsk. It hasn't worked for them as the latest leaked data proves. You have to manipulate data first, _then_ you guesstimate.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> SINC: I hope that information such as that presented in your previous post continues to be met by such weak opposition.


Weak opinion to address weak opinion the world is in balance. Nudge nudge wink wink. Reinforced opinions that match your own opinion are not better facts. Say no more know what ya mean Eh! Wink Eh!


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Reinforced opinions that match your own opinion are not better facts.


That could very well be applied to every single post in this thread, then. :heybaby:

If you can't pound the facts, then pound the table! beejacon


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Whoops eMacMan, there you go using partial alarmists methods to draw conclusions. Guesstimating? Tsk, tsk. It hasn't worked for them as the latest leaked data proves. You have to manipulate data first, _then_ you guesstimate.


Sorry Guesstimate was my editorial comment. Related to a CO2 "feature" I caught on CBC radio. That $6000 cost includes a bizarre proposal that anyone selling a home would have to bring it up to current energy standards. A very expensive procedure that would have an extraordinary impact on the overall cost of CO2 mitigation. Sadly that news story considered the actual cost to the family that does not sell their home to be an irrelevant bit of information.

Beyond that there are zero reliable cost guesses for the average citizen. Something I consider to be criminally negligent as we are the ones that will end up paying for this madness. I can assure you that some seniors on fixed incomes already have to chose between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Increasing the cost of both would be pretty much the same as putting these folks out on ice flows.

Actually when you really think about it the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions is to drastically reduce the planets population. The real danger comes if those in power forget that the real purpose of the Global Warming hysteria is to help stuff Al Gore's vault. At that point we may lose a lot more than money.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> That could very well be applied to every single post in this thread, then. :heybaby:
> 
> If you can't pound the facts, then pound the table! beejacon


For this thread just read my signature. Eh! Eh! Knew IT! Say no more, say no more, nudge nudge, wink wink. Nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.


----------



## BigDL

*A.GOREEH!phobia*



BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





eMacMan said:


> ....Actually when you really think about it the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions is to drastically reduce the planets population. The real danger comes if those in power forget that the real purpose of the Global Warming hysteria is to help stuff Al Gore's vault. At that point we may lose a lot more than money.


There you go invoking A.GoreEh!phobia. 

An emotional reaction that may take place in the Excited States to have maybe half of the citizens, or even more, get excited and stop rational thought then the kicker of taxes to put the poor ES citizens over the edge. 

Perhaps you should figure out the button to push in Canada. As in Canada we like us some good taxes and seldom think about Mr. Gore. Perhaps you could pick on David Suzuki? Nudge nudge, wink wink.


----------



## groovetube

someone already tried the suzuki one already. Never heard back from him either lol...


----------



## Macfury

Suzuki and his own personal population explosion are a bad enough advertisement for his cause as it is.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Suzuki and his own personal population explosion are a bad enough advertisement for his cause as it is.


Hey he does travel in style though.


----------



## groovetube

all that's missing at this point here is the beer burps.

last call boys.


----------



## groovetube

Ok here's the real deal. I found this here.



> CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX
> 
> It turns out the climate change deniers are right and the CRU emails prove it. Here’s one exchange that does just that.
> 
> From: “Michael E. Mann”
> To: Tim Osborn
> Subject: Out of freezer space
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
> Hey Tim, none of us have any more space in our freezers to hide the Arctic sea ice. Unless we get a grant for some more freezers we won’t be able to continue making it look like the Arctic sea ice is shrinking.
> 
> From: Tim Osborn
> To: “Michael E. Mann”
> Subject: RE:Out of freezer space
> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:32:04 -0400
> I’ll ask Gore to start up another ponzi scheme to raise the money for more freezers. In the meantime, just make up some sea ice measurements to keep the illusion going. We’ll cover our ass by harvesting twice as much ice when we get the new freezers.
> 
> From: “Michael E. Mann”
> To: Tim Osborn
> Subject: RE:Out of freezer space
> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 09:58:44 -0400
> I still don’t see why we can’t just have NASA keep dumping the ice on Europa while covering it up as “failed” Mars missions. Hansen really dropped the ball on that one.
> 
> From: Tim Osborn
> To: “Michael E. Mann”
> Subject: RE:Out of freezer space
> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2003 08:37:18 -0400
> Gore wants us to save the ice until there’s enough for us to melt and put Florida 60 feet underwater. I know, I know. He should just let his 2000 election loss go; Halliburton stole it fair and square and now they’re getting the big payday with their Al Qaeda terrorism hoax. But what can we do. He’s the man behind the climate change hoax and without him we’ve got nothing. Nobody else could have peddled the nonsense in An Inconvenient Truth and gotten away with it.
> 
> So there you go, fellow climate change conspirators. The jig is up. Just be happy that we kept it going as long as we did. And by the way, I understand Obama is willing to let us all in on the healthcare reform hoax he’s got going. This one looks like it might be an even bigger scam.


----------



## SINC

It's sad that this is likely much closer to the truth of the real illusion being created by alarmists than you know.


----------



## groovetube

I'm thinkin there's something sadder in that perspective, but it likely makes no difference really.

Perhaps I'll just take a chuckle from it, and call it a day.


----------



## Macfury

I need something funnier to chuckle at.


----------



## bgw

An interesting TED lecture.


----------



## Macfury

bgw said:


> An interesting TED lecture.


I'm sure that at any given time glaciers are either retreating or expanding. I would imagine you could have really caught some exciting footage when the Great Lakes were formed by the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet in 8,000 BC. Sadly, if our civilization existed then, there would have been an outcry to stop Canada from emerging from under the ice sheet because humans have a tendency to want things to remain as they know them in the tiny scope of a lifetime.

Balog seems to draw few conclusions about the photographs. He only concludes by telling people to "Do the right thing" what ever that may be, but does not explicitly tell people that they could change the glaciers.

I love Balog's flattery though: "You're an elite audience--you get it."


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> ... real illusion ...


That should be in the test thread. Nice one, Sinc. :lmao:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Here is a good read. Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. Sewtha for short - easier to say.

Unfortunately it deals in numbers and is a wee bit scientific, although not too heavily for anyone who is genuinely interested. It might, accordingly, put a lot of the Anti-Science Brigade (ASB) off, the more so when they realise that the author is a physicist (I can hear the hissing in the undergrowth already). I don't think many people who pick the book up or download the free PDF version actually persist with it, because it's an uncomfortable read and requires sustained concentration.

It's a Scotsman  who's the root cause of the global warming, oops ... I mean cooling. Read on and find out the mystery man's name.


----------



## groovetube

bgw said:


> An interesting TED lecture.


he's totally wrong, they doctored their cameras. Manny has proved without a doubt the ice is gaining kilometers. The loss is only a few feet.


----------



## CubaMark

*Hacked climate scientists' emails in context*



> A huge amount of email from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit was hacked and released onto the web, causing much rejoicing from the climate change denialists. They read through the corpus of email and found that the scientists working on climate change often have substantive disagreements with one another, which they debate vigorously in email, and cited this as evidence of a conspiracy to cover up dissent and present a scientific consensus on climate change.
> Futurismic's Tom Marcinko does a great job of putting this in context, rounding up several links to other good commentators around the web. In a nutshell: science is about the advancement of competing theories and the evaluation of these theories in light of evidence. The East Anglia Climate Research Unit's scientists disagreed in some particulars, and used peer-review to resolve them (and continue to do so). No one is paying them to cover up evidence that climate change isn't real or isn't caused by humans -- but they are conducting science the way that scientists do.
> 
> _"Smart enough to hack, not sophisticated enough to appreciate the daily give-and-take of how science works-is that how we nonscientists are going to approach critical issues? Maybe we can do better than that."_


----------



## CubaMark

*CBC News - Canada - Earth's greenhouse gases reach record highs*


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

CubaMark said:


> *CBC News - Canada - Earth's greenhouse gases reach record highs*


Bound to be a hoax. Already discredited. Alarmist ... :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Here is a good read. Sustainable Energy - without the hot air. Sewtha for short - easier to say.


There are plenty of technologies which will make air pollution of any sort a distant memory. Use up the remaining fossil fuels (which we are told are almost gone at any rate) so that the price rises and these technologies will become increasingly attractive.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> There are plenty of technologies ...


How many? What are they? Have you read this book? Are you inclined to? Do you know what it is about?


----------



## Macfury

Geothermal, solar, hydrogen, wind, increased hydroelectric and nuclear are our best bets. There's a company in Sudbury, for example, that sells sewer pipes with a heat recapture tubes built into them--they can pump the heat energy straight back into the house. It's low-hanging fruit like this that needs to be plucked first. Half the commercial buildings in Toronto don't have decent insulation.

Would I invest in any of them or adopt them? Depends on the payback period, but if the price of gas and fuel oil tripled due to scarcity, I would adopt them in a heartbeat. On the other hand if their price increased as a result of government fiat, I would have second thoughts. An entire sector of recyclying industries was destroyed in the early 1990s because the City of Toronto halved its tipping fees at city dumps. The city simply fixed the price lower because its revenues were declining at the higher price. Artificial price fixing is not a firm foundation on which to build an economy.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Fusion is a long way off but surely worth the research now. You gotta have faith. Nuclear, although with inherent dangers in its design and management, looks to be number one for producing energy in required quantities. Others are good in parts, restricted to the geographical areas where they are 'pluckable'.

I visited Denmark in 1990, travelling by sea from Newcastle (England, Europe - _that_ Newcastle) to Esbjerg. It was the first time I'd ever seen a windfarm, as we approached the Jutland coast. I mentioned this to a Danish chap while we were there and he laughed. "Yes [or maybe, "Ja"], it makes enough electricity to keep up with the new fashion for waterbeds." They need to be maintained at an appropriate temperature apparently. And so it goes. Now a nuclear waterbed ...


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> *Hacked climate scientists' emails in context*


No no they found a smoking gun on the internet. Not sure if it is an auto or a revolver, who fired it or if it was fired, but it's a smoking gun and all thing became clear and now this, DANM YOU CONTEXT!


----------



## Macfury

Snapple: I think the term "sustainable" is also morally neutral. For example, to some people it might mean--"We want the technology to help us sustain our current lifestyles while the world's population continue to double every 50 years." That's not acceptable to me.

If we are to use government incentives to create alternative energy technologies, I would also remove any government incentive designed to produce more children.


----------



## groovetube

it's definitely a smoking gun DL, because now apparently the government is payin a good buck for us to...

procreate.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





> it's definitely a smoking gun DL, because now apparently the government is payin a good buck for us to...


Just in from the Internet ..... "smoking gun turn out not to be a gun nor even a “Queen Snake” the most often identifier mistake in human history, but a steaming pile of cra......"



Macfury said:


> Snapple: I think the term "sustainable" is also morally neutral. For example, to some people it might mean--"We want the technology to help us sustain our current lifestyles while the world's population continue to double every 50 years." That's not acceptable to me.
> 
> If we are to use government incentives to create alternative energy technologies, I would also remove any government incentive designed to produce more children.


Now we are to believe that Canada is over populated. Are we willing to relax refugee and immigration rules because we all know .... say no more say no more, and are we really ready to 



+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Snapple: I think the term "sustainable" is also morally neutral. For example, to some people it might mean--"We want the technology to help us sustain our current lifestyles while the world's population continue to double every 50 years." That's not acceptable to me.
> 
> If we are to use government incentives to create alternative energy technologies, I would also remove any government incentive designed to produce more children.


The odd thing is that there seem to be people who quite forcefully reject the notion that the Earth can't sustain an ever increasing population. I remember hearing someone on a BBC Radio 4 programme last year getting quite shirty and aggressive about this - dismissing talk of a population problem. I think it was a journo with The Daily Mail here in the UK. (A rag ... not trying to be dismissive or anything of course.) I try and puzzle out what the agenda is here with the pro population growthers.

Of course when you factor in the rapidly accelerating world population the prospect of solving the world's energy needs becomes vastly more intractable.

At the first physics lecture I attended at university, the Prof made a short intro about exponential growth. He was alluding to chain reactions in atomic fission, but brought in population growth as an example of what appears to be exponential growth. The usual curve drawn - everyone waited while he checked us out. "Then what?" Well he answered his own question by slashing a chalk line across the curve at a high-ish point. "Cybernetic cutting. Something has to give."

And something will - give.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Now we are to believe that Canada is over populated. Are we willing to relax refugee and immigration rules because we all know ....


Canada currently has enough people and does not need more, except to chase an untenable type of growth based only on population expansion.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The odd thing is that there seem to be people who quite forcefully reject the notion that the Earth can't sustain an ever increasing population. I remember hearing someone on a BBC Radio 4 programme last year getting quite shirty and aggressive about this - dismissing talk of a population problem. I think it was a journo with The Daily Mail here in the UK. (A rag ... not trying to be dismissive or anything of course.) I try and puzzle out what the agenda is here with the pro population growthers.


There's an odd crossing of vectors here that build a collusion of support:

* Argument from freedom: "We should be free to have a many children as we want to."
* Argument from economic growth: "More people mean growing markets and more consumers."
* Argument from religion: "God told man to go forth and multiply." Various religions.
* Argument from Ponzi-style socialism: "We need continued increases in population because our social systems are not self-funding."
* Argument from blind luck: "We need more people so we can breed more Einsteins to get us out of this mess."
* Argument from tolerance: "It's their culture. We shouldn't judge."
* Argument from David Suzuki: "I like to get it on, and if I have a hillbilly house full of kids it's my own damned business!"


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Canada currently has enough people and does not need more, except to chase an untenable type of growth based only on population expansion.


Say no more say no more, nod nod, wink wink, all good peoples of coral atolls you are now free to drown, nudge nudge eh eh enough said eh.


----------



## Macfury

The Eric Idle thing is getting a little creepy.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> The Eric Idle thing is getting a little creepy.


"wretched excess" was better.


----------



## used to be jwoodget

A nod isn't as good as a wink to a blind bat. A nod is much better for the creature to detect by its distance-measuring system. Just saying....


----------



## Adrian.

edit


----------



## BigDL

used to be jwoodget said:


> A nod isn't as good as a wink to a blind bat. A nod is much better for the creature to detect by its distance-measuring system. Just saying....


say Squire, gettin’ all scientific oooh, auuugh, auuugh, what’s it like being all scientific, I mean this is based on logical conclusions.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> There's an odd crossing of vectors here that build a collusion of support:
> 
> * Argument from freedom: "We should be free to have a many children as we want to."
> * Argument from economic growth: "More people mean growing markets and more consumers."
> * Argument from religion: "God told man to go forth and multiply." Various religions.
> * Argument from Ponzi-style socialism: "We need continued increases in population because our social systems are not self-funding."
> * Argument from blind luck: "We need more people so we can breed more Einsteins to get us out of this mess."
> * Argument from tolerance: "It's their culture. We shouldn't judge."
> * Argument from David Suzuki: "I like to get it on, and if I have a hillbilly house full of kids it's my own damned business!"


Yup. A good list. Marries well with this one:

Sneezy
Sleepy
Dopey
Doc
Happy
Bashful
Grumpy


----------



## MacDoc

You missed Stupid...


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Editing and tuning data and research to specific realities and politics have always occurred.


I agree. It's known as "fudging."


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> I agree. It's known as "fudging."


Only 2 reasons to fudge data. The data is erroneous and should therefore be tossed altogether and start from scratch. The theory you are attempting to prove fails in the presence of good data.

Either way fudging is a pretty sure sign this outfit should no longer be trusted.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





eMacMan said:


> Only 2 reasons to fudge data. The data is erroneous and should therefore be tossed altogether and start from scratch. The theory you are attempting to prove fails in the presence of good date.
> 
> Either way fudging is a pretty sure sign this outfit should no longer be trusted.


 The denial clan can exhibit trust and ever did such at which point? Trust, hockey mom you betcha wink wink.


----------



## MacGuiver

SHOCKER!!

A Canadian newspaper actually thought this story was at least as important as Susan Boyle's album release to write a story about it. The CBC (the spin stops here) seems to be preoccupied with bigger stories to print a word yet. I'm sure they're reviewing the data now though...
Climategate

If anyone would like to provide some of that missing context to the shocking statements in the emails quoted feel free to do so.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## eMacMan

Once again Minnesotans for Global Warming nails it.
YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Once again Minnesotans for Global Warming nails it.
> YouTube - Hide The Decline - Climategate


:clap::lmao: Great job of exposing the truth!


----------



## groovetube

Oh look! Shiny ball!


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> Oh look! Shiny ball!


Glad to see that you have come around to the Sun being the driver of climate change.


----------



## Macfury

I, for one, am glad to see the exellence of the scientific peer-review process at work.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Glad to see that you have come around to the Sun being the driver of climate change.


you betcha!

Damn sun, melting all that ice in record time!


----------



## MacDoc

Gnash your teeth and whine all you like MF but you'll deal with the policy whether you like it or not just as the anti-evo crowd has to deal with modern medicine's foundation in evolution.

Your noise will not change one wit the climate science or the approach the policy makers are taking to deal with the reality of AGW.

You're just a little more stubborn than darling Steve your pack leader. 

Just how do you square this up



> *Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate*
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> Published: April 23, 2009
> 
> For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
> 
> “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.
> 
> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion,* its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted*.


So despite their own scientists 15 years ago saying it's irrefutable....they persist, like you persist in denying reality....

NOW even a number of the oil companies are clear on AGW



> BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this to say about global warming:
> 
> _“There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.”_
> 
> And Shell Oil says:
> 
> _“Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.”_


aside from



> S*cientific Consensus on Global Warming*
> Worldwide, every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity. Even a short list would include such notable organizations as:
> 
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
> NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)


and there are far mor than just that list....

but YOU KNOW BETTER .....give me a ****ing break....

Even that worst of reprobates Exxon....



> *Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups*
> 
> guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 28 May 2008 12.17 BST
> 
> The oil giant ExxonMobil has admitted that its support for lobby groups that question the science of climate change may have hindered action to tackle global warming. In its corporate citizenship report, released last week, ExxonMobil says it intends to cut funds to several groups that "divert attention" from the need to find new sources of clean energy.
> 
> The move comes ahead of the firm's annual meeting today in Dallas, at which prominent shareholders including the Rockefeller family will urge ExxonMobil to take the problem of climate change more seriously. Green campaigners accuse the company of funding a "climate denial industry" over the last decade, with $23m (£11.5m) handed over to groups that play down the risks of burning fossil fuels.
> 
> The ExxonMobil report says: "In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner."
> 
> Nine groups have reportedly lost the company's support, including the George C Marshall Institute, the Washington DC-based think tank that asserts there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that changes in the sun, not greenhouse gases, could be responsible for rising temperatures.
> 
> A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said *"misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". *In 2006 the society wrote to the company to ask them to stop funding such groups.


Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The irony of you claiming conspiracy in the science community is hilarious in light of the published in the annual report malfeasance on the part of the fossil fuel industry to manufacture controversy when even their own scientists told them the science was solid.
But you do keep right on swallowing that right wing Koolaid

Denial at this point puts you in the same loonie bin as the tree huggers and luddites..

No science, no sense, no respect = no voice in the solution.


----------



## Macfury

Even Exxon jumped on board when they figured out how to rape their customers effectively.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Even Exxon jumped on board when they figured out how to rape their customers effectively.


Yeah I've said this before, if I were selling oil I'd be backing the green paranoia 100%. With greens begging for higher fuel prices to save the planet, a growing demand for fuel and no viable alternative in sight its a no brainer. You get to put the wood to the likes of MacDoc and he begs for more and he even respects you in the morning because you've put on a green overcoat. Its the perfect storm.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

Macguiver: even funnier is all of this talk of conspiracy. Why invent a conspiracy when greed and incompetence will explain everything quite nicely?


----------



## MacGuiver

> But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.


Of course it was irrefutable. 
With all the fudged numbers, hiding of data, fixed peer review process and stonewalling of dissent, it would appear to be irrefutable. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Gnash your teeth and whine all you like MF but you'll deal with the policy whether you like it or not just as the anti-evo crowd has to deal with modern medicine's foundation in evolution.


And you can spout all the hot air you want and it probably won't contribute to AGW either. 

When do the models predict the earth to stop the current cooling trend? Yes, the one the models didn't pick up on.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah I've said this before, if I were selling oil I'd be backing the green paranoia 100%. With greens begging for higher fuel prices to save the planet, a growing demand for fuel and no viable alternative in sight its a no brainer. You get to put the wood to the likes of MacDoc and he begs for more and he even respects you in the morning because you've put on a green overcoat. Its the perfect storm.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


yea, especially when you have an oil whore like Harper, that'll sit and holler he's all concerned like but India and China isn't ready. So it's all ok for the tar sands scumbags, to rape and pillage, and leave you, the taxpayer with the cleanup bill.

Keep laughin bucko.
:clap:


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> yea, especially when you have an oil whore like Harper, that'll sit and holler he's all concerned like but India and China isn't ready. So it's all ok for the tar sands scumbags, to rape and pillage, and leave you, the taxpayer with the cleanup bill.
> :clap:



MacGuiver has never supported unbridled Oil Sands development--he just doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> MacGuiver has never supported unbridled Oil Sands development--he just doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming.


riiight. I forgot the old slippery position thing.

yer darn tootin I believe in enviroh-mental-ism!


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> Oh look! Shiny ball!


BRILLIANT! 


OK Acme, Ace, Finest Kind. I know brilliant is too much of a pun. But that was brilliant. :clap::clap::clap:


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





MacDoc said:


> Gnash your teeth and whine all you like MF but you'll deal with the policy whether you like it or not just as the anti-evo crowd has to deal with modern medicine's foundation in evolution.
> 
> Your noise will not change one wit the climate science or the approach the policy makers are taking to deal with the reality of AGW.
> 
> You're just a little more stubborn than darling Steve your pack leader.
> 
> Just how do you square this up
> 
> 
> 
> So despite their own scientists 15 years ago saying it's irrefutable....they persist, like you persist in denying reality....
> 
> NOW even a number of the oil companies are clear on AGW
> 
> 
> 
> aside from
> 
> 
> 
> and there are far mor than just that list....
> 
> but YOU KNOW BETTER .....give me a ****ing break....
> 
> Even that worst of reprobates Exxon....
> 
> 
> 
> Exxon to cut funding to climate change denial groups | Environment | guardian.co.uk
> 
> The irony of you claiming conspiracy in the science community is hilarious in light of the published in the annual report malfeasance on the part of the fossil fuel industry to manufacture controversy when even their own scientists told them the science was solid.
> But you do keep right on swallowing that right wing Koolaid
> 
> Denial at this point puts you in the same loonie bin as the tree huggers and luddites..
> 
> No science, no sense, no respect = no voice in the solution.


Well reasoned and lengthy post are lost on the denial clan. When one word "Climategate" repeated, reprinted and reported quickly a few more times will be the Right science and gospel truth. Say no more say no more, Nudge nudge, wink wink. A nod's better than a wink to a blind bat, eh! Eh!


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Even Exxon jumped on board when they figured out how to rape their customers effectively.


Knew it knew it, er to which board jumping are you referring? The group of BIGS that deny the science of climatologists and human influenced climate change or are you referring something else? Wink wink.


----------



## Macfury

I think someone better check the "Best Before" date on that tin of pumpkin.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Vandave said:


> And you can spout all the hot air you want and it probably won't contribute to AGW either.
> 
> When do the models predict the earth to stop the current cooling trend? Yes, the one the models didn't pick up on.


These models you speak of are they the ones that hold up the number cards between rounds or the models that drape vehicles in Detroit every January?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I think someone better check the "Best Before" date on that tin of pumpkin.


+1:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Well reasoned and lengthy post are lost on the denial clan. <snip>


I'd like to address this.

Not lost at all. As a matter of fact, I would welcome the change.

However, the vague but easily recognizable lap puppy reference, the swearing (albeit asterisked out), the upper case letters (shouting), the eye rolling emoticon, accusing one of drinking political kool-aid and calling one a loonie is several orders of magnitude from "well reasoned".

Frankly, it comes across as the type of response one would get from a juvenile throwing a temper tantrum.

Nudge, nudge. 

Wink, wink.


----------



## used to be jwoodget

Here's a good analysis of the email revelations from this week's Nature. It presents a balanced view and pulls no punches.



> Storm clouds gather over leaked climate e-mails
> British climate centre reeling over Internet posting of sensitive material.
> 
> Quirin Schiermeier
> 
> The online publication of sensitive e-mails and documents from a British climate centre is brewing into one of the scientific controversies of the year, causing dismay among affected institutes and individuals. The tone and content of some of the disclosed correspondence are raising concerns that the leak is damaging the credibility of climate science on the eve of the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December.
> 
> The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich confirmed on 20 November that it had had more than 1,000 e-mails and documents taken from its servers, but it has not yet confirmed how much of the published material is genuine. "This information has been obtained and published without our permission," says Simon Dunford, a spokesman for the UEA, adding that the university will undertake an investigation and has already involved the police.
> 
> “There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot.”
> 
> Many scientists contacted by Nature doubt that the leak will have a lasting impact, but climate-sceptic bloggers and mainstream media have been poring over the posted material and discussing its contents. Most consist of routine e-mail exchanges between researchers. But one e-mail in particular, sent by CRU director Phil Jones, has received attention for its use of the word "trick" in a discussion about the presentation of climate data. In a statement, Jones confirmed that the e-mail was genuine and said: "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially as in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward."
> 
> "If anyone thinks there's a hint of tweaking the data for non-scientific purposes, they are free to produce an analysis showing that Earth isn't warming," adds Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist and policy researcher at Princeton University in New Jersey. "In fact, they have been free to do so for decades and haven't been able to."
> 
> "There are apparently lots of people who really do think that global warming is an evil socialist plot, and that many scientists are part of the plot and deliberately faking their science," adds Tom Wigley, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and former director of CRU.
> 
> Alleged e-mails containing critical remarks about other climate scientists are merely proof of lively debate in the community, adds Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.
> 
> The title of the uploaded file containing the leaked e-mails — 'FOIA.zip' — has led to speculation that the affair may be linked to the deluge of requests for raw climate data that have recently been made under the UK Freedom of Information Act to Jones (see Nature 460, 787; 2009). The source of many of those requests is Steve McIntyre, the editor of Climate Audit, a blog that investigates the statistical methods used in climate science. "I don't have any information on who was responsible," McIntyre told Nature.
> 
> Nevertheless, e-mails allegedly sent by Jones seem to illustrate his reluctance to comply with these requests. "All scientists have the right to request your data and to try to falsify your results," says Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research in Geesthacht, Germany. "I very much respect Jones as a scientist, but he should be aware that his behaviour is beginning to damage our discipline." In a statement, the UEA said: "The raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future."
> 
> However, von Storch believes that, at least until the affair is resolved, Jones should cease reviewing climate science for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


----------



## Macfury

used to be jwoodget said:


> Here's a good analysis of the email revelations from this week's Nature. It presents a balanced view and pulls no punches.


Those are pretty weak punches.


----------



## adagio

Forget the e-mails. It's all in the code that's been let loose on the internet. We shall see.


----------



## KC4

Pulled from today's CBC article regarding AL Gore's visit:


> "I understand there's a lot of money to be made in the tarsands," Gore said, but he called them "*the single most dangerous* and polluting energy source on the planet."
> 
> "Gasoline made from the tarsands gives a Toyota Prius the carbon footprint of a Hummer," Gore said.


(emphasis mine) 
Does he think that the Oil Sands are more dangerous than, say, Nuclear energy's source? 
I'm a proponent of nuclear development in general, but'd say Nuclear has the potential to be way more dangerous than the Oil Sands could ever be, even on it's worst days.

But maybe he has a point - if we are all going to hell in an energy industry caused hand-basket anyways, I guess I choose to go quickly, just zap me in an instant; rather than slowly being insidiously poisoned by the effects of the oil sands or driven to insanity by the wind turbines. 

All types of energy industries have their challenges and risks. Isn't it all about how well managed an energy industry is? Don't ALL viable energy industries make a lot of money - roughly relative to the investment put into them?

Toyota Prius Owners: Does this mean you might just as well bought a Hummer, or merely that you need to ensure that you are not buying gasoline made from Tar Sands production? Better closely read the list of ingredients on the pump next time you fill up. It's right there next to the little chart showing how much various parties make on the sale of a gallon of gas.


----------



## groovetube

it seems the use of the word "trick" has all kinds of tin foil hat lunatics just shrieking at the top of their lungs.

It's kinda funny to watch.

and feXL, really, how does one respond to this nonsense but make fun of it? You can't make this stuff up.
T


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Those are pretty weak punches.


Feel free to throw your own.

Personally, I'm hoping that it turns out that all this data supporting the anthropogenic factor in global climate change *does* turn out to be fabricated. It just strikes me as wildly implausible that so much data from so many independent sources could be rigged so consistently. But I'd far rather see the global scientific community suffer some humiliation than see our species suffer what's shaping up to be far worse than our worst-case scenarios for global climate change. While it will take some time for the field of climatology to recover, if it turns out that they've raised a false alarm, that's preferable to failing to alert society to impending disaster.

But from what I can glean, the evidence is far from refuting the models the climatologists have been using. Indeed, we're well within the confidence intervals of the models, despite a few recent years of cooling. Given that 1998 was the hottest year on record, even a continued upward trend in global temperature data will appear to be "cooling" if you use 1998 as a reference. So I don't think there's any statistically supportable basis to the claims that the models climatologists are using fail to predict current temperatures. We're still warming, but average temperatures haven't risen so far that they consistently exceed record highs.


----------



## Macfury

That's a very reasonable post, bryanc.


----------



## KC4

*In the name of fun....could've posted in the Einstein thread too...*

If They All Did Science The Way Some Climatologists Do Science Today
TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Einstein

My Dear Professor Newton,

We have a problem. There's a punk in some back offce in Switzerland who is going around making fantastic claims. He says your laws of motion - which we both spent our lives building - is just a special case of his laws of motion. He says your laws are true only at specific speeds and scale. He says he has proof.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Einstein

Dear Georgie-Boy,

Chillax. No one is going to believe a silly patent officer no matter how compelling his math ends up being. We have ex-Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli jetting around the planet talking up our cause. No need for alarm.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Re: Einstein

Isaac,

The situation is critical. Both Nature and Popular Science plan to run huge profiles of his work. I've heard they'll play up how badly it discredits us both.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Re: Re: Einstein

Fark him! I'll send a note to both publications that if they dare run such heresy in their rags, I'll never send them an inch of my work again. I'll make it my life's mission to crush those bastards to so much dust.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Einstein

Do it quickly, Isaac. I have an application for a grant from the Italian government to build my perpetual motion machine. We're talking tens of millions of dollars here. I get this grant and I am set until retirement. If the Italian government thinks my machine might be bogus, I'm done.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Einstein

No worries. I have similar motivations. The British Crown is set to hand over 75 million pounds so that I can build my own perpetual motion machine. I have promised them that perpetual motion machines will save humanity from itself. If this Einstein punk gets in the way, drastic corrective measures will be taken. Afterall, science is at stake.

I have a friend in the Science Guild of Switzerland. If we promise to cut him in on this perpetual motion machine government funding - say 1% - he'll happily orchestrate the demolition of this Einstein's reputation. By the time we're done, people will think Einstein eats babies for breakfast.

TO: [email protected]
FROM: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Einstein

Count me in. Let's buy this Einstein some trouble. Afterall, science is at stake.

God bless, Isaac.


----------



## MacDoc

> Fark him! I'll send a note to both publications that if they dare run such heresy in their rags, I'll never send them an inch of my work again. I'll make it my life's mission to crush those bastards to so much dust.


you sure that wasn't from Lee Raymond..
watch your attribution there boyo


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> it seems the use of the word "trick" has all kinds of tin foil hat lunatics just shrieking at the top of their lungs.
> 
> It's kinda funny to watch.
> 
> and feXL, really, how does one respond to this nonsense but make fun of it? You can't make this stuff up.
> T


 +1

“This Hour Has 22 Minutes” for many seasons gave a warning at the beginning of each episode about the satirical nature of the show and not everyone would share that sense of humour. Perhaps Ehmac posts should have a similar feature.

I recall a thread on Ehmac wherein a link to an excellent satirical site had a Mother lamenting that her son, fighting in Iraq should be supported, that the mother could have the freedom to drive her Hummer because she need the low cost of fuel, as a result of the invasion of Iraq, would afford for her Hummer .

Many missed the satire and that thread derailed from satire into a discussion of SUV’s and the merit or deficiencies of each brand as I recall.

I agree with you that lampoon and satire are justifiable response to a point of view that is not fact based. 

If someone finds a well written opinion peace that explains their point of view well fair enough. Even if that essay resonates with you to the core of your marrow, when you offer an opinion peace as a fact based proof, well to me that item is fair game to be lampooned and ridiculed with satire. 

If I am not a very skilled satirical writer , all I can offer such is life.


----------



## SINC

Have another puff of GW, yer losing it. 

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.


----------



## KC4

MacDoc said:


> you sure that wasn't from Lee Raymond..


:lmao:Yeah, maybe - I'll ask him next time.


----------



## MacDoc

Uh oh - one more denier bastion begins to crumble....and not a model in sight... :



> *NASA Satellites Detect Unexpected Ice Loss in East Antarctica*
> 
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 25, 2009) — Using gravity measurement data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission, a team of scientists from the University of Texas at Austin has found that the East Antarctic ice sheet-home to about 90 percent of Earth's solid fresh water and previously considered stable-may have begun to lose ice.


continues

NASA satellites detect unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica

now why is that unexpected??

Jump in anytime...


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Uh oh - one more denier bastion begins to crumble....and not a model in sight... :
> 
> 
> 
> continues
> 
> NASA satellites detect unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica
> 
> now why is that unexpected??
> 
> Jump in anytime...


Seems to be the words baffled, unexpected, and puzzled seem to be used a LOT lately. Hmm. I wonder why. :heybaby:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MannyP Design said:


> Seems to be the words baffled, unexpected, and puzzled seem to be used a LOT lately. Hmm. I wonder why. :heybaby:


I know!

It's because it's baffling, unexpected and puzzling!


----------



## groovetube

on no it's all wrong! It's icing up by a few kilometers a year!

WE'RE NOT LOSING ANY ICE AT ALL!!!!

Thats what I read anyways...


----------



## Macfury

It's unexpected because their climate models don't predict anything accurately,


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





groovetube said:


> on no it's all wrong! It's icing up by a few kilometers a year!
> 
> WE'RE NOT LOSING ANY ICE AT ALL!!!!
> 
> Thats what I read anyways...


 :lmao: Say no more say no more, know what you mean.



Macfury said:


> It's unexpected because their climate models don't predict anything accurately,


If the science can't be attacked, attack a model, nudge nudge, .


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> If the science can't be attacked, attack a model, nudge nudge, .


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> If the science can't be attacked, attack a model.


Both the science and the model are being attacked. But I'm all ears if you'd like to explain how the model can be separated from the science.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> on no it's all wrong! It's icing up by a few kilometers a year!
> 
> WE'RE NOT LOSING ANY ICE AT ALL!!!!
> 
> Thats what I read anyways...


The proof is in the pudding, chump. I posted links directly from the so-called experts showing the ice in the artic growing year over year despite the stalled warming that's baffled the scientists. 

But it's apparently a smidge to you. Keep swinging for the fences though. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> :lmao: Say no more say no more, know what you mean.
> 
> If the science can't be attacked, attack a model, nudge nudge, .


You mean it's a smidge too? Define a smidge. Because Goobertube believes we're losing more ice from the glaciers than the "smidge" we're gaining in the arctic.

SMIDGE!!! :lmao:


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Both the science and the model are being attacked. But I'm all ears if you'd like to explain how the model can be separated from the science.


In the Marxist sense of attack a model...a Harpo Marx attack. HonK! Honk!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MannyP Design said:


> The proof is in the pudding, chump. I posted links directly from the so-called experts showing the ice in the artic growing year over year despite the stalled warming that's baffled the scientists.
> 
> But it's apparently a smidge to you. Keep swinging for the fences though. :lmao:


"Sea ice extent grew throughout October, as the temperature dropped and darkness returned to the Arctic. However, a period of relatively slow ice growth early in the month kept the average ice extent low—October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period."

Ref: Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> You mean it's a smidge too? Define a smidge. Because Goobertube believes we're losing more ice from the glaciers than the "smidge" we're gaining in the arctic.
> 
> SMIDGE!!! :lmao:


Thousands of these "smidges" are floating past St.John's each year, along with dozens of icebergs that are as large as battleships and one or two that are as big as an aircraft carrier. They are breaking off of the Greenland glaciers each year by record numbers each year.


----------



## Dr.G.

Of course, the big icebergs are being stopped by the ice packs that come inshore each year, stretching out nearly 100 miles from the NL coastline.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> The proof is in the pudding, chump. I posted links directly from the so-called experts showing the ice in the artic growing year over year despite the stalled warming that's baffled the scientists.
> 
> But it's apparently a smidge to you. Keep swinging for the fences though. :lmao:


wow... first *goobertube*, now *chump*.

You forgot the you betcha.

really now, so we have regained all the ice previously melted then?

Keep rollin them eyes. The *goobertube* and *chump* really make your 'side' so much more believable...

you betcha!

Man you really can't make this stuff up can you.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Thousands of these "smidges" are floating past St.John's each year, along with dozens of icebergs that are as large as battleships and one or two that are as big as an aircraft carrier. They are breaking off of the Greenland glaciers each year by record numbers each year.


careful Dr. G or he'll have a beauty name for you too...


----------



## sharonmac09

If some of you deniers are brave and foolhardy enough to venture out onto the sea ice to reach one of the icebergs, you can chop into it so you can bring back a good chunk of iceberg ice. If you by any chance make it back alive, you can then sample the melting ice chunk and discover that it's the purest water you have ever tasted!!!! Why??!!? It was frozen long before the industrial revolution, long before pollution ruled the planet.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





MannyP Design said:


> The proof is in the pudding, chump. I posted links directly from the so-called experts showing the ice in the artic growing year over year despite the stalled warming that's baffled the scientists.
> 
> But it's apparently a smidge to you. Keep swinging for the fences though. :lmao:


I don't know what proof is in which pudding but I do know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating whether I swing at or on fences, eh eh, a nod is better than a wink to a blind bat, or so I'm told urgh urgh.


----------



## KC4

Hey GHG gang, I see the other Docs (other than MacDoc) are weighing in on the Climate Change subject in the Lancet publication: 

TheLancet.com

OK- as far as I've read so far (about 1/2 and will continue if I don't expire from the massive headache it is causing) they have some valid sounding points, for the most part...

Incenting humans to exercise more (by driving less) is obviously healthier for all of us. I agree.

Reduction of toxins and airborne particulates in our air will result in less disease and fewer deaths. Yep, makes sense.

Quantifying the resultant health care savings and turning them around into more carbon reduction strategies. OK, maybe good in principle, but it's going to be a challenge to enact. Go for it.

Citing carbon trading as a significant part of the solution. Umm...how does that work for everyone for the first three points??? 



> Models were developed for three scenarios to compare health burdens caused by electricity generation in the EU as a whole, India, and China. The first scenario was business as usual, in which no additional measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gases other than what is already in place. The second was a limited-trade scenario, in which developed countries aim for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 relative to that in 1990, with the rest of the world making whatever further reduction is necessary to achieve a 50% global reduction by that date. This scenario assumes that developed countries can trade emission rights in pursuit of the 80% objective, whereas developing countries are not fully engaged in this trade (sale of some certified emission reductions from developing to developed countries might be possible, as is the case of the Clean Development Mechanism). Because of time constraints, we analysed this scenario only for India and China because analysis for the 27 member states of the EU would have meant estimating the effects for all 27 states. The third setting was a full-trade scenario, in which only the 50% target is imposed on the system and cuts are made wherever it is most cost effective to make them. All countries can in this scenario participate in a global emissions trading system. Because developing countries have more low-cost options, greater reductions are made in those countries than in developed ones. In this scenario, developed countries make cuts of about 65—75% of their levels in 1990 by 2050, and developing countries make correspondingly bigger cuts.


I don't understand. Maybe it's just part of being a Goober.


----------



## MacDoc

seem those howling conspiracy should look to their own band of thieves and charlatans.....

snip



> The Center For Public Integrity just released a blockbuster investigative report that details the intense corporate pressure to block an effective global treaty from being reached at the UN Climate Talks in Copenhagen in December, and to halt efforts in individual countries to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
> In addition to fierce lobbying behind closed doors, some of the most aggressive tactics deployed by resource giants such as Exxon Mobil, Peabody Coal and other energy and agriculture interests are often the most public: spreading fear and misinformation about the true impact of emissions regulations.


Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change

snip



> The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in developed countries, where official registers reveal that thousands of industry representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation[hilite]. In the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists — five lobbyists for every member of Congress [/hilite]— a 400 percent jump from six years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down strict limits on carbon emissions.


Key Findings - Global Climate Change Lobby

Now just who has motive and agenda and funding to deny climate change - those arrayed special interests who benefit from delay and confusion or the poor science wonks in the labs and universities??.....

One thing I CAN tell you is that climate scientists who value the future for their kids wishes it wasn't happening....nor the risks so clear.


----------



## Macfury

sharonmac09 said:


> Why??!!? It was frozen long before the industrial revolution, long before pollution ruled the planet.


Some of the ice is new, some older. No guarantees selecting an ice chunk at random.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> seem those howling conspiracy should look to their own band of thieves and charlatans.....


You're the only one howling about conspiracies. Again, why look for a global warming conspiracy when simple pride, incompetence and a desire for power and wealth will suffice.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I don't know what proof is in which pudding but I do know that the proof of the pudding is in the eating whether I swing at or on fences, eh eh, a nod is better than a wink to a blind bat, or so I'm told urgh urgh.


He's dyin' in here...


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> He's dyin' in here...


I can't get no respect,eh eh.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> I don't understand. Maybe it's just part of being a Goober.


let me tell you, it ain't easy.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





MacDoc said:


> seem those howling conspiracy should look to their own band of thieves and charlatans.....
> 
> snip
> 
> Exposed: The Worldwide Efforts Of The Global Energy Lobby To Kill Progress On Climate Change
> 
> snip
> 
> Key Findings - Global Climate Change Lobby
> 
> Now just who has motive and agenda and funding to deny climate change - those arrayed special interests who benefit from delay and confusion or the poor science wonks in the labs and universities??.....
> 
> One thing I CAN tell you is that climate scientists who value the future for their kids wishes it wasn't happening....nor the risks so clear.


Muddying the waters with facts when we're discussing the right Science and the gospel truth  Right Squire


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> careful Dr. G or he'll have a beauty name for you too...


If you knew the names I have been called since I became active in various social causes (e.g., the war in Vietnam, poverty, homelessness, inequality in education and housing, inequality dealing with race or nationality, the environment, etc) there is not much he can call me that would hurt. If a "visit" by the KKK in Coy, Alabama where I was teaching at a Freedom School, did not force me to leave (did scare the hell out of me, however), I don't fear his words. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

sharonmac09 said:


> If some of you deniers are brave and foolhardy enough to venture out onto the sea ice to reach one of the icebergs, you can chop into it so you can bring back a good chunk of iceberg ice. If you by any chance make it back alive, you can then sample the melting ice chunk and discover that it's the purest water you have ever tasted!!!! Why??!!? It was frozen long before the industrial revolution, long before pollution ruled the planet.


Very true, Sharon. I have tasted the water melted down from "bergy bits" that come ashore here in NL.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> Some of the ice is new, some older. No guarantees selecting an ice chunk at random.


With the right science the portion of an Iceberg above the waterline is pre-industrial revolution ice and the portion below the water line is post-industrial revolution ice and snow. You Betcha   say no more say no more.


----------



## KC4

BigDL said:


> With the right science the portion of an Iceberg above the waterline is pre-industrial revolution ice and the portion below the water line is post-industrial revolution ice and snow. You Betcha   say no more say no more.


I can't tell anymore for sure, but until you tell me otherwise, I'll assume you are being sarcastic...

While everyone's jousting and jesting has some occasional entertainment value, it is not helping further my understanding of the issues that seem so important to many.


----------



## BigDL

Sometimes it doesn't take much to confuse a cat or a fish for that matter so hence forth and before I shall post and edit the follow warning into my posts:
<WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour> nudge nudge,


----------



## KC4

BigDL said:


> Sometimes it doesn't take much to confuse a cat or a fish for that matter so hence forth and before I shall post and edit the follow warning into my posts:
> <WARNING the following is a satirical look the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour> nudge nudge,


Thanks BigDL, your kindness and assistance in furthering awareness is simply awesome.

Carry on....


----------



## bryanc

KC4 said:


> Citing carbon trading as a significant part of the solution. Umm...how does that work for everyone for the first three points???


I think the idea is that it will provide economic incentives to reduce the consumption of resources, making "being green" more profitable, as well as healthier.

The point is that we've known all our consumption of fossil fuels is bad for many reasons for a long time. Global warming is just the most recent addition to the litany of reasons we need to wean our economy off fossil fuels (and this is the reason I can't understand why even those who are unconvinced about the GHG issue are bothering to argue against it... there are so many obvious and unequivocal reasons we need to shift to other energy sources, arguing about the validity of the reason that has finally focused public and political support is absurd).

The carbon market is a fairly innovative approach, and I don't know if it will work, but I like the idea of using the market rather than draconian legislation and expensive enforcement. I rather suspect the latter necessary in some jurisdictions, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL

If it makes you happy to be happy.....BeHappy!


----------



## KC4

bryanc said:


> I think the idea is that it will provide economic incentives to reduce the consumption of resources, making "being green" more profitable, as well as healthier.
> 
> The point is that we've known all our consumption of fossil fuels is bad for many reasons for a long time. Global warming is just the most recent addition to the litany of reasons we need to wean our economy off fossil fuels (and this is the reason I can't understand why even those who are unconvinced about the GHG issue are bothering to argue against it... there are so many obvious and unequivocal reasons we need to shift to other energy sources, arguing about the validity of the reason that has finally focused public and political support is absurd).
> 
> The carbon market is a fairly innovative approach, and I don't know if it will work, but I like the idea of using the market rather than draconian legislation and expensive enforcement. I rather suspect the latter necessary in some jurisdictions, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
> 
> Cheers


Thanks bryanc,
That really was helpful. 

I think you are right that economic incentives to reduce consumption of resources will help reduce the carbon emissions.

And the Carbon market is innovative but confusing - (referencing the Lancet article) I just don't understand how (for example) when Canadian companies buy carbon credits (i.e. investing in a far away developing country's carbon reducing project) rather than investing it in their own technology to reduce emissions - how does that help the health and welfare of us North Americans? Aren't we supposed to be among the unhealthiest and with the highest health care costs? 

Sure, sure - I do understand that a $ typically goes further in developing countries and therefore has a greater effect there than it would in North America. That's great, but how are the resultant health care cost savings of the developing country quantified and turned around into any benefit for further carbon reductions or otherwise, for any one in any country?


----------



## Macfury

KC4 said:


> And the Carbon market is innovative but confusing - (referencing the Lancet article) I just don't understand how (for example) when Canadian companies buy carbon credits (i.e. investing in a far away developing country's carbon reducing project) rather than investing it in their own technology to reduce emissions - how does that help the health and welfare of us North Americans? Aren't we supposed to be among the unhealthiest and with the highest health care costs?



Because carbon spreads its itty bitty molecules relatively evenly nobody cares where it's produced--they just want to reduce it anywhere. I'll give you a real-life example of carbon trading in action:

India's largest car maker Tata sold a monstrous number of carbon credits in 2007 for building a coal-fired power generating station. Why? Because they had planned on building a dirtier coal plant to begin with. Tata gets the money and the World Bank skims off a fat commission for brokering the deal.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> India's largest car maker Tata sold a monstrous number of carbon credits in 2007 for building a coal-fired power generating station. Why? Because they had planned on building a dirtier coal plant to begin with.


Without the carbon credits, do you think this corporation would voluntarily have spent the extra money to make a cleaner power generating station?

It seems to me that we can either legislate the behavior we need, or try to use market forces to make the desired behavior the most profitable (or some combination thereof). While the market is not necessary very ethical, neither are governments, and at least the market is efficient. Nevertheless, I expect legislation will be necessary in many cases.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave

KC4 said:


> I think you are right that economic incentives to reduce consumption of resources will help reduce the carbon emissions.


Less consumption = lower standard of living

This is a guarantee with this tax. To make it worse, we are shipping our money off to corrupt countries to spend on everything but carbon reduction.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Less consumption = lower standard of living
> 
> *This is a guarantee with this tax*. To make it worse, we are shipping our money off to corrupt countries to spend on everything but carbon reduction.


can I get this guarantee in writing?

what good is a guarantee if you don't have the piece of paper?


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Vandave said:


> Less consumption = lower standard of living
> 
> This is a guarantee with this tax. To make it worse, we are shipping our money off to corrupt countries to spend on everything but carbon reduction.


Inconveniently the truth ...is missing which shall now be remedy

This is a guarantee with this tax.You Betcha.To make it worse, we are shipping our money off to corrupt countries  to spend on everything but carbon reduction.You Betcha  Know what you mean.

This work of fiction is now the Right Science Gospel Truth approved without the need of links any more credible than Her Most Serene Hockey Mom. Say no more say no more.


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> Less consumption = lower standard of living


Congratulations. In one simply stated relationship you have summed up most of what is wrong with the world.

I wouldn't doubt that you believe that consumption is "good" and is a desirable goal, but that's what's got to change. In the long run, when our population is under control, we can probably afford to increase our consumption of global resources as individuals, but currently, our species consumes far more than the planet can sustain, and it's going to have to be reduced if our species (not to mention many other) is to avoid a Malthusian Catastrophe.

But even on the face of it, I think this relationship is not true. While I like my toys as much as the next guy (especially my Mac and my iPhone), most of what makes my standard of living high is not consumptive. A high standard of living is clean air, clean water, space to live, rewarding work, new things to learn, good friends, poetry, art, music, etc. My standard of living is lower when I drive to work than it is when I walk or bike to work. My standard of living is lower when I eat meat than when I eat a good vegetarian meal. My standard of living is lower when I have to buy new clothes than when I get long and comfortable wear out of a well-made garment. Etc.

Your relationship is faulty. Standard of living != consumption.

Cheers


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> ...In the long run,* when our population is under control*, we can probably afford to increase our consumption of global resources as individuals, but currently, our species consumes far more than the planet can sustain, and it's going to have to be reduced if our species (not to mention many other) is to avoid a Malthusian Catastrophe.


And that is what worries me the most about the entire GW scam. It is way too easy for those that wield the missiles and swords to use that sort of crap as an excuse to indulge in wholesale slaughter. It is frighteningly obvious that if you truly believe that GW is such a terrifying apparition then the only way to rapidly reduce CO2 emissions is a massive massacre of at least three quarters of the planets population. While such an endeavour would certainly accomplish the zealots goals it is the very essence of evil. 

However I will applaud any serious effort to clean-up our planet but it is pretty obvious that the only beneficiaries of carbon trading will be the Gore Gang. Beyond that I consider a number of poisons a far higher priority than CO2.


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> Congratulations. In one simply stated relationship you have summed up most of what is wrong with the world.


And you just summed up what is wrong with socialism. You assume that all consumption is bad. Lower consumption = lots of bad things.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> And you just summed up what is wrong with socialism. You assume that all consumption is bad. Lower consumption = lots of bad things.


I agree here, Vandave. bryanc's version of a "high standard of living" reminds me of the ass end of Orwell's _Animal Farm_.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> I agree here, Vandave. bryanc's version of a "high standard of living" reminds me of the ass end of Orwell's _Animal Farm_.


The last thing we need is more government and more bureaucracy.

Carbon trading will be a farce.


----------



## Vandave

Here is an example...

- Canada has a strong economy and a moderate sized industrial sector that has been successful. 
- Because we have been successful, we have to buy carbon credits from somebody else.
- Russia happens to have lots of credits because the industrial base of Russia post Soviet Union was decimated. 
- Old abandoned factories sit and pollute the local environment.
- Our success in punished because we ship money to other countries.
- Vladimir Putin takes our money and hunts for Tigers in China.

They must think we are idiots.


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> And you just summed up what is wrong with socialism. You assume that all consumption is bad. Lower consumption = lots of bad things.


I make no such assumption. While lower consumption will always be good for the environment, we're not plants; we must consume to exist. So I would argue that some consumption is not only good, but absolutely necessary.

I simply refute your equation that lower consumption = lower standard of living. One can improve their standard of living without increasing (and frequently by decreasing) their consumption.

As a culture we have been implicitly and explicitly indoctrinated to believe happiness can be purchased (there's a sale on it this week at Wal-Mart!) and buying stuff is not only the definition of success, it's the patriotic duty of good citizens. That's bullsh*t. There are certainly things we need to consume, and other things that we want and can justify consuming a reasonable amount of, but the consumptive gluttony of our society is not only disgusting and unsustainable, it does not provide us with a desirable standard of living.

To equate consumption with standard of living is not only ludicrously simple-minded, it eloquently encapsulates one of the greatest problems with our society.

Don't buy a giant TV and spend your life watching mind-numbing schlock; get out and go for a walk, engage in discussions with your fellow citizens, read a book, make art, think and contribute to society. That's what makes life worth living. That's a high standard of living.


----------



## MacDoc

Not more but better.

There is no reason to continually have to mine resources to promote consumption.

Sustainable cycles with limited mined input can lead to advanced refinement without unsustainable resource squandering.

Any good farmer knows this.

The key is clean energy that does not destroy the environment....with that in place continual refinement and betterment can occur as long as substantive resource recycling is in place.

One could take the upcoming EV vehicles as a model and work out a product life cycle that reused most if not all components( scarce metals mainly )

The European community requires this already for vehicles and Apple looks to it with the components it is using.

Better does not equate with more.
I could easily have a smaller but "better " house - more efficient, less costly to heat and cool, more durable etc etc.
I could have the same size or larger house more efficient, less costly to heat and cool, more durable etc etc.

My vehicle now is about the same size as one 15 years ago but i "better", more efficient, more durable and more recyclable.

The ONE "cannot be replaced" component is our environment - notably our atmosphere...it's tiny compared to the planet the ocean.
And we are royally ****ing it up.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Not more but better.


I can agree with that to a point, as long as that what the consumer chooses. But not merely some arbitrary list of personal choices defined as a "Higher living standard" (e.g., walking instead of using a vehicle).



MacDoc said:


> The ONE "cannot be replaced" component is our environment - notably our atmosphere...it's tiny compared to the planet the ocean.
> And we are royally ****ing it up.


Which is why I continue to push for controls on real pollutants--not CO2.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> Which is why I continue to push for controls on real pollutants--not CO2.


Ding, ding, ding, ding... and that's a real effect you can see.

I think global warming would increase the standard of living for most Canadians. You can get more walks in with less snow and warmer weather.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> And you just summed up what is wrong with socialism. You assume that all consumption is bad. Lower consumption = lots of bad things.


what a bunch nonsense.

See that's usually what the righteous right knee jerk reaction is to a bit of sense generally.

YOU'RE A SOCIALIST! 

Oh my god. a freaking socialist?? Wow I guess that just wipes out Byranc's opinion in one fell swoop with the lash of the word, "SOCIALIST". Is this like when Palin told everyone there were gonna be death squads when those commie's invented free healthcare? 

You don't have to be a socialist to see that consumption, does not equal a higher standard of living. For whom? The richer countries that can set up sweat shops in the 3rd world countries? Oh right I forgot that we were doing them a FAVOR. 

Byrancs right. You'll also notice he didn't suggest to wipe it out, but to bring it into reason. Basing our whole economy and standard of living on selling a crapload of big screen TVs and cars consistently, is really only a recipe for disaster at some point.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> You don't have to be a socialist to see that consumption, does not equal a higher standard of living. For whom? The richer countries that can set up sweat shops in the 3rd world countries? Oh right I forgot that we were doing them a FAVOR.
> 
> Byrancs right. You'll also notice he didn't suggest to wipe it out, but to bring it into reason. Basing our whole economy and standard of living on selling a crapload of big screen TVs and cars consistently, is really only a recipe for disaster at some point.


And who gets to decide what is 'good' and what is 'bad'? You? Your Comrades? The government? No thanks. I will choose freedom every time and let the consumer make that decision.

Does that mean I believe that externalities don't exist? No. They do exist and we need to manage those effects. Global warming may or may not be one such externality. I think there are better solutions than shipping money overseas to corrupt governments. 

The government can barely manage itself. It's bizarre that some people think government will in any way be effective in managing the climate of this planet.


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Does that mean I believe that externalities don't exist? No. They do exist and we need to manage those effects.


oh really? And who gets to manage that.


----------



## adagio

Environmentalism has been hijacked. Take note of names set to make HUGE profits at our expense. 

The Corbett Report


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> The government can barely manage itself. It's bizarre that some people think government will in any way be effective in managing the climate of this planet.


Vandave, you're in danger of breaking my irony meter. The whole point of carbon markets is to use the Market, rather than government to manage the problem. If you don't think government can solve this problem (and I'm inclined to agree with you), then we need to use the market (unless you can think of another approach). Carbon trading is a means of using the market. If you have a better idea, one that makes reducing the consumption of non-renewable fossil fuels and reducing pollution more profitable than the status quo, I'm sure everyone here would love to hear about it.


----------



## SINC

Here are two videos on recent climate change events that give reason for reflection. They are both about nine minutes long, but have a listen. It may be the best few minutes you've spent on the issue:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## KC4

^^^
That's basically what is in Adagio's posted link. 

Very interesting, I say. 
Thanks


----------



## groovetube

oh right. The Friends of Science guy. I wondered how it'd be before Sinc would post him again.

It takes some stones to shriek about everybody shoveling money into Gore's vault (if that were even true), and post some mouthpiece of the oil industry.


----------



## MacDoc

Tim Ball !!!!!!

The irony is delicious....



> 12 August 06
> *Oil Companies Funding Friends of Science, Tim Ball takes the brunt*
> 
> A Globe and Mail feature article by Charles Montgomery today has delivered what should be a death blow for the climate change denial and anti-Kyoto attack group, the Friends of Science.
> 
> *The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.” *
> 
> All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive.
> 
> This comes as no surprise considering the FOS has been linked to some of the most notorious oil money-backed scientists in the US, including Drs. S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood Idso, Willie Soon, Robert C. Balling and Pat Michaels.


and they were then booted from the University of Calagary....

They then moved to Ottawa with Harpo and transmogrified into NRSP



> Ball was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a documentary film produced by Martin Durkin that was first aired in March 2007. The film showcased scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. In the film*, Ball was misattributed as a professor in the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (the University of Winnipeg has never had a Department of Climatology* and Ball retired more than ten years before the show aired).[11] Since then, he has also appeared numerous times on the Glenn Beck Show, with a role in the special, "Exposed: Climate of Fear."


said film was sanctioned by the BBC and the director Durkin sued by Carl Wunsch for misrepresentation....



> Ofcom received 265 complaints about the film, including "a detailed 'group complaint' from scientists and concerned individuals that ran to 176 pages and accused Channel 4 of seriously misleading viewers." [6]
> Ofcom found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines and the film misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King, in a scene with global warming skeptic Fred Singer. *Ofcom also found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch*.


Durkin's other other works included defending breast implants as safe...

Ball and company changed the name to NSRP and refuse to disclose funding but it's hardly opaque



> Since his retirement from the University of Winnipeg in 1995, Tim Ball has worked as an industry-supported climate-change campaigner, sowing doubt about the science of global warming. He first associated himself with a Calgary-based group called the Friends of Science, which the Globe and Mail reported in August of 2006 was funded primarily by the oil and gas industry. Ball then moved to the chairmanship of a new group called the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which the Toronto Star reported in January 2007,* is a creation of the Toronto-based energy-industry lobby firm the High Park Group.*


Fine company the deniers keep - keep rolling them out....good to expose the fossil fuel spin factory....

Geez Sinc hope you are getting your cut of all this denier funding floating around....seems to be millions available


----------



## SINC

KC4 said:


> ^^^
> That's basically what is in Adagio's posted link.
> 
> Very interesting, I say.
> Thanks


Yep, I just added the second video. But the believers will go nuts. Ooops, they already have.


----------



## groovetube

I was going to put a 3...2...1... in my post to predict that Sinc would try to tell us that he only posted Tim Ball to get a reaction.

Just a step above the 'I know you are but what am I'.


----------



## bryanc

Yep, follow the money.

Scientists funded by public sources who publish peer-reviewed, reproducible and openly accessible data, have nothing to gain from global warming being accepted as true (apart from the benefit of helping prevent global economic and ecological catastrophe, which is pretty compelling, but not directly financially rewarding).

PR consultants being paid by the oil industry have a lot to gain by succeeding in spreading FUD about the science their corporate masters would prefer to be the subject of endless debate.

"Friends of Science" indeed.


----------



## MacDoc

I guess Harper must be a "believer" since he has now flip flopped and is heading to Copenhagen 

Rolling out the likes of Ball just hammers home how morally bankrupt the entire denier industry is...

Who's up next Senator Inhofe.....


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> I guess Harper must be a "believer" since he has now flip flopped and is heading to Copenhagen
> 
> Rolling out the likes of Ball just hammers home how morally bankrupt the entire denier industry is...
> 
> Who's up next Senator Inhofe.....


More likely that Gore has offered him a cut.


----------



## groovetube

a cut of what?


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> a cut of what?


Gore has positioned himself to make $100s of Millions if not Billions on the carbon credit trading scam. Probably cutting in Harpo for somewhat less than 1% would be more adequate to at least get his support. He is after all a politician to his very core.beejacon


----------



## MacDoc

Since he was already a multi-millionaire ( you don't run for president if you are not amongst the wealthy elite ) that hardly is a reason.

John Doerr one of the top VCs figures the green boom will be the biggest in history with trillions to be made.
The smart money's on green - CNN.com

You think the Venture Capital community is secretly funding a climate science conspiracy....


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> You think the Venture Capital community is secretly funding a climate science conspiracy....


Why would they have to when people like you willingly fearmonger for free?

You don't have to believe the science to make money off it.


----------



## Adrian.

Get it from Mann himself:

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

This whole CRU thing is another Watergate. The idiots digging into the pockets of the other and getting burned for it. 

You can't fight progress on CO2 reducing cooperation internationally! There just aren't enough of you chumps to support it.


----------



## MacDoc

Too perfect..... :clap: 



> *Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.*
> 
> I’m going to make a bit of an exception today. There were other newsworthy items after my heart (Jason Stackhouse — yes, you read that right — sent me an intriguing link on insect intelligence, and who could resist the creation of the first cat-based AI?). But I’ve decided instead to weigh in on this UCR e-mail hack that’s got the climate-change denialists wetting themselves so gleefully.
> I rarely mention climate-change issues in the ‘crawl because I like to reserve these pixels for cool stuff, cutting edges that may or may not pan out, findings of interest (and frequently, of contention). Anthropogenic Climate Change hasn’t qualified for years; the science is settled, the effect is real, and the only uncertainty among the folks who actually know their **** is whether we’re in for a bad ride or a downright catastrophic one. The “debate”, such as it is, is political and entirely dishonest at its heart. Climate-change skeptics like to portray themselves as a feisty rebel alliance speaking truth to power, up against a colossal green propaganda machine calling all the shots— a little like the way Glen Beck and Bill O’Reilly like to portray US Christians as an endangered species. Anyone familiar with the Bush administration’s environmental censorship of NASA, the EPA, and its own military knows how ridiculous that is. I have better things to do than research every objection raised by (as Bruce Sterling calls them) shortsighted sociopathic morons who don’t want to lose any money. (I would recommend How to Talk to a Climate Change Skeptic, however, to anyone who does want to fit a couple of denialists in between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Birthers lined up on their stoops. It addresses all the usual canards, from warming-stopped-in-1998 right out to global-warming-on-Pluto.)
> I also generally avoid going on about stuff that’s already getting a lot of press elsewhere; if you saw it on slashdot, boingboing, or the NY Times I’ll be giving it a pass unless it’s really central to my current interests, simply because the blogosphere will already be writhing with opinions on the subject and mine has probably been better put by someone with better insight.
> Now. In what can hardly be a coincidence, just a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia got hacked. The sixty-odd megabytes of confidential e-mails that ended up littering the whole damn internet either a) blew the lid off a global conspiracy to fake the global warming crisis, or b) lay there in a big sludgy pile of boring communications about birthdays, conference meet-ups, and whether or not Poindexter over at Cal State was going to be allowed into the tree fort this year. Judging by the criteria I described at the top of the post, I should just stick my fingers in my ears and hum loudly until the current ****storm abates.
> But I’m not going to. Not this time.
> I haven’t read all 62MB. I’ve read hardly any of it, in fact. I’m familiar with the money shots: the “Nature trick” used to “hide the decline” (and sorry folks, anybody who’s ever run a residual analysis knows there’s nothing nefarious about the word “trick” in this context. Besides, climatologists need hookers same as Republicans). I’ve read the e-mail-deletion thread, seen quotes that decry evil denialists and call for the censure of skeptic-friendly journal editors. The very conditions under which these e-mails were released makes it entirely plausible that some of them were forged; but at least some of the more controversial bits have been verified as legitimate by their authors. I don’t have much to say about any of that; maybe it’s all real, maybe it’s been spiked, none of it compromises the overwhelming weight of evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change. Whatever.
> No, what I want to address here is the attitude of the scientists, and how that relates to the way science actually works.
> I keep running into recurring commentary on the snarkiness of the scientists behind these e-mails. They’re really entrenched, people seem surprised to note. Got a real siege mentality going on, speak unkindly of the skeptics, take all kinds of cheap shots unbecoming of the lab coat. These people can be downright assholes.
> 
> No ****, Sherlock. I was a scientist myself for the longest time, and the people I’d gladly drop into a vat of nitric acid start with the Pope and go all the way down to anyone who voted for Stephen Harper’s conservatives.
> The apologists have stepped up, pointed out that these were private conversations and we shouldn’t expect them to carry the same veneer of civility that one would expect in a public presentation. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” remarked one widely-quoted NASA climatologist. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.”
> No. I don’t think he’s got it right. I don’t think most of these people do.
> Science doesn’t work despite scientists being asses. Science works, to at least some extent, because scientists are asses. Bickering and backstabbing are essential elements of the process. Haven’t any of these guys ever heard of “peer review”?
> There’s this myth in wide circulation: rational, emotionless Vulcans in white coats, plumbing the secrets of the universe, their Scientific Methods unsullied by bias or emotionalism. Most people know it’s a myth, of course; they subscribe to a more nuanced view in which scientists are as petty and vain and human as anyone (and as egotistical as any therapist or financier), people who use scientific methodology to tamp down their human imperfections and manage some approximation of objectivity.
> But that’s a myth too. The fact is, we are all humans; and humans come with dogma as standard equipment. We can no more shake off our biases than Liz Cheney could pay a compliment to Barack Obama. The best we can do— the best science can do— is make sure that at least, we get to choose among competing biases.
> That’s how science works. It’s not a hippie love-in; it’s rugby. Every time you put out a paper, the guy you pissed off at last year’s Houston conference is gonna be laying in wait. Every time you think you’ve made a breakthrough, that asshole supervisor who told you you needed more data will be standing ready to shoot it down. You want to know how the Human Genome Project finished so far ahead of schedule? Because it was the Human Genome projects, two competing teams locked in bitter rivalry, one led by J. Craig Venter, one by Francis Collins — and from what I hear, those guys did not like each other at all.
> This is how it works: you put your model out there in the coliseum, and a bunch of guys in white coats kick the **** out of it. If it’s still alive when the dust clears, your brainchild receives conditional acceptance. It does not get rejected. This time.
> Yes, there are mafias. There are those spared the kicking because they have connections. There are established cliques who decide what appears in Science, who gets to give a spoken presentation and who gets kicked down to the poster sessions with the kiddies. I know a couple of people who will probably never get credit for the work they’ve done, for the insights they’ve produced. But the insights themselves prevail. Even if the establishment shoots the messenger, so long as the message is valid it will work its way into the heart of the enemy’s camp. First it will be ridiculed. Then it will be accepted as true, but irrelevant. Finally, it will be embraced as canon, and what’s more everyone will know that it was always so embraced, and it was Our Glorious Leader who had the idea. The credit may not go to those who deserve it; but the field will have moved forward.
> Science is so powerful that it drags us kicking and screaming towards the truth despite our best efforts to avoid it. And it does that at least partly fueled by our pettiness and our rivalries. Science is alchemy: it turns **** into gold. Keep that in mind the next time some blogger decries the ill manners of a bunch of climate scientists under continual siege by forces with vastly deeper pockets and much louder megaphones.
> As for me, I’ll follow the blogs with interest and see how this all shakes out. But even if someone, somewhere, proves that a handful of climatologists deliberately fudged their findings — well, I’ll be there with everyone else calling to have the bastards run out of town, but it won’t matter much in terms of the overall weight of the data. I went running through Toronto the other day on a 17°C November afternoon. Canada’s west coast is currently underwater. Sea level continues its 3mm/yr creep up the coasts of the world, the western Siberian permafrost turns to slush. Swathes of California and Australia are pretty much permanent firestorm zones these days. The glaciers retreat, the Arctic ice cap shrinks, a myriad migratory species still show up at their northern destinations weeks before they’re supposed to. The pine beetle furthers its westward invasion, leaving dead forests in its wake— the winters, you see, are no longer cold enough to hit that lethal reset button that once kept their numbers in check.
> I could go on, but you get my drift. And if the Climate-Change Hoax Machine is powerful enough to do all that, you know what?
> They deserve to win.


No Moods, Ads or Cutesy ****ing Icons (Re-reloaded) Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.


----------



## Adrian.

macdoc said:


> too perfect..... :clap:
> 
> 
> 
> no moods, ads or cutesy ****ing icons (re-reloaded) because as we all know, the green party runs the world.


+1


----------



## SINC

Ah yes, the endless ramblings from a foul mouthed dim wit who has to use vulgarity to make a point? Like that is going to convince anyone to change their mind? Not bloody likely.


----------



## MacDoc

For those with honest inquiries



> *An offering*
> Filed under:
> 
> * Climate Science
> 
> — david @ 26 November 2009
> 
> I video-taped and posted all the lectures from my Global Warming class this quarter.
> "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer
> The class is part of our core science curriculum for non-science majors at the University of Chicago, and interest has been strong enough that the class has kind of taken over my teaching life. The lectures are based on my textbook, Understanding the Forecast, written for the class a few years ago. The students found it useful, I think, to be able to skip lectures and watch them later, but mostly I taped them for y’all, thinking someone might them useful. cheers, David.


•••

and down under



> *Australia warming up to climate decision*
> 
> In the midst of an intense heat wave across southern and eastern Australia, the Australian Prime Minister urges opposition in the Senate to back climate legislation before Copenhagen.
> Marianne Bom 19/11/2009 22:50
> 
> Australian Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is supported by Australian fire fighters in his struggle to convince the opposition to vote for a proposed emissions trading scheme in the Senate by the end of next week.
> 
> Peter Marshall, National Secretary of the United Firefighters Union, said in a statement quoted by Bloomberg News, that politicians threatening to block or weaken the proposed carbon reduction scheme are putting lives and properties at risk.
> 
> The fire fighters see a connection between carbon dioxide emissions and increasing temperatures and bush fires. This year temperature records have been broken several times in November and the highest fire danger alert has been issued for the third day in parts of South Australia, reports Bloomberg.
> 
> “The trend is absolutely clear, the climate is warming,” Assistant Climate Change Minister Greg Combet says, according to Reuters.
> 
> Kevin Rudd has demanded that the leader of the opposition guarantee his divided partyroom will vote on an emission trading scheme by the end of next week, before Parliament rises for the year, the Australian reports.
> 
> Senior conservative lawmaker Ian Macfarlane expects a deal with the government by next week, despite up to 30 rebel opposition members promising to vote against the scheme, according to Reuters.
> 
> “I'm negotiating on the basis that by the time the Senate rises at the end of next week, he [Rudd] will have what he is demanding, but it will be on our terms,” Macfarlane says.
> 
> The government wants carbon trading to start in July 2011, covering 75 percent of emissions in what could become the second domestic trading platform outside of Europe.


Australia warming up to climate decision - COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009

Wishful thinking in the denier cadre won't change a damn thing....they've made themselves irrelevant.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Ah yes, the endless ramblings from a foul mouthed dim wit who has to use vulgarity to make a point? Like that is going to convince anyone to change their mind? Not bloody likely.


But they used a TRCK! They said the word TRICK!

look! Shiny ball!

lol...


----------



## Macfury

It's been a long time since I've heard anything as shrill as the MacDoccers of the world since the climate change movement blew up. Keep it coming boys--your talk of the progress of the CO2 movement is vastly entertaining!


----------



## groovetube

do I hear an echo in here?

I predicted a "I know you are but what am I"... 

but shiver me timbers I wouldn't have expected it so soon!!


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^^

Nice high note.


----------



## groovetube

I thought so.


----------



## SINC

> *Copenhagen will be a negotiation about transferring billions of dollars of wealth from the developed world to the developing one, with no guarantees it will help the planet.*


Sounds about right.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Sounds about right.


the fact that the link doesn't work, makes it even funnier.


----------



## eMacMan

Sinc your link failed. Does it mention the big cuts the Gore Gang will get for handling the transfers.


----------



## SINC

> *
> 
> 
> eMacMan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sinc your link failed. Does it mention the big cuts the Gore Gang will get for handling the transfers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link is fixed:
> 
> Column here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *


----------



## groovetube

"climategate".

The shrieking is just hilarious.


----------



## sharonmac09

Lower consumption???? bryanc brought this up as food for thought.

There is no doubt to most of us casual observers that our natural non-renewable resources are rapidly becoming severely depleted and many of the renewable natural resources are past the point of no return. Most of the so-called renewable resources such as fisheries, topsoil, freshwater, etc., are now becoming non-renewable. Depending on who you ask or read, the scientists are warning that the "annual extraction rate curve is near, at, or past the point of collapse". On the other side of the coin, economists and politicians will tell you the good news "everything will be ok;the market will take care of it;It always has." If you believe the former, then "lower consumption is the new higher consumption" So what does this mean? It means that it will become involuntary in the not-to-distant future. We will see ourselves adapting to the lifestyle of the 19th century. Shudder..... we may end up emulating the Amish's lifestyle!!! :yikes: Sweaters, blankets, long underwear, candles, cold showers, hand pumps, ice boxes, outhouses, etc, etc, 

It's just food for thought for you guys. I don't think that we will ever reach this point. I'm optimistic that our leaders will come up with short and long term plans to reverse and slow down our out of control use and extraction of our natural resources.

What "Lower Consumption" Means | Energy Bulletin


----------



## bryanc

sharonmac09 said:


> I'm optimistic that our leaders will come up with short and long term plans to reverse and slow down our out of control use and extraction of our natural resources.


Did you end with this to add an ironic chill to your point?

Unless you're thinking of different "leaders" than I am, I'm convinced that the sorts of change that are going to be required will have to come from a grass-roots level; dragging our political leaders into the 21st century kicking and screaming the whole way. Apart from the Greens, our political leadership is diametrically opposed to the kinds of progress we need in this regard, and the business leadership is worse.

That's why the idea of Big Government, Big Business, and Big Green (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) being in cahoots to convince everyone of a global warming hoax is so ludicrous. I'd laugh if it weren't also dangerously detracting from what little progress is being made.

Cheers


----------



## sharonmac09

bryanc said:


> Did you end with this to add an ironic chill to your point?
> 
> Unless you're thinking of different "leaders" than I am, I'm convinced that the sorts of change that are going to be required will have to come from a grass-roots level; dragging our political leaders into the 21st century kicking and screaming the whole way. Apart from the Greens, our political leadership is diametrically opposed to the kinds of progress we need in this regard, and the business leadership is worse.
> 
> That's why the idea of Big Government, Big Business, and Big Green (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean) being in cahoots to convince everyone of a global warming hoax is so ludicrous. I'd laugh if it weren't also dangerously detracting from what little progress is being made.
> 
> Cheers


Sadly most of our current worldwide leaders lack the balls to act on this threat. As you say change will have to originate from the grassroots level and it will have to be one hell of a fearless leader to start campaigning for change.


----------



## bryanc

I just went and read it, and the link Sharonmac09 provided is excellent. Please go and read it. It's not about global warming per se, but the larger economic and environmental unsustainability of our culture.

About the only thing I can find in that piece to take issue with is the prediction that our society will revert to 18th century customs (esp WRT marriage) as we are forced to retreat from our unsustainable lifestyles.

I think it is high time we recognized the fact that it's not a bunch of neo-luddites that are raging against modern society, it's the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc: That list of attributes of our future non-consumptive lifestyles is the biggest leap of logic I've seen in a long time. Fascinating SF fodder.

Many of his assumptions about resources, etc. are just that, pre-chosen to create a desired outcome.


----------



## groovetube

yeah. We're all gonna freeze our arses off takin a crap out in the outhouse in winter.

Man that's gonna suck. Just think about the disaster of lowering consumption, er, I mean non consumption.

All or nothing I tell you.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Many of his assumptions about resources, etc. are just that, pre-chosen to create a desired outcome.


Examples? If there are large fisheries, major terrestrial oil reserves, easily extractable mineral resources, or other primary resources that aren't being over-exploited I'd like to know about them.

Obviously there are still profitable resources to exploit, but this is because our technology has made previously inaccessible resources accessible, and the demand has made previously unprofitable resources profitable. This is exactly the argument he is making. The economics of resource exploitation drives over-exploitation and inevitable collapse of the resource. We've certainly seen it happen in every case I'm aware of.

I do think he paints an unimaginatively Amish picture of the future... While I expect everything he's saying about the disappearance of resources will happen (indeed I think these are almost all true already... the state of the global fisheries is so far beyond dire that it's not even a matter of decades before commercial fishing will be effectively finished), I'm an optimist and a technophile, so I envision a future where cheap renewable energy and communications technologies will keep us warm and globally connected within virtual communities like this one, rather than having sing-a-longs by candlelight in our neighborhood churches (except to the extent that we want to... which many of us will). But physical goods, especially foods, will have to become more locally produced. I certainly won't morn the disappearance of crappy disposable goods or their replacement by more expensive, but higher quality durables.

What concerns me is not wether our society will adopt a less resource-consumptive economy, but how it will happen. If we simply carry on the way we're going, we'll (very quickly) run into crises caused by resource limitations (in many cases we already are). But if we slow our consumption voluntarily, while simultaneously investing in technologies and strategies that are not dependent on non-renewables and/or consume renewables more parsimoniously, we may avoid some of the hardship sudden forced changes will entail.

Fundamentally, we will have to reduce our population. That's simply a thermodynamic fact. But the means and rates at which we adapt to the physical limits of our planet are up to us. It doesn't have to be as bad as it will be if we just plow into these limits at full-speed, head-first. If we do this right we can roll with it and avoid going splat.


----------



## bryanc

Somewhat off topic, but this reminds me: I have a good pair of leather shoes, which is on its second pair of soles, but one of them has become separated from the sole at the front (stitching failed). So I took them into a local shoe store to get them repaired and they told me that no one does that anymore... just throw them out and buy a new pair.

I called around and got the same story from every place in town. In a bigger city I'm sure I could find a place that would repair these shoes (indeed, as I've said I've already had the soles replaced once, but that was when I lived in Edmonton, and there was a shoe repair place in HUB mall that did this sort of thing... but even there, the guy that ran that place (which also cut keys, and did a variety of other odd-jobs) told me he was probably going out of business because nobody bothers to get anything fixed anymore.

While I have no desire to live like the Amish, I'd be happy to see a return to "use, repair, reuse, repurpose, and make-do" attitude towards consumer goods.

Cheers


----------



## SINC

St. Albert has a shoe repair shop and he is so busy, he recently hired an apprentice to train.

You can expect to wait up to two weeks for a repair.

My western boots are on rebuid three. At $800/pair for lizard skin, they will continue to be resoled and heeled.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Examples? If there are large fisheries, major terrestrial oil reserves, easily extractable mineral resources, or other primary resources that aren't being over-exploited I'd like to know about them.
> 
> Obviously there are still profitable resources to exploit, but this is because our technology has made previously inaccessible resources accessible, and the demand has made previously unprofitable resources profitable.


I believe that will continue until people start mining them out of asteroids, then deciding they'd rather live away from the Earth anyway. In the meantime, nanotechnology is on the verge of doing some really shocking things that challenge the way we think about matter.

The idea of people staying put and becoming "locals" is unlikely to happen unless it simply becomes unaffordable. That said, I do like to buy local whenever I can, as long as I have the confidence that I'm not being ripped off. I buy most meat from a local butcher who owns a farm and I enjoy being a part of the supply chain instead of an anonymous supermarket buyer. Again, a nod to your point that even if you pay a little more for a little less, the quality of life might be higher--but I'm also buying the relationship and the extra care that goes into the product. One can't simply weigh the meat and say they are buying less.

On the other hand, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't eat pineapple rings or enjoy a tasty mango.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> On the other hand, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't eat pineapple rings or enjoy a tasty mango.


Agreed. I'd just like to see the costs of products (including their transportation, manufacturing, and recycling costs) reflected in their prices. The market can't work if some products are unfairly subsidized because their environmental costs are not being paid.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The market can't work if some products are unfairly subsidized because their environmental costs are not being paid.


Provided we can agree on the environmental costs...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Provided we can agree on the environmental costs...


Fortunately, it's not us that has to find an agreement (although I think we probably could). But the approach I'd take would be to look at all the costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product (resources extracted to produce it, labour costs of making it, transportation, marketing, etc., costs of using it, costs of disposing of it, costs of recycling it, etc.) and define that as it's base price. Profit would have to be on top of that.

That would make some products that are currently cheap very expensive, but some that are currently moderately expensive would stay the same, and therefore become relatively inexpensive. Overall costs of consumption would go up, so consumption would go down. People would buy better-made/locally made/reusable/recyclable products in preference to imported disposables because, once the real costs of those imported disposables was incorporated into their price, they'd no longer be cheap.

The net effect would be that the market, rather than legislation, would drive people and corporations to take intelligent action, but nobody would be enforcing choices upon anyone.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

There's the rub. It wouldn't be the market setting the price. It would be an arbitrary price based on someone else's valuations of various factors. It's not really a market factor if the market has been co-opted by government. If a company is killed by excessive taxation on its product, that's hardly a market force at work.

I may not agree that a diamond should be valuable, but demand, coupled with a short supply and a difficulty of extraction make it difficult to argue with its value on the market. Adding the price of global warming/cooling/change when such things have not been clearly demonstrated is not supportable as part of the price--it's arbitrary and based on personal, not economic, values. 

I could agree as far as allowing people to see how much of any by-product was created as part of the production of the item--water vapour, actual pollutants, carbon-dioxide, and then letting the market decide whether CO2 was troubling enough to elicit consumer response.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I could agree as far as allowing people to see how much of any by-product was created as part of the production of the item--water vapour, actual pollutants, carbon-dioxide, and then letting the market decide whether CO2 was troubling enough to elicit consumer response.


Well, that would be a good start. And for many products, I agree that it would be difficult to establish objective environmental costs. However, for many products (especially manufactured products) lifecycle costs can either be established objectively or at least partly so. It's not hard to figure out what it will cost to recycle a car, for example, and that cost should be part of the purchase price for the car. If it were, cars that were easily recycled, and made with materials that were more valuable to recycle would cost less. In the same way this has changed consumer habits WRT purchasing other consumables, this would allow market forces to guide consumer behavior in socially and environmentally desirable ways.


----------



## Macfury

I think I could agree on life cycle costs, but only if built into the purchase price as part of a company's responsibility to accept the product for recycling after use--that is, the company would set the recycling price. Rather than create a simple pass-through price, it would allow companies to set a recycling price in competition with other companies, perhaps choosing materials that they would find easier to recycle at a later date. Perhaps they could find more efficient ways to recycle as the product ages, and pocket some of the difference. A small change to corporate regulations would force a hold-back on recycling charges--a completion bond, so to speak.


----------



## sharonmac09

bryanc said:


> Fortunately, it's not us that has to find an agreement (although I think we probably could). But the approach I'd take would be to look at all the costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product (resources extracted to produce it, labour costs of making it, transportation, marketing, etc., costs of using it, costs of disposing of it, costs of recycling it, etc.) and define that as it's base price. Profit would have to be on top of that.
> 
> That would make some products that are currently cheap very expensive, but some that are currently moderately expensive would stay the same, and therefore become relatively inexpensive. Overall costs of consumption would go up, so consumption would go down. People would buy better-made/locally made/reusable/recyclable products in preference to imported disposables because, once the real costs of those imported disposables was incorporated into their price, they'd no longer be cheap.
> 
> The net effect would be that the market, rather than legislation, would drive people and corporations to take intelligent action, but nobody would be enforcing choices upon anyone.
> 
> Cheers


What you are proposing makes sense in a real market driven world free of the pursuit of the all mighty dollar. How do you propose we eliminate greed out of the equation? Don't forget that many people's disposable income are low or negligible and have no choice but to buy the cheap products with a short lifecycle.


----------



## Macfury

sharonmac09 said:


> How do you propose we eliminate greed out of the equation?


We never drive greed out of the equation. Even the competition between various companies to produce goods at a better price is born of greed, or to be kinder--acquisitiveness. Better to harness this force than to make fruitless attempts to stamp it out. The "low-income" bracket is usually best served by a rebate of some sort, whether GST or recycling fee.


----------



## KC4

bryanc said:


> Fortunately, it's not us that has to find an agreement (although I think we probably could). But the approach I'd take would be to look at all the costs associated with the full lifecycle of a product (resources extracted to produce it, labour costs of making it, transportation, marketing, etc., *costs of using it,* costs of disposing of it, costs of recycling it, etc.) and define that as it's base price. Profit would have to be on top of that.
> 
> That would make some products that are currently cheap very expensive, but some that are currently moderately expensive would stay the same, and therefore become relatively inexpensive. Overall costs of consumption would go up, so consumption would go down. People would buy better-made/locally made/reusable/recyclable products in preference to imported disposables because, once the real costs of those imported disposables was incorporated into their price, they'd no longer be cheap.
> 
> The net effect would be that the market, rather than legislation, would drive people and corporations to take intelligent action, but nobody would be enforcing choices upon anyone.
> 
> Cheers


Very Interesting bryanc....In some instances this is already fully or partially done. I'm a bit confused with what you intend wrt the "cost of use" though...wouldn't this be a consumer burden anyways and therefore shouldn't be built into the base price? Or are you talking the "environmental" cost of using it if is was something (like, for example, some fossil fuels) that polluted the environment?

Oil & Gas development economics (the one I am most familiar with) frequently (but not always) employ full-cycle economics. All of those costs (not sure about the cost of use one) are either directly or indirectly taken into consideration. The cost of resource property reclamation figures prominently as it is a big and getting bigger ticket item. Resource companies haven't been allowed to "walk away" from a mess they created for many decades. Currently, any resource company that "owns" or even "owned" (through predecessors) the surface rights and sometimes even the mineral rights to the polluting hydrocarbon is liable to environmentally reclaim the site to clearly defined standards. There are a few but not many "orphan" sites (where the legal entity holding title has gone bankrupt) and even those are taken care of by the current industry players through an orphan well/facility fund. Again, all figured into the economics, which eventually finds its way into the end price.

Everybody's favorite beating bush, the oil sands is an interesting example and has a bit of a twist. The reclamation is the exploitation. The oil sands project is the world's largest environmental reclamation project - right from the start. Mother Nature (That Biotch)placed all those hydrocarbons on and near the surface and they are in various states of dangerous and very polluting biodegradation. They have been leaking unchecked for centuries into surrounding soils, the air and groundwater in all directions. Massive fires have occurred due to lightning strikes and other causes (yes, some manmade) further increasing the hazard. 

Thankfully Big Oil has the funds and has developed the technology required to take on this Mother of all reclamation projects. I shake my head in wonder at those that would like to see the oil sands reclamation shut down. 



Macfury said:


> I think I could agree on life cycle costs, but only if built into the purchase price as part of a company's responsibility to accept the product for recycling after use--that is, the company would set the recycling price. Rather than create a simple pass-through price, it would allow companies to set a recycling price in competition with other companies, perhaps choosing materials that they would find easier to recycle at a later date. Perhaps they could find more efficient ways to recycle as the product ages, and pocket some of the difference. A small change to corporate regulations would force a hold-back on recycling charges--a completion bond, so to speak.


I like this in principle...but of a challenge for imported goods...but that's what Joint Venture agreements are for.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I think I could agree on life cycle costs, but only if built into the purchase price as part of a company's responsibility to accept the product for recycling after use


Yes, that's what I was thinking. The only problem arises when companies disappear before their products/impacts do. As Sharonmac alludes to, the oil industry has been taken to task on this, and is now required to look after the messes it makes, and therefore adds those costs to the sales prices of it's products. But when companies disappear before they've cleaned up after themselves, we need mechanisms to ensure that the messes are not left unmitigated. That may be a role for government.

As an aside, I like the take on the oil sands project as a giant habitat reclamation effort to clean up a naturally occurring 'oil spill'. It certainly has some merit.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

KC4 said:


> I like this in principle...but of a challenge for imported goods...but that's what Joint Venture agreements are for.


Home Depot accepts many products it sells for recycling, regardless of where they're made. Apple computers aren't made here either.


----------



## KC4

bryanc said:


> Yes, that's what I was thinking. The only problem arises when companies disappear before their products/impacts do. As Sharonmac alludes to, the oil industry has been taken to task on this, and is now required to look after the messes it makes, and therefore adds those costs to the sales prices of it's products. But when companies disappear before they've cleaned up after themselves, we need mechanisms to ensure that the messes are not left unmitigated. That may be a role for government.
> 
> As an aside, I like the take on the oil sands project as a giant habitat reclamation effort to clean up a naturally occurring 'oil spill'. It certainly has some merit.
> 
> Cheers


O&G companies cannot just dispose of their liabilities through sale of these properties either. O&G properties being considered for purchase typically have at least a phase 1 level environmental assessment done to understand the potential liabilities involved (which of course come off the value) If the Phase 1 comes back overly suspicious, then the next phase of assessment is done (a lot more in depth and of course more costly to perform).. Many times a potential buyer will walk away from a property because the estimated liability exceeds the value. That leaves the current owner holding the bag. 

The owner has a defined amount of time to commence clean up and reclamation after the property is no longer productive or suitable for industrial reuse. All operating licenses, present and future, new and renewals, for all properties owned and operated by that company are jeopardized by non-compliance with the regulations. Not just the offending property. All of their business is impacted.

The Orphan Well/Facilities Fund is managed by the government regulators...

http://www.orphanwell.ca/OWA%202007-08%20Ann%20Rpt%20Final.pdf


----------



## MacGuiver

This was funny and sad at the same time. Shameful that our taxpayer funded media outlet refuses to report a major news story because it conflicts with their own agenda.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave

KC4 speaks the truth.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> This was funny and sad at the same time. Shameful that our taxpayer funded media outlet refuses to report a major news story because it conflicts with their own agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Thanks MacGuiver! :clap:

That clearly demonstrates what I have been saying about CBC-TV news for decades.

It's not about what they report, rather it is about what they DON'T report if it does not suit their agenda.

And they DO have an agenda.


----------



## Macfury

Of course, don't expect countries like India to pay any attention to the nonsense Canada is expected to agree to:



> Indian climate envoy resists emission targets
> 
> (AFP)
> 
> NEW DELHI — India's chief climate change negotiator has flatly rejected taking on emission reduction targets a day after Premier Manmohan Singh said the country would commit to cuts conditionally.
> 
> India, one of the world's top greenhouse gas emitters, has yet to offer figures on reining in its carbon output, with just over a week to go until UN climate talks start in Copenhagen.
> 
> Singh said on Saturday that India was "willing to sign on to an ambitious global target for emissions reductions or limiting temperature increase" provided developed countries shared in the burden of funding mitigation.
> 
> But in an interview broadcast Sunday, chief negotiator Shyam Saran told the NDTV news channel that India was under no pressure to join the United States and China -- the world's top two carbon sources -- in announcing firm numbers ahead of the summit.
> 
> "There cannot be any emission cuts," said Saran, adding that the developed world did not expect countries like India to adopt emission reduction targets but instead to accept "deviation from business as usual."



AFP: Indian climate envoy resists emission targets


----------



## bryanc

I guess if my neighbors don't recycle I shouldn't either.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I guess if my neighbors don't recycle I shouldn't either.


This analogy works better: your neighbour asks you to stand on your head while he takes your job, and then declares publicly that standing on one's head has no value, and that he has no intention of standing on his head, because there's work to be done.


----------



## chasMac

*Canada's shame, Canada's shamed*

A leading environmentalist pillories Canada:

Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Interesting read. 

Last paragraph contains probably the most damning words ever levied against this nation:



> The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada.


Not just a threat to the environment, but a threat to the peace and stability of the entire world.


----------



## SINC

Interesting to note the author of that Guardian piece is not an employee, but rather a guest columnist tree hugger from way back:

George Monbiot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The column is biased in the extreme to his opinions and motivations.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> A leading environmentalist pillories Canada:


I'm grateful that Stephen Harper has earned his wrath.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> This analogy works better: your neighbour asks you to stand on your head while he takes your job, and then declares publicly that standing on one's head has no value, and that he has no intention of standing on his head, because there's work to be done.


this sums up your logic quite well!
:clap:


----------



## Rps

just to test a post


----------



## KC4

Very Interesting - Surprise change in Australian Liberal leadership over the issue of Climate Change:

Seconds after Mr Abbott beat Malcolm Turnbull by one vote, he then declared a secret ballot on the proposed ETS (Emission Trading Scheme)..

The motion proposed that the legislation should be delayed for three months, and if this could not be secured, then the legislation should be defeated.

The motion was carried by 54 votes to 29, guaranteeing the death of the Rudd Government’s proposed ETS. 

Liberal leadership spill: Tony Abbott wins | News.com.au


----------



## MacDoc

There is a lot of criticism about emissions trading - Norway and Sweden have used straight carbon tax to good effect for decades....trading just opens doors to corruption 

This is exactly where the debate should be centred - on how best to put a price on carbon emissions and I'm far from convinced trading schemes are the best route.

Here is an informed Australian perspective on it

Carbon tax or cap-and-trade? The debate we never had BraveNewClimate

and one I agree with.


----------



## SINC

Sure, right. Line the pockets of the Al Gores of the world at the expense of over taxed citizens. Yep, great idea.


----------



## Macfury

Neither approach is meaningful in light of ClimateGate.


----------



## Macfury

KC4 said:


> Very Interesting - Surprise change in Australian Liberal leadership over the issue of Climate Change:


Excellent news! This house of cards is collapsing with vigour. 

I'm a little disappointed that a guy named "Joe Hockey" didn't become leader of the opposition though. Would be a great name for a Canadian PM!


----------



## groovetube

'climategate', as you desperately refer to it as, still has yet to prove anything either way. 

Though you seem content with headlines, and pretty pictures.

"look macfury! pretty shiny ball!!!"


----------



## CubaMark

> Those who scoffed at the swiftness with which the world was plunged into an ice age in the film The Day After Tomorrow may need to rethink their disbelief with new research showing that such a scenario may not be so far from the truth. A new study reveals that switching off the North Atlantic circulation can force the Northern hemisphere into a mini ‘ice age’ in a matter of months rather than the tens of years indicated by previous research.


(GizMag.com)


----------



## chasMac

Even if such a scenario were to come to pass, mini ice-ages have historically meant ice-skating on the Thames and a reduction in immigration to Greenland. We have survived climate change in the past.


----------



## Dr.G.

With NL being under a wall of ice, no survival here. One need look as the topography of NL to see the effects of the last ice age.


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> With NL being under a wall of ice, no survival here. One need look as the topography of NL to see the effects of the last ice age.


Many Albertans are in the same boat depends on whether or not it remains a mini or develops into something more serious. 

I do wonder how Montana and Wyoming would react to 3 million Albertans moving in with them.


----------



## Macfury

> Those who scoffed at the swiftness with which the world was plunged into an ice age in the film The Day After Tomorrow may need to rethink their disbelief...


I scoffed mostly at the part where the people were running away from the cold front and slamming doors to keep it out. Also the nutty part where the U.S. refugees get permission to live in Mexico because the U.S. has absolved it of all debt--as though they could have enforced the loan from under 100 feet of ice!


----------



## MacDoc

*THIS* is where the discussion must be centred.....and it is an enormous challenge to world leaders...
The links with the quotes are valuable reads on their own



> *Countdown to Copenhagen*
> 
> Keith Kloor
> It seems like yesterday when everyone was downplaying expectations for success at next week’s climate summit in Copenhagen. Not anymore. Nicholas Stern writes in the Guardian:
> Copenhagen climate conference: Emission impossible | Environment | The Guardian
> 
> _ “Given what is at stake, essentially the future peace and prosperity of the planet, world leaders must now recognise that Copenhagen is the most important international gathering of our time. A strong political agreement can and must be reached in Copenhagen. There can be no excuses for failure.”
> _
> Although a legally binding treaty has been taken off the table, Bill McKibben over at Yale Environment 360
> As the World Waits on the U.S., a Sense of Déjà Vu in Denmark? by Bill McKibben: Yale Environment 360
> takes stock of the thorny issues that still need to be resolved to reach any such political agreement. Among them:
> 
> “_How do you draw something up that doesn’t require treaty approval by the U.S. Senate (no one thinks there are 67 votes for a real climate policy)? How do you give credit for actions already taken? How do you keep carbon trading from turning into one more Wall Street boondoggle?”
> _
> James Hansen, Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild | Grist
> for his part, continues to insist that cap and trade is an “inefficient compromise” and that governments going to Copenhagen are “lying through their teeth” if they say otherwise. In Grist, Hansen writes that climate negotiators need to solve one main equation:
> _
> “Unless they order Russia to leave its gas in the ground and Saudi Arabia to leave its oil in the ground (which nobody has proposed), they must phase out coal and prohibit unconventional fossil fuels.”_
> 
> Over on Scientific American,
> How Can Humanity Avoid or Reverse the Dangers Posed by a Warming Climate?: Scientific American
> physicist Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, concurs:
> _
> "Any credible plan for avoiding dangerous climate change will have to address the question of what India, China, Russia and the U.S. are going to do with the coal they have underground that we cannot afford for them to release into the atmosphere. If they are not going to use that coal, ever, then who is going to compensate them for the benefits lost? And if they are going to use it, then who is going to pay for its carbon content to be sequestered?”_
> 
> Continue reading "Countdown to Copenhagen " »


Climate Feedback


----------



## Macfury

Thankfully, Copenhagen will miss the fear boat.


----------



## eMacMan

FWIW Al Gore so strongly believes in the GW myth that his electrical use is nearly 20 times that of the average Americans. It is almost 40 times my families use and we use some supplemental electric heat 8 months of the year and we heat our hot water electrically.

If he really believed the nonsense he spouts he would put some of those banks of lights on sensors and only air condition those parts of the mansion that are actually being used. Yep he would even GASP insulate properly so as to further reduce his personal consumption. He might even go so far as to sell or close down the energy hog and live in a home that uses less than the national average.

Clearly the mans real interest is in filling his vault at our expense.


----------



## MacDoc

You are really dredging old nonsense.

I use a lot of electricity as well....none of it carbon producing..

••••

The professional versus the amateur.....echoes of some of the denier mindsets here.....

Quote mining code : Deltoid



> Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> You are really dredging old nonsense.
> 
> I use a lot of electricity as well....none of it carbon producing..


It produces just as much carbon as any power I use.

Only difference being, you appear to have a clear conscience spending the extra dough it costs on carbon credits. You know, that stuff that is colourless, odourless, and only seen in the bank balances of the Gores of the world.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Didn't you know that fantasies cost money as well?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Thankfully, Copenhagen will miss the fear boat.


yes it's quite amazing the amount of money that ends up in some bank accounts from the use of fear now isn't it.

*cough*Haliburton*cough*


----------



## eMacMan

MacDoc said:


> You are really dredging old nonsense.
> 
> I use a lot of electricity as well....none of it carbon producing..
> 
> ••••
> 
> The professional versus the amateur.....echoes of some of the denier mindsets here.....
> 
> Quote mining code : Deltoid


Actually this beautifully illustrates the problem with carbon credit trading. Every source of electrical power damages the environment. You should see the amount of concrete anchoring one of those big windmills.

So Al Gore spends a few extra bucks (He has hundreds of millions thanks to carbon credit trades in Europe) In the meantime 38 households have to use one half of the national average to compensate for his extravagance. To actually cut consumption by 20%, 64 households have to perform this feat. To accomplish this rates are increased by Draconian amounts. Who suffers? Those that are already on the edge. They have already reduced consumption to a minimum. They can't afford extra insulation or new windows or high efficiency stoves. The government won't help them out as otherwise they will fail to meet their goals.


----------



## Adrian.

groovetube said:


> yes it's quite amazing the amount of money that ends up in some bank accounts from the use of fear now isn't it.
> 
> *cough*Haliburton*cough*


But the US was defending the motherland and the ultimate and absolute Western civilization! HHHHyyyyyyyeeeepppppp! God bless Amurica, Chevy pickups, shot guns, wal mart, white protestant heterosexuals and cow bell. 

Some people are blind, it is just a reality.


----------



## SINC

And now this from a climate scientist:



> “I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. *The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas*.” - Eduardo Zorita, Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research


Eduardo Zorita


----------



## Adrian.

M&M's build largest solar facitlity in New Jersey :clap:




















Mars Boasts Largest Solar Array in New Jersey : TreeHugger


----------



## Dr.G.

Cool. Love M&Ms ............. "they melt in your mouth and not in your hands"............. and now the company that makes them will help the environment by not adding to the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers.


----------



## eMacMan

In the spirit of the season;
YouTube - The 12 Days Of Global Warming


----------



## Macfury

The folks at Sun Maid have a huge solar-powered raisin-making facility in California:


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> In the spirit of the season;
> YouTube - The 12 Days Of Global Warming


"God bless us, everyone." Merry Christmas, eMacMan.


----------



## MacDoc

for those wishing a bit more detail on the underpinning science...



> *The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps*
> 
> — gavin @ 6 August 2007
> 
> We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.
> 
> Step 1: *There is a natural greenhouse effect.*
> 
> The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around [tex]\sigma T^4[/tex] (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.
> 
> Step 2: *Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.*
> 
> The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.
> 
> Step 3: *The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
> *
> CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.
> 
> Step 4: *Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated*
> 
> Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.
> 
> These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.
> 
> There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.
> 
> The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).
> 
> Step 5: *Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2*
> 
> The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.
> 
> Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).
> 
> Step 6:* Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number*
> 
> Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimate this independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.
> 
> Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.
> 
> Q.E.D.?


RealClimate: The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps


----------



## MacDoc

and the executive summary...



> Posted on: June 17, 2009 9:32 AM, by James Hrynyshyn
> 
> ..* climatologists are right when they say we should be worried about what we're doing to the global heat balance.*
> 
> A commenter on my previous post asked
> 
> _ What aspects of the science do you feel are most convincing in demonstrating the link between fossil fuel emissions and rising global average temperatures?_
> 
> To which I offered one glib and one sincere but pass-the-buck response. I want very much to get past the whole "what's the evidence for climate change" thing. But on reflection, it's important to remind those who are new to the debate, especially younger participants, just why we have as much confidence in the anthropogenic global warming theory. So if you're in one of those categories....
> 
> There are three pieces of science that do the trick for me.
> 
> 1._ The "extra" carbon that's in the atmosphere comes from burning coal, oil and gas. Radioisotope analysis identifies fossil-fuel combustion as the source. We know this because fossil fuels contain a different ratio of C-13 to C-12 than we find in the carbon emitted by living organisms._ See this post at Real Climate for more details. RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
> 
> 2. _The physical reality that carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases reradiate infrared heat, something that's been known for about 150 years._ See this 1861 paper by John Tyndall. http://onramp.nsdl.org/eserv/onramp:16571/n3.Tyndall_1861corrected.pdf
> 
> 3. _Temperature records for the past 250 years show an almost inexorable trend upward that correlates strongly with the cumulative amount of carbon we've been adding by burning coal oil and gas. _See this 2009 paper. Journal of Data Science
> 
> In other words, the laws of thermodynamics and molecular chemistry tell us we should be seeing a rise in temperatures, we do see such a rise, and analysis of the composition of the atmosphere tells us what's responsible. I*t's that simple.*


*Yes it really is.....*

What to do about it.???....not simple at all.....


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

From the BBC news site today:
A journey through the Earth's climate history


----------



## Macfury

> In other words, the laws of thermodynamics and molecular chemistry tell us we should be seeing a rise in temperatures, we do see such a rise, and analysis of the composition of the atmosphere tells us what's responsible. It's that simple.


Except for the past decade where we don't see such a rise. It's NOT that simple.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>


If it doesn’t match my pre-conceived notions it’s just plain wrong. Only the Right Science/Gospel Truth is to be believed and that’s the final word on the matter. Say no more say no more.


----------



## SINC

*Looks Like Gore And The Boys Arrived Early:*

Copenhagen summit: Denmark rushes in laws to stop carbon trading scam

Climate change summit host embarrassed as criminals make most of lax laws to pocket VAT on emissions trading



> Europe's flagship carbon trading scheme suffered a blow today as the Danish government was forced to rush an emergency law through parliament to clamp down on a virulent form of VAT fraud.
> 
> On the eve of the Copenhagen climate talks, which will attract world attention to emissions trading schemes, police and tax investigators across Europe are believed to be investigating hundreds of millions of euros worth of fraud involving carbon quotas originating in Denmark.


Copenhagen summit: Denmark rushes in laws to stop carbon trading scam | Environment | guardian.co.uk

*. . . and so the scamming begins.*


----------



## groovetube

let me get this straight. You mean to tell me, there are people who try to cheat and make money?

Good GOD stop the presses. It means EVERYTHING"S A SCAM....


----------



## SINC

I guess when the gig is up one has to divert attention, do they?


----------



## groovetube

you're absolutely right Sinc. They do it seems!

Surprising illumination!


----------



## MacGuiver

Seems the scamming could be broader than we think. You won't read about this on CBC however because they're too busy throwing out shinny balls to distract the faithful. Maybe they need time to wipe the harddrives like the fraudsters at Hadley.



> The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.
> 
> Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.
> 
> "I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."
> 
> The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.


----------



## groovetube

shiney balls, you mean like the word "trick", and warming as slowed over the last 10 years, and my favorite, the ice has grown a little?

This whole thing is becoming the stuff of absolute numbskullery stupidity. A pile of pseudo experts googling crap feverishly and posting, exclaiming they're RIGHT!

Ah. ok there...


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> shiney balls, you mean like the word "trick", and warming as slowed over the last 10 years, and my favorite, the ice has grown a little?
> 
> * This whole thing is becoming the stuff of absolute numbskullery stupidity. A pile of pseudo experts googling crap feverishly and posting, exclaiming they're RIGHT!
> 
> Ah. ok there...


* Mockery is an attitude, is to treat with contemp, ridicule, make fun of, scorn, to jeer, to taunt, spurn, make sport of, laugh at, scoff, sneer at, poke fun at, imitate, insult. An atempt of one person to destroy the credibility of another persons works of writing, publishings, art, beliefs or anything they find hateful of that particular person. 

Why do these people act in such a way? They are acting from their hearts, what is in their hearts reveals the kind of beliefs they adhere to and profess. These kind of people do not protest against others who think alike, or act as they do, only to those whose beliefs they find intolerable. 

They judge with their remarks the persons character, intelligence and state mind. Why do they fight so hard on something or someone who beliefs are different than theirs? Yes, they have a right to a difference of opinion, but is how that right is expressed that produces the end results. 

In this not a land of freedom, of political independence? A person should be able to express their views respectfully without fear of been attacked by those who think otherwise.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> shiney balls, you mean like the word "trick", and warming as slowed over the last 10 years, and my favorite, the ice has grown a little?
> 
> This whole thing is becoming the stuff of absolute numbskullery stupidity. A pile of pseudo experts googling crap feverishly and posting, exclaiming they're RIGHT!
> 
> Ah. ok there...


I have no problems with the word "trick" but its the "to hide the decline" that follows that puts it in the negative context. But you and other warmers seem to have problem reading the rest of the statement. Maybe Jon Stewart can spell it out for you.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> * Mockery is an attitude, is to treat with contemp, ridicule, make fun of, scorn, to jeer, to taunt, spurn, make sport of, laugh at, scoff, sneer at, poke fun at, imitate, insult. An atempt of one person to destroy the credibility of another persons works of writing, publishings, art, beliefs or anything they find hateful of that particular person.
> 
> Why do these people act in such a way? They are acting from their hearts, what is in their hearts reveals the kind of beliefs they adhere to and profess. These kind of people do not protest against others who think alike, or act as they do, only to those whose beliefs they find intolerable.
> 
> They judge with their remarks the persons character, intelligence and state mind. Why do they fight so hard on something or someone who beliefs are different than theirs? Yes, they have a right to a difference of opinion, but is how that right is expressed that produces the end results.
> 
> In this a the land of freedom, of political independence? A person should be able to express their views respectfully without fear of been attacked by those who think otherwise.


oh Sinc. I've never detected any sense of mockery or attitude in your posts.

I'm sorry when I see a bunch of pseudo scientists screaming on a forum with googled links, pardon me if I mock it.

If you can't take it, don't dish it. Oldest saying in the book. Well almost...

Deal with it.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> I have no problems with the word "trick" but its the "to hide the decline" that follows that puts it in the negative context. But you and other warmers seem to have problem reading the rest of the statement. Maybe Jon Stewart can spell it out for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


oooh. Suddenly Jon Stewart is ok in your books. btw did you watch the rest of that clip?

It appears not...


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oooh. Suddenly Jon Stewart is ok in your books. btw did you watch the rest of that clip?
> 
> It appears not...


groove, you're consistently two steps behind. Endearing but not effective. Of course he watched the clip, but he doesn't need everyone to agree with him 100% of the time. You're acting as if everyone here holds Stewart in contempt.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> groove, you're consistently two steps behind. Endearing but not effective. Of course he watched the clip, but he doesn't need everyone to agree with him 100% of the time. You're acting as if everyone here holds Stewart in contempt.


This rather like playing telephone. 

If you actually read the post, then watched the video... the rest of the video... oh never mind.


----------



## Macfury

Don't worry abut it MacGuiver. He really doesn't get it.


----------



## groovetube

did that make you feel all better?

Good boy.


----------



## CubaMark

Meteorologists: Thursday is warmest December day in Moscow's recorded history



> Published: Thursday, December 3, 2009 | 10:30 AM ET
> Canadian Press THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> MOSCOW - The meteorological service says Moscow is experiencing its warmest December day in recorded history, preventing bears at the zoo from hibernating.
> 
> A warm spell is sending residents out without coats and coaxing mushrooms out of the ground in nearby forests.
> 
> Moscow's meteorological service said Thursday the temperature rose to 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit), balmy for a city famous for winter snow and ice.
> 
> The average winter temperature is minus 4 degrees Centigrade (24.8 Farenheit.)
> 
> State television reported that bears at the Moscow zoo are unable to hibernate. Moscow drivers are complaining about losing the metal studs on their snow tires on the snow-free asphalt.
> 
> By Sunday temperatures are expected to drop to zero Celsius (32 Fahrenheit).


----------



## CubaMark

> "Greenpeace is running a clever ad campaign in the Copenhagen airport in preparation for the Copenhagen climate negotiations that start on Dec. 7. They're a series of ads featuring Photoshopped images of sad-looking world leaders, apologizing for not addressing climate change when they had the chance. Canada's Prime Minister looks like the saddest hockey coach in the land."


----------



## Dr.G.

Interesting. Is that a campaign poster for Harper as the leader of the Conservative Party .......... or the Green Party? Wonder if he will still be out PM in 2020? We shall see.


----------



## Macfury

That GreenPeace ad is a hilarious misfire! They must have hired the same duds that produced some of the inept Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff.


----------



## chasMac

The ad is BS, but the description of the pic is spot on. I can't put my finger on it, but Harper does look like a hockey coach in it.


----------



## FeXL

CubaMark said:


> They're a series of ads featuring Photoshopped images of sad-looking world leaders...


Content of the ads notwithstanding, I'd be interested in the legal ramifications of using another persons image in a commercial ad without their consent.


----------



## Macfury

This is the one I fear...


----------



## groovetube

the other version's text was far more legible.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> oooh. Suddenly Jon Stewart is ok in your books. btw did you watch the rest of that clip?
> 
> It appears not...


The point is a left leaning hollywood type can see the obvious meaning of "trick" but you can't. Are you saying I should discredit anything Stewart says purely because he's left on the political spectrum and I'm not? Talk about tunnel vision.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> The point is a left leaning hollywood type can see the obvious meaning of "trick" but you can't. Are you saying I should discredit anything Stewart says purely because he's left on the political spectrum and I'm not? Talk about tunnel vision.


oh really! That was the point???? My god after 20 pages af sheer shrieking about the word TRICK, I never would have thought.

Masters of reiterations!!!!


----------



## CubaMark

CBC News - Manitoba - Hungry polar bears resorting to cannibalism


----------



## SINC

Sorry CM but that is simply nature taking it's normal course. 

When an alpha male takes over a territory, it automatically kills and often eats the young of the former alpha male. That ensures that only his line will continue and no other as he impregnates the available female or females. Lions and big cats do this all the time as do many other male mammals.

Some tree hugger set up the CBC good on that one.


----------



## Macfury

That's hilarious! Most carnivores have no sense of cannibalism. Father bears routinely eat their own young unless mama bear gives dad a good swat across the face and sends him packing. Same goes for lions. Pigs can be similarly vicious.


----------



## Vandave

CubaMark said:


> Meteorologists: Thursday is warmest December day in Moscow's recorded history


It's snowing in Houston Texas. Yes Texas. 

Nice and sunny over in my corner of the world though.


----------



## eggman

SINC said:


> Sorry CM but that is simply nature taking it's normal course.
> 
> When an alpha male takes over a territory, it automatically kills and often eats the young of the former alpha male. That ensures that only his line will continue and no other as he impregnates the available female or females. Lions and big cats do this all the time as do many other male mammals.
> 
> Some tree hugger set up the CBC good on that one.


Sorry SINC that does not appear to be the case:



> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP)—Polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea may be turning to cannibalism because longer seasons without ice keep them from getting to their natural food, a new study by American and Canadian scientists has found.
> 
> The study reviewed three examples of polar bears preying on each other from January to April 2004 north of Alaska and western Canada, *including the first-ever reported killing of a female in a den shortly after it gave birth.*


...


> The male did not follow the cub, indicating it had killed for food instead of breeding.


A number of indications from the study quoted above in the article linked below indicate that these events may be occurring because the bears need food, not because the bears are after territory or are securing their genetic line.

Polar Bears May Be Turning to Cannibalism | LiveScience

This study is older then the current reports - predating the current media "frenzy" by 3 years... the bears have been getting thinner for a while. It may just be that now with pictures and youtube it makes the front pages.


----------



## adagio

Climategate gone mainstream

For those who still fail to understand what has happened, better start reading up. This genie isn't going back in the bottle. The CRU has been totally discredited and Phil Jones asked to step aside. NASA is being sued. There will likely be a congressional investigation in the US. Finally, many many scientists who were afraid to present findings that went against the so-called consensus are speaking up. It has never been science when those with dissenting views are bullied and blackmailed into silence. AWG has always been about money, lots of money. The likes of Gore, Enron and Goldman Sachs have been pouring millions into the funding. They expect a certain conclusion any way they can get it. 

The truly sad thing, and I say this as an environmentally conscious person, is all the while we have been chasing CO2 the real pollutants have taken a back burner. Cap and trade or any other carbon tax scheme is a scam. What is proposed in Copenhagen is nothing more than an elaborate wealth transfer scheme. It's BS on a monumental scale. 

Just think of these names, Enron, Ken Lay. Remember these folks? Do YOU trust them to have your best interests at heart? I can tell you the alarm bells went off in my head. This whole thing has stunk for years. I do have 35 years in a science background and one thing I know is there is NO such thing as consensus in science. When these folks started calling anyone who questioned "deniers" or any other derogatory name, I knew something stunk to high heaven. 

There's plenty of interesting info out there. Read the comments of any of the AWG articles. Lots of links for both sides of the coin.


----------



## eMacMan

adagio said:


> ... AWG has always been about money, lots of money. The likes of Gore, Enron and Goldman Sachs have been pouring millions into the funding. They expect a certain conclusion any way they can get it.
> 
> * The truly sad thing, and I say this as an environmentally conscious person, is all the while we have been chasing CO2 the real pollutants have taken a back burner.* *Cap and trade or any other carbon tax scheme is a scam. What is proposed in Copenhagen is nothing more than an elaborate wealth transfer scheme. It's BS on a monumental scale. *
> 
> Just think of these names, Enron, Ken Lay. Remember these folks? Do YOU trust them to have your best interests at heart? I can tell you the alarm bells went off in my head. This whole thing has stunk for years. I do have 35 years in a science background and one thing I know is there is NO such thing as consensus in science. When these folks started calling anyone who questioned "deniers" or any other derogatory name, I knew something stunk to high heaven.
> 
> There's plenty of interesting info out there. Read the comments of any of the AWG articles. Lots of links for both sides of the coin.


Needed a bit more emphasis. BTW Last I heard the folks in Alaska are still trying to collect from Exxon over the Valdez disaster.

If you liked the banksters bailout scam, you'll love cap and trade.


----------



## CubaMark

*Climate change threatens life in Shishmaref, Alaska*



> When the arctic winds howl and angry waves pummel the shore of this Inupiat Eskimo village, Shelton and Clara Kokeok fear that their house, already at the edge of the Earth, finally may plunge into the gray sea below.
> "The land is going away," said Shelton Kokeok, 65, whose home is on the tip of a bluff that's been melting in part because of climate change. "I think it's going to vanish one of these days."


(CNN)


----------



## adagio

The great American Bubble Machine

Environmentalism HAS been hijacked. I'm reading more and more ordinary folks are coming to the realization they've be monumentally had. News has spread around the globe. While many are still in denial and shock that something they believed in isn't necessarily true, the truth is out there for those who want to put aside petty politics and seek out what the damning information is all about.

I haven't read anyone who disagrees with the notion we should clean up our toxic mess but AWG is FAR FAR from settled and proposing a cap and trade on developed nations is nothing more than a scam that does absolutely nothing to clean up our earth on a global scale but instead puts money, tons of money, into the hands of despot third world leader's hands and the likes of Goldman Sachs.

And please... no more pictures of polar bears eating their young. That's right up there with the bullcrap of Paul McCartney on the ice with cute seal pups. 

Is climate change happening? Yes indeed it is just as it always has. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period? Look it up. 

Here's a good analysis of how certain corrupt scientists have managed to deceive so many honest caring environmental people. It's sickening. It's criminal.

Hide the decline


----------



## Adrian.

*Copenhagen Talks Start on Good Foot!*



> A study released by the U.N. Environment Programs indicated that pledges by industrial countries and major emerging nations fall just short of greenhouse gas reductions that scientists have called for – and the gap is narrower than previously believed.



We're at a climate turning point, official warns - thestar.com


----------



## Adrian.

adagio said:


> Here's a good analysis of how certain corrupt scientists have managed to deceive so many honest caring environmental people. It's sickening. It's criminal.


Yea, criminal corruption eh...

How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science


Good thing the energy industry was caught red handed! 

The fact remains that you can find a *few certain* corrupt scientists here and there that have misrepresented climate change. But it still remains that it is *only a certain few that have.*

Nearly all, indeed all who have proper education to administer such observations, have been found to have been funded or corrupted by groups that have a very specific interest in the denial of climate change. Everyone else who knows what they are talking about and aren't having their pockets laced with money are in accord to the reality of man made climate change as a result of our pollution based economy.


----------



## Macfury

I love sh!te like Copenhagen, They promise, they leave, they forget.

As long as Canada holds back, I'm good with the rest of those clowns gutting their economies.


----------



## adagio

Open letter to the climate research community


----------



## SINC

adagio said:


> Open letter to the climate research community


Great link Marg, thanks. Sadly, the believers will tear it apart in frustration, although it does cut to the core of their support argument falsehoods.


----------



## KC4

Adrian. said:


> We're at a climate turning point, official warns - thestar.com


Canada has the Saudis and the Aussies to keep them company in the "doghouse" at Copenhagen. Who else wants in? 

Saudis rain on summit's parade | The Australian


----------



## KC4

*I'll have to change my PowerPoint Slides...*

...again...:lmao:




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Warning: Foul Language advisory (in both languages)


----------



## bryanc

adagio said:


> Open letter to the climate research community


Yes, good link. Thanks.

I'm not quite sure I understand the logic of it in this part:



> The next step was to show that this “unprecedented high current temperature” has to be a result of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> The fact that the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Models are not able to explain the post-1970 temperature increase by natural forcing was interpreted as proof that it was caused by humans. It is more logical to admit that the models are not yet good enough to capture natural climate variability (how much or how little do we understand aerosol and clouds,and ocean circulation?), even though we can all agree that part of theobserved post-1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration.


So if we all agree (and apparently even the climate change skeptics do) that the post 1970 warming is due to the increase of atmospheric CO2, and we have good data on the amount of CO2 our combustion of fossil fuels has released into the atmosphere, it seems a trivial accounting exercise to put these facts together, and attribute (little | some | most) of the observed warming to human activity.

Furthermore, he states that the first of the "three pillars" of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is sound, then makes this logically questionable attack on the second, and concludes that



> Thus, two of the three pillars of the global warming and carbon dioxide paradigm are open to reinvestigation.


Maybe I'm missing something, but I only see one of the three pillars under attack here, and the attack is confusingly unsubstantiated.

Can anyone help me understand what this guy is saying?


----------



## Adrian.

*56 World Newspapers Unite to Support Copenhagen Climate Talks in Joint Editorial*



'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'


----------



## MacDoc

Dino of the decade...



> *Dirty' image puts Canada in climate doghouse at Copenhagen*
> 
> While it has its defenders, home of the oil sands must prove it can be part of the solution as global summit set to begin
> 
> Published on Sunday, Dec. 06, 2009 7:25PM EST
> Last updated on Monday, Dec. 07, 2009 7:49AM EST
> 
> The country “is the dirty old man of the climate world,” according to a recent Guardian article. Another prominent article published ahead of the Copenhagen climate-change summit called it a “corrupt petro-state.” Various diplomats and scientists have rallied for its expulsion from international organizations.
> 
> China? Venezuela or an oil-stained African state?
> 
> Try Canada.
> 
> Almost 200 countries will attend the Copenhagen conference, which starts Monday, but few of them will roll in with a more blackened image.
> 
> Among the international carbon-reduction negotiators, Canada is seen as part of the problem, not part of the solution, partly because its greenhouse emissions under the soon-to-expire Kyoto Protocol soared when they were supposed to go in the opposite direction, and because the proposed new cuts are relatively small.


'Dirty' image puts Canada in climate doghouse at Copenhagen - The Globe and Mail


----------



## MacDoc

Strange the Globe used the term doghouse....must have seen Harpers lap puppies wandering about make loud noises....



> *Hébert: Issue puts Harper on unity hot seat*
> Comment on this story »
> 
> By Chantal Hébert
> National Columnist
> Published On Mon Dec 07 2009er part of four decades, every Canadian prime minister has found the unity file at the top of the to-do pile. On that score, Stephen Harper's watch is turning out to be dramatically different from that of his predecessors.
> 
> But appearances can be misleading. These days, the climate change issue has replaced the Constitution as a unity flashpoint. The stakes involved are just as divisive and the inter-regional strains on the fabric of the country just as real.
> 
> In the lead-up to this month's international climate summit in Copenhagen, the environment has become the country's most litigious federal-provincial file, easily outranking a controversial federal plan for a single national financial regulator or the unpopular advent of harmonized sales taxes in two major provinces.
> 
> The constitutional debates of the past were mostly domestic matters, but Canada's divisions on climate change are on exhibit on the international scene.
> 
> In Copenhagen, the message of the major provinces amounts to a rebuttal of the defensive mantra of the federal government.
> 
> It is only the latest reminder that Canada is a federation whose provincial partners are not always reconcilable.
> 
> A report commissioned by the TD bank in the lead-up to the summit recently illustrated that point.
> 
> It concluded that Canada could afford to pursue a more aggressive plan to reduce its carbon gas emissions without imperilling its overall economic growth.
> 
> But the fine print of the report told a more complex story.
> 
> Under the reduction models contemplated in the study, most provinces would do as well or better but not Alberta and Saskatchewan.
> 
> The provinces whose economies are based on fossil fuels are wary of a federal plan that would see Canada tackle climate change at the expense of their future economic growth.
> 
> But the provinces that see aggressive carbon gas reductions as essential to the maintenance of their economic competitiveness are just as suspicious.
> 
> Prior to the Copenhagen meeting, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia all set emission-reduction targets that are substantially more aggressive than the goal set by the federal government.
> 
> But if those three provinces do meet their stated objectives, the other seven could actually increase their carbon emissions without Canada missing the minimalist national target set in the current federal framework.
> 
> That possibility has the Bloc Québécois daily accusing the Harper government of giving Alberta a pass at the expense of greener provinces such as Quebec.
> 
> Such fears are not confined to sovereignists; Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently raised similar concerns. "We don't want our progress to benefit another part of the country, to relieve them of their obligation to make progress as well," he warned.
> 
> At first glance, the Harper government is faced with a federal-provincial puzzle from which all the pieces that involve give-and-take have gone missing.
> 
> Harper's base is in Alberta. His minority government will soon have to address a record federal deficit. The strength of the economic recovery will determine how painful that exercise will be. Over the next few years, the energy sector is expected to soften the impact of a dramatic restructuring of Canada's manufacturing sector.
> 
> The flip side to this lose-lose equation for the environment is that the activist climate-change agenda of the three biggest provinces is not unfolding in a political vacuum.
> 
> *Together, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec speak for three-quarters of Canadians. Slowly but surely their green ambitions are making the laissez-faire attitude of the Harper government politically unsustainable.{/b]
> 
> *


*
Hébert: Issue puts Harper on unity hot seat - thestar.com*


----------



## MacGuiver

Adrian. said:


> 'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'


Actually that number is way higher and its certainly nothing new. They've been doing this for years. The papers haven't limited their cheer leading for global warming...err climate change to the editorial pages either. Just look at climategate, all you can hear are crickets from the majority of the GW faithful media lap puppies.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

Ladies and gentlemen, pull up a chair and sit down and watch Copenhagen go down in flames without any unanimous agreement.


----------



## KC4

SINC said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, pull up a chair and sit down and watch Copenhagen go down in flames without any unanimous agreement.


Clean burning Natural gas flames though......


----------



## eMacMan

MacGuiver said:


> Actually that number is way higher and its certainly nothing new. They've been doing this for years. The papers haven't limited their cheer leading for global warming...err climate change to the editorial pages either. Just look at climategate, all you can hear are crickets from the majority of the GW faithful media lap puppies.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Reminds me of the press repeating the Bush crap about Iraq being ready to destroy the world. Or the current crap crop about the Iran threat. When big money stands to make bigger money at our expense you can count on the press to pound the drums of hysteria.


----------



## MacGuiver

eMacMan said:


> Reminds me of the press repeating the Bush crap about Iraq being ready to destroy the world. Or the current crap crop about the Iran threat. When big money stands to make bigger money at our expense you can count on the press to pound the drums of hysteria.


I agree. I don't think journalist research or investigate anymore. They just report what they're fed on the office fax machine. I worked in it for years and have seen it first hand.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Vandave

Meanwhile... over in China...


----------



## Macfury

It's no wonder the influence of newspapers is dying with that kind of advocacy reporting.

Three cheers for Canada, for holding out against the Copenhagen ninnies! I've rarely been as proud of Canada as I am today!


----------



## Vandave

Do as I say, not as I do.


----------



## eMacMan

Al Gore will get his CO2 footprint to 20% below the national average. Sadly 38 families will be set adrift on ice floes to accomplish this feat.beejacon


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Do as I say, not as I do.


Next thing you know, Gore will be flying to South Africa and pretending it doesn't matter!


----------



## SINC

:yawn::yawn: Goooorrriiinnnggg . . .


----------



## KC4

Whooo.......we had better stop discussing this issue on line and posting information and links etc...on our beloved ehMac.ca...sorry Mayor! 
Sierra Club of Canada News Release


----------



## SINC

The Sierra Club? :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Relax. Sierra Club shows its true disdain for science here. They're not interested in the research at all--they want the Cliamtegate hackers prosecuted! Hilarious!


----------



## groovetube

jesus you fellahs are just a'tap dancin in here aren't yas...


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> jesus you fellahs are just a'tap dancin in here aren't yas...


Nope - but we're WATCHIN' it!


----------



## Vandave

The first photos shows the disappointment of the Haitian delegate to an apparent breakdown in the Coppenhagen climate summit. 

The second photo shows visually how Haiti really treats their environment relative to their neighbour the Dominican Republic. A satellite photo from 10 years ago showed that Haiti only had 1% of their forest cover left.

It begs the question... why does Haiti really care about a climate agreement? It seems to me that global warming is the least of their worries. 

Or perhaps, Haiti and other third world countries are looking to gain something else? Hmmm....


----------



## Macfury

Vandave: I'd be crying in my soup too if I'd brought empty suitcases to take home bags of cash I was anticipating. Heaven knows they'll need the money to buy some more trees.


----------



## Macfury

Swe-e-e-e-e-et!

Bye-bye binding climate deal - The Globe and Mail


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> Swe-e-e-e-e-et!
> 
> Bye-bye binding climate deal - The Globe and Mail


Combine that with this and it's a double double!



> *The scientist who convinced the world to take notice of the looming danger of global warming says it would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.
> 
> In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world's pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.*


Copenhagen climate change talks must fail, says top scientist | Environment | The Guardian

The bungling is almost too funny for words! :lmao:

To think all they accomplished was to put more carbon in the air flying all those believers over there.


----------



## chasMac

This is actually the most promising tid-bit I've come across:



> Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leakDeveloping countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations


Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> Nope - but we're WATCHIN' it!


what's up next fellahs, the chicken dance?

da da dada dada dap....


----------



## eMacMan

Shouldn't listen to the news. It seems that the EPA has declared greenhouse gases harmful to human health.

Some of the regulations we should anticipate in the near future. 

Farting will be strictly prohibited except in Congress where farting around is referred to as Business As Usual. Anyone caught eating beans broccoli or any other flatulence producing food will be deported to Mexico regardless of citizenship.

All auto and aircraft use in the US will be strictly banned.

Heating or air conditioning of homes is strictly prohibited.

Clouds in any form will be strictly prohibited. Water shortages will be compensated via imports from Canada. The latter will be done at gunpoint if need be. Thirsty citizens are asked to be patient as it is still impossible to bring home troops from the Middle East to enforce water import laws. We can't bring them home due to the ban on flying any sort of aircraft in US airspace.

There have been some complaints of food shortages due to the ban on water vapour in the atmosphere. When we send the troops to Canada to bring us water they will also bring back food. Unfortunately Global Warming has not reached Canada yet so food may only be available for four months a year.

Finally all US residents are ordered to stop breathing as this produces both water vapour and CO2. 

We realize these new regulations may inconvenience many of our citizens. Personal exemptions to any or all of these new regulations may be obtained by shipping copious quantities of cash to the Gore Gang.:greedy::greedy::greedy::greedy::greedy:


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> what's up next fellahs, the chicken dance?
> 
> da da dada dada dap....


I guess that's all Climategaters can come up with when things are crumbling around them.


----------



## MacDoc

Defending theft I see - I thought lap puppies were all law and order and sheriffs and posse's types....










meanwhile in the real world




> AP)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> *This decade is very likely to be the warmest since record keeping began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.*
> 
> In some areas - parts of Africa and central Asia - this will probably be the warmest year, but overall 2009 "is likely to be about the fifth-warmest year on record," said Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.
> 
> The decade 2000-2009 "is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on," Jarraud said at a news conference, holding up a chart with a temperature curve pointing upward.
> 
> If 2009 ends as the fifth-warmest year, it would replace the year 2003. According to the U.S. space agency NASA, the other warmest years since 1850 have been 2005, 1998, 2007 and 2006. NASA says the differences in readings among these years are so small as to be statistically insignificant.
> 
> The data were released as negotiators at the two-week talks in Copenhagen worked Tuesday to craft a global deal to step up efforts to stem climate change, digging into the dense technicalities of "metrics" and "gas inventories."


continues

PhysOrg Mobile: UN: 2000-2009 likely warmest decade on record


----------



## eMacMan

Don't know where MacDoc gets his info. Around here summer did not even get started until August. We skipped fall altogether and slid into winter in early October. Right now it's -35°C and despite MacDocs assurance of a very warm winter we are fully expecting this one to be brutally cold.


----------



## SINC

Better a lap puppy than all those dead dogs doing nothing in Copenhagen. At least our movement is alive and thriving.


----------



## Vandave

MacDoc said:


> Defending theft I see - I thought lap puppies were all law and order and sheriffs and posse's types....


Theft? Please explain.


----------



## Macfury

> This decade is very likely to be the warmest since record keeping began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported Tuesday on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.


I love this crappy photoshopped image so much I'm going to re-use it.

Those statistics are courtesy The Met Office, closely linked with the Hadley CRU and also noted for lack of transparency in data and selective use of statistics and monitoring station information. 

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online

What's next MacDoc? Have you reached the point where you tell us: "You're all gonna fry!!!"


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I guess that's all Climategaters can come up with when things are crumbling around them.


crumbling?

Sinc the whole thing is crumbling. All I see are a bunch of nincompoops, spending exorbitant amounts of money and flying useless people all to pretend to care about what all scientists have pointed to as a growing problem.

And then there is you (and your and fellow lap pups) who think that this, is proof of a conspiracy. Because there are corrupt people out there who are trying to make a buck of this.

People trying to make money off this? That is truly, the most out there thing I have -ever-... heard.

dance on my friend. Dance on.
:clap:


----------



## Macfury

Never write up to conspiracy what can be explained by incompetence and greed.


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> People trying to make money off this? That is truly, the most out there thing I have -ever-... heard.


So you think the Haitian delegate is upset because she is worried about our planet warming a few degrees?

Or do you think she is upset because she goes home empty handed and was expecting a big payday at our expense?


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> So you think the Haitian delegate is upset because she is worried about our planet warming a few degrees?
> 
> Or do you think she is upset because she goes home empty handed and was expecting a big payday at our expense?


oh anything your little heart desires there vandave. Since it matters to so.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave: As expected. No answer.


----------



## KC4

groovetube said:


> what's up next fellahs, the chicken dance?
> 
> da da dada dada dap....


Maybe - But, I CAN'T WAIT for the SINGING to begin.


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> Vandave: As expected. No answer.


My hopes were low to begin with. I sense a severe case of cognitive dissonance with Groovetube. To answer such a question would threaten his whole world view.

I would be interested to hear him or anybody else comment on why Al Gore doesn't walk the walk. Why is it OK for his carbon emissions to be many times higher than the rest of us?


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc is going to research this further in South Africa, then fly back with a stinging CO2-laced rebuttal.


----------



## eMacMan

Actually if any of those idiots in Copenhagen actually believed that GW was a serious threat they would have stayed home. This all could easily have been done via a teleconference. They could have trumpeted their self sacrifice in light of the seriousness of the issue and even pointed out that they had passed up a stay in a country with legalized prostitution. beejacon

The reason they needed to gather was to see how much of a cut from carbon credit trading they could personally pocket. That's not the sort of information that these guys want to entrust to eMail especially after the ClimateGate leaks.


----------



## KC4

.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> MacDoc is going to research this further in South Africa, then fly back with a stinging CO2-laced rebuttal.


According to that weird video with polar bears falling out of the sky:



> "An average European flight produces over 400 kg. of greenhouse gases for every passenger. That's the weight of an adult polar bear."





> The video is a new promotional film from the British group that campaigns aggressively to end airport expansion, citing it as a prime culprit in the earth's changing climate


Polar Bears Falling To Their Deaths: Plane Stupid's Shock Ad (VIDEO)

Trans-continental flights verge on criminally inrresponsible.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Trans-continental flights verge on criminally irresponsible.


He's made peace with his Gaia, and fly he must. This is a vacation for Pete's sake, not some foresaken business endeavour.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Better a lap puppy than all those dead dogs doing nothing in Copenhagen.


May I respectfully be allowed to suggest that the 'doing nothing', apart from being largely** redundant might usefully be left out?

Thus: "Better a lap puppy than all those dead dogs in Copenhagen."

So much more 'Headline' don't you think? It contains the same lack of syntax, grammar and literacy, while retaining the humour.

Of course you could enhance the alliterative feel of the piece like this:
"Better a lap puppy than all those dead dogs doing diddly in Copenhagen."

I rather like that. You may use it if you wish.

It's so unfashionable these days to write in sentences.

I'm sure you have a much better grasp of climate science than you do of English.

** I say that the 'doing nothing' is _largely_ redundant, because of course any dead animal will be doing _something_, though not in an autonomic nor voluntarily sense. I, of course, am alluding to putrifaction and its attendant delights.

I do love this thread. You fellows really are a hoot. Keep it up.


----------



## Macfury

I think you're onto something here, Snapple. The dead dog Copenhagen attendees are in all likelihood putrefying. Perhaps those with an ounce of life are still stewing in their own angry juices.


----------



## groovetube

That's quite an observation macfury.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Wonderful stuff, Macfury, and as quick as a flash. You never let us down.

Valuable input like this, to such a complicated topic, is always welcome!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Valuable input like this, to such a complicated topic, is always welcome!


Nothing like replying to and quoting from one's own post, eh?

To avoid confusion, I should say that the topic I was referring to was of course the usage and abusage of the English language. "Elliptical is as elliptical does", to mangle an old saying.

Have all the anti-Copenhagen drunks gone home? It seemed to be quite a party.


----------



## BigDL

chasMac said:


> According to that weird video with polar bears falling out of the sky:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polar Bears Falling To Their Deaths: Plane Stupid's Shock Ad (VIDEO)
> 
> Trans-continental flights verge on criminally inrresponsible.


Just in from Internet Radio


Les Nesman WKRP in Cincinnati said:


> "I see a dark object falling from the sky. OMG they're polar bears hitting the pavement...like bags of wet cement....OH! the humanities" Les Nesman WKRP in Cincinnati


----------



## Macfury

It's almost midnight in Copenhagen, Snapple. Pretty quiet on the convention floor.


----------



## CubaMark

Vandave said:


> The first photos shows the disappointment of the Haitian delegate to an apparent breakdown in the Coppenhagen climate summit. The second photo shows visually how Haiti really treats their environment relative to their neighbour the Dominican Republic. A satellite photo from 10 years ago showed that Haiti only had 1% of their forest cover left. It begs the question... why does Haiti really care about a climate agreement? It seems to me that global warming is the least of their worries. Or perhaps, Haiti and other third world countries are looking to gain something else? Hmmm....


Vandave, do you know anything about Haiti? I mean, *anything*?

Following a coup that removed any semblance of popular representation in government (supported by Canada, the US, etc.), Haiti has continued to be a basket case economically, "managed" by the "geniuses" at the IMF and World Bank. The country is so dirt-poor, that any stick that can be burnt goes to fuel for cooking, because the population can't afford gas or other combustibles. The massive deforestation of the country has a spin-off effect of thousands of deaths from hurricanes (see Hurricane Jeanne in 2004: 3006 deaths) due to mudslides and flash flooding.

Haiti has far more immediate problems than the climate. You say the photo of the woman shows her "disappointment". Does it? Or is that an interpretation of the image? Perhaps she's just another government functionary tired after a long day of talks? Source for the inference?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> It's almost midnight in Copenhagen, Snapple. Pretty quiet on the convention floor.


I was talking about here, you old wag. I went to watch a film, came back and this place was empty.


----------



## groovetube

tap dancing is pretty draining.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

i would think so. They'll all have terribly sore heads in the morning.

Wait for it .... here it comes ...


----------



## Vandave

CubaMark said:


> Vandave, do you know anything about Haiti? I mean, *anything*?
> 
> Haiti has far more immediate problems than the climate. You say the photo of the woman shows her "disappointment". Does it? Or is that an interpretation of the image? Perhaps she's just another government functionary tired after a long day of talks? Source for the inference?


No, I know next to nothing about it. But I did know they cut down their entire forest.

I agree, they have lots of other problems. Climate change probably isn't in the top 10. Taking handouts in the form of Greenhouse Credits from developed nations probably is.

Yes, it is an interpretation. Seems apt.


----------



## CubaMark

*Matt Osborne: Climategate and the Life-Cycle of Nontroversy*



> _*It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. *_
> -- Macbeth​
> Nontroversy feeds on empty, twisted brains. In this case, a general unfamiliarity with the language of scientific banter allows the "climategate" nontroversy to overwhelm the consensus on global warming. That consensus is built on literally hundreds of thousands of studies at this point; and indeed, the stolen emails contain a wealth of proof that temperatures are rising. Yet the media stovepipe magnifies, even invents, discrepancies and minimizes evidence, even as the ice melts:
> 
> "Consensus" is the key word here. Nontroversy always aims to distort or destroy consensus. Birther sites and ACORN fantasies exist for the sole purpose of undermining the democratic consensus of last November's election; and insofar as they have convinced a majority of Republicans, they have succeeded.


----------



## Macfury

I don't think Osborne is going to get much traction with material like that.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I don't think Osborne is going to get much traction with material like that.


How about material like this?


----------



## eMacMan

*2 views*

Both points of view neatly summed up in side by side headlines from todays Lethbridge Herald.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> How about material like this?


I would really doubt it.


----------



## SINC

eMacMan said:


> Both points of view neatly summed up in side by side headlines from todays Lethbridge Herald.
> 
> View attachment 11644


Let's call it a draw and forget sending money to Al Gore, OK?


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Let's call it a draw and forget sending money to Al Gore, OK?


Works for me.


----------



## SINC

*But, we can't forget the money - follow the money trail*

Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag



> WASHINGTON — If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
> 
> So what is all this going to cost?
> 
> *The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency*.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Adrian.

Vandave said:


> So you think the Haitian delegate is upset because she is worried about our planet warming a few degrees?
> 
> Or do you think she is upset because she goes home empty handed and was expecting a big payday at our expense?


Vandave,

It has been long practice for northern governments to send money to the south under the auspices of "aid" with the unmarked quality of it being "tied". I don't have the sourced material with me, but roughly 3/4 of all Canadian aid is tied aid, which means that all or a certain percentage of it must be spend on Canadian goods or services. The rest is usually humanitarian, crisis aid which is comprised of Canadian food stuffs, medical equipment and emergency infrastructure. 

Similar to tied aid, any money sent to the south to reduce carbon emissions will be mostly spent on products and intellectual rights of northern companies. 

Top Ten Wind Turbine Manufacturers in the World:

1. Vestas (Denmark) 4,500 MW
2. GE Energy (United States) 3,300 MW
3. Gamesa (Spain) 3,050 MW
4. Enercon (Germany) 2,700 MW
5. Suzlon (India) 2,000 MW
6. Siemens (Denmark / Germany) 1,400 MW
7. Acciona (Spain) 870 MW
8. Goldwind (China - PRC) 830 MW
9. Nordex (Germany) 670 MW
10. Sinovel (China - PRC) 670 MW

Sorted by megawatts installed worldwide.

You can see all the major wind turbine manufacturers in the world here: 

List of wind turbine manufacturers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is colloquial knowledge, at least among economists anyways, that northern countries hold technology and patent rights to the world foremost technology. Moreover, they have the larger segments of epistemic communities and facilities to continue the innovation. 

There is an entire group of political discourse that attacks the emerging political regime of climate change. They do not target the efficacy of the science of climate change. Rather they see climate change as a vehicle for the perpetuation of this lop-sided economic system of developed and underdeveloped countries.

I would not be surprised if the financial transfers to countries like Haiti would include stipulations that a certain amount has to be spent from the financing country. Even it doesn't contain such conditions, countries such as Haiti do not have the industries to supply their "Green Initiatives".

In some way or another, Canada will benefit substantially from these payments. Especially companies like Cameco who produce energy grade uranium.

There is an entire political economic behind this. I agree with many of you sceptics that carbon credits are simply the next phase in this unregulated international financial free for all that is going on. But in terms of wealth transfers for Green Initiatives, the probable outcome is that the financing countries will benefit more than these poor countries with their hands out, at least at the end of the day. 

I look forward to your response.


----------



## Macfury

Keep "carbon money" at home where we will enjoy 100 per cent of it.


----------



## FeXL

What's this?!!!



> Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations
> 
> His Excellency Ban Ki Moon
> 
> Secretary-General, United Nations
> 
> New York, NY
> 
> United States of America
> 
> 8 December 2009
> 
> Dear Secretary-General,
> 
> Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. *Truly, the science is NOT settled.*
> 
> Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. *Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.*
> 
> We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation.
> 
> ...
> 
> I*t is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.*


Emphasis mine.


----------



## SINC

Gee FeXL, you left out the most important part. Those who signed on to this open letter, so allow me to list them.

Note the number of fellow Canadian scientists in the two lists.

Of course the climategators will find a way to debunk all of them, but I challenge them to try and discredit even half:

Signed by:
Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
Göran Ahlgren, docent organisk kemi, general secretary of the Stockholm Initiative, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Stockholm, Sweden
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa.
Jock Allison, PhD, ONZM, formerly Ministry of Agriculture Regional Research Director, Dunedin, New Zealand
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, dr. scient, physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Member, Science Advisory Board, ICSC, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Douglas W. Barr, BS (Meteorology, University of Chicago), BS and MS (Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota), Barr Engineering Co. (environmental issues and water resources), Minnesota, U.S.A.
Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD, Earth Science, Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol. (University of Freiburg), Biologist, Freiburg, Germany
David Bellamy, OBE, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, U.K.
M. I. Bhat, Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Ian R. Bock, BSc, PhD, DSc, Biological sciences (retired), Ringkobing, Denmark
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (Multi-Science Publishing website), Hull, United Kingdom
Atholl Sutherland Brown, PhD (Geology, Princeton University), Regional Geology, Tectonics and Mineral Deposits, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
James Buckee, D.Phil. (Oxon), focus on stellar atmospheres, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., Arctic Animal Behavioural Ecologist, wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta, Canada
Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick, PhD, Geologist, dendrochronology (analyzing tree rings to determine past climate) lecturing, Southwestern Adventist University, Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
George V. Chilingar, PhD, Member, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow President, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, U.S.A. Section, Emeritus Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Charles A. Clough, BS (Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), MS (Atmospheric Science, Texas Tech University), former (to 2006) Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; now residing in Bel Air, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
Allan Cortese, meteorological researcher and spotter for the National Weather Service, retired computer professional, Billerica, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Susan Crockford, PhD (Zoology/Evolutionary Biology/Archaeozoology), Adjunct Professor (Anthropology/Faculty of Graduate Studies), University of Victoria, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada
Claude Culross, PhD (Organic Chemistry), retired, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin), Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director - ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, Climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, Hamilton, New Zealand
James DeMeo, PhD (University of Kansas 1986, Earth/Climate Science), now in Private Research, Ashland, Oregon, U.S.A.
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England
Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author The Climate. Science and Politics (2009)
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.
David Evans, PhD (EE), MSc (Stat), MSc (EE), MA (Math), BE (EE), BSc, mathematician, carbon accountant and modeler, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak', Scientific Advisory Panel member - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Sören Floderus, PhD (Physical Geography (Uppsala University)), coastal-environment specialization, Copenhagen, Denmark
Louis Fowler, BS (Mathematics), MA (Physics), 33 years in environmental measurements (Ambient Air Quality Measurements), Austin, Texas, U.S.A.
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa (Retired), U.S.A.
David G. Gee, Professor of Geology (Emeritus), Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavagen 16, Uppsala, Sweden
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, ScAgr, Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, Tropical pasture research and land use management, Director científico de INTTAS, Loma Plata, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst and member of NIPCC, Lidingö, Sweden
Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Thomas B. Gray, MS, Meteorology, Retired, USAF, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
Kenneth P. Green, M.Sc. (Biology, University of San Diego) and a Doctorate in Environmental Science and Engineering from the University of California at Los Angeles, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), systems/software engineering, modeling & simulation, design, Consultant, Coyle, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
William Happer, PhD, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics (research focus is interaction of light and matter, a key mechanism for global warming and cooling), Princeton University; Former Director, Office of Energy Research (now Office of Science), US Department of Energy (supervised climate change research), Member - National Academy of Sciences of the USA, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, American Philosophical Society; Princeton, NJ, USA.
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Connecticut, U.S.A.
Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas, U.S.A.
James A. Heimbach, Jr., BA Physics (Franklin and Marshall College), Master's and PhD in Meteorology (Oklahoma University), Prof. Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences (University of North Carolina at Asheville), Springvale, Maine, U.S.A.
Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
Terri Jackson, MSc MPhil., Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London), U.K.
Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland.
Terrell Johnson, B.S. (Zoology), M.S. (Wildlife & Range Resources, Air & Water Quality), Principal Environmental Engineer, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Green River, Wyoming, U.S.A.


----------



## SINC

And since there are so many it is too long to post in one go, here are the rest:


Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
Wibjörn Karlén, MSc (quaternary sciences), PhD (physical geography), Professor emeritus, Stockholm University, Department of Social and Economic Geography, Geografiska Annaler Ser. A, Uppsala, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, Whakatane, Bay of Plenty, New Zealand
Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorologist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor "Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member "Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
Gary Kubat, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), professional meteorologist last 18 years, O'Fallon, Illinois, U.S.A.
Roar Larsen, Dr.ing.(PhD), Chief Scientist, SINTEF (Trondheim, Norway), Adjunct Professor, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President - Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Edward Liebsch, BS (Earth Science & Chemistry), MS (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University), Senior Air Quality Scientist, HDR Inc., Maple Grove, MN, U.S.A.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
Horst Malberg, PhD, former director of Institute of Meteorology, Free University of Berlin, Germany
Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA's Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
Cdr. M. R. Morgan, PhD, FRMetS, climate consultant, former Director in marine meteorology policy and planning in DND Canada, NATO and World Meteorological Organization and later a research scientist in global climatology at Exeter University, UK, now residing in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Robert Neff, M.S. (Meteorology, St Louis University), Weather Officer, USAF; Contractor support to NASA Meteorology Satellites, Retired, Camp Springs, Maryland, U.S.A.
John Nicol, PhD, Physics, (Retired) James Cook University, Chairman - Australian Climate Science Coalition, Brisbane, Australia
Ingemar Nordin, PhD, professor in philosophy of science (including a focus on "Climate research, philosophical and sociological aspects of a politicised research area"), Linköpings University, Sweden.
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, BSc Hons (Qld), MSc, PhD (Melb), DSc (Qld), Emeritus Professor, Honorary Research Fellow and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Visiting Fellow, RSBS, ANU, Canberra, ACT, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair - International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Weather Forecasting, Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, the public broadcasting station of the University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Professor (retired) Utrecht University, isotope and planetary geology, Past-President Royal Netherlands Society of Geology and Mining, former President of the Royal Geological and Mining Society of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil, MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology), Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, retired member board Netherlands Organization Applied Research TNO, Leiden, The Netherlands
Curt Rose, BA, MA (University of Western Ontario), MA, PhD (Clark University), Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Studies and Geography, Bishop's University, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada
Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant - Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
Clive Schaupmeyer, B.Sc., M.Sc., Professional Agrologist (awarded an Alberta "Distinguished Agrologist"), 40 years of weather and climate studies with respect to crops, Coaldale, Alberta, Canada
Bruce Schwoegler, BS (Meteorology and Naval Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison), Chief Technology Officer, MySky Communications Inc, meteorologist, science writer and principal/co-founder of MySky, Lakeville, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
John Shade, BS (Physics), MS (Atmospheric Physics), MS (Applied Statistics), Industrial Statistics Consultant, GDP, Dunfermline, Scotland, United Kingdom
Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (Applied Optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2, Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist and chemist, Cobourg, Ontario, Canada
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor of Geography, specialising in Resource Management, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
Walter Starck, PhD (Biological Oceanography), marine biologist (specialization in coral reefs and fisheries), author, photographer, Townsville, Australia
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of "Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability", International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
Arlin Super, PhD (Meteorology), former Professor of Meteorology at Montana State University, retired Research Meteorologist, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
Mitchell Taylor, PhD, Biologist (Polar Bear Specialist), Wildlife Research Section, Department of Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Gösta Walin, PhD in Theoretical physics, Professor emeritus in oceanography, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Neil Waterhouse, PhD (Physics, Thermal, Precise Temperature Measurement), retired, National Research Council, Bell Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Anthony Watts, 25-year broadcast meteorology veteran and currently chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM radio. In 1987, he founded ItWorks, which supplies custom weather stations, Internet servers, weather graphics content, and broadcast video equipment. In 2007, Watts founded SurfaceStations.org, a Web site devoted to photographing and documenting the quality of weather stations across the U.S., U.S.A.
Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
James Weeg, BS (Geology), MS (Environmental Science), Professional Geologist/hydrologist, Advent Environmental Inc, Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, U.S.A.
Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former adjunct professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member - Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
Raphael Wust, PhD, Adj Sen. Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Stan Zlochen, BS (Atmospheric Science), MS (Atmospheric Science), USAF (retired), Omaha, Nebraska, U.S.A.
Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Gee Sinc, Joe Bastardi's on that list!

That's a confirmer! If he hadn't been there, I would have been highly sceptical. I have seen the light. Praise the Lord and turn up the thermostat.

Shock blow, better Joe than lap puppy dead dogs doing diddly in Copenhagen.

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Here's some real purdy pictures of Joe.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I would really doubt it.


Of course you would. Actually, I would go so far as to suggest that you actually *do* doubt it.

"His doubts are his own."


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> Both points of view neatly summed up in side by side headlines from todays Lethbridge Herald.]


The headline on the left isn't so much a point of view as a stated fact, but I get your drift
The clipping does show a lovely juxtaposition. It's a masterful piece of newspaper layout and a welcome contribution to the debate.

Thank you.

Minus 39C must be really nippy.


----------



## MacDoc

One of the denier favs Dear Lord Monckton 
Richard Littlemore | Pompous Prat Alert! Viscount Monckton on Tour
gets his comeuppance in Copenhagen.....

What looks like a small crowd coming to listen to his enlightened viewpoint actually turns out to be 5 .....count em 5 voluntary attendees and the remainder protesters to his nonsense...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






YouTube - Eco Hypocrites Fly in Jets Across Atlantic to Attack AFP in Copenhagen



> Fifty young U.S. clean energy activists stormed the stage today in Copenhagen during a live webcast organized by Americans for Prosperity and featuring climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton.
> When the youth group interrupted the webcast to deliver the message that real Americans want clean energy and a fair climate treaty, Monckton went ballistic, calling the students *“crazed Hitler youth” and “Nazis.” *
> 
> The incident was not likely the intended result Americans for Prosperity hoped for as it launched the COP15 version of its "Hot Air Tour" (a.k.a. denial-a-palooza). AFP sent its team to Copenhagen "to make sure that our side of the story is told." But their live event today – complete with the student protest - was webcast to over forty climate denier rallies taking place in cities across the United States.
> 
> SustainUS reports that “a paltry audience of five conference attendees” attended the event to hear Monckton’s (planned) speech, with the balance of the audience comprised of AFPers and the youth activists (who entered surreptitiously in small groups before taking the stage with their clean energy message).
> 
> The young activists, representing a number of youth action groups including SustainUS, the Sierra Student Coalition, the Cascade Climate Network, and other American youth NGOs, kicked off the protest by holding banners in front of the cameras reading "Climate Disaster Ahead" and "Clean Energy Now."
> 
> When AFP staffers ripped the banners out of their hands, the students began a five-minute chant of "Real Americans for Prosperity are Americans for Clean Energy," leaving AFP organizers scratching their heads about what to do.
> 
> Americans for Prosperity President Tim Phillips and his camera crew tried unsuccessfully to focus the lens more tightly on Monckton as he continued speaking, hoping to take back control of the event despite the protest in the background. With several of the youth activists clustered around the podium, AFP kept the cameras rolling, continuing to stream the footage to the broader audience back in the U.S.
> 
> That’s when Monckton let loose, saying live on camera: “You are listening now to the shouts in the background of the Hitler youth.”
> 
> Monckton’s tirade aside, the American youths had a clear message to deliver, highlighting the fact that "clean energy creates jobs.” Rachel Barge, a 24-year-old entrepreneur from San Francisco, CA who was the first young person to raise her voice at the event, said afterwards that "These climate action delayers and science deniers are stealing bold, new economic opportunities from the American public."
> 
> That sentiment was echoed by Laura Comer, a 21-year-old from Strongsville, Ohio who also participated in the action. Comer said, "We're representing the majority of Americans on this, particularly young Americans. The real America wants clean energy - not more fossil fuel-funded lies about the science."


Brendan DeMelle: Climate Denier Calls U.S. Activists "Hitler Youth" at Americans For Prosperity Protest

nothing too new for the new for the fossil funded denier cadre



> *Dangerously Dishonest Climate "Expert" at Large in Canada
> *
> 
> Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is gamboling his way across Canada, acting like a character recently escaped from a Monty Python skit and inflaming the passions of climate change deniers and their favourite newspaper editors (at the National Post and the Calgary Herald).
> Monckton is being urged on and abetted by the Friends of Science, an oily front group, long derided for  trying to conceal its connections to the Calgary oil and gas community. Right wing think tanks the Fraser Institute and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy are also sponsoring the tour. (Although the Fraser Institute has been a recipient of Exxon Mobil funding in the past, neither organization is acknowledging who is paying Monckton to suggest that we all have "the courage to do nothing" about climate change.)
> There are two problems with Monckton. First, he claims to be a science expert, regardless that his paper-thin educational background lies in the Classics and his single academic credit is a diploma in journalism (no sin, but surely not a climatology PhD). The second problem is that despite his track record for apparently intentional inaccuracies, people continue to take him seriously.
> What of that track record?
> Monckton has been caught out on several occasions indulging in deliberate manipulation of scientific data to understate the effects of climate science.


Richard Littlemore | Pompous Prat Alert! Viscount Monckton on Tour


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Ah, yes, my old pal the 3rd Viscount.

I find it rather encouraging that we have representatives of the aristocracy involved in this very important debate. _Noblesse oblige_.

The sound of a few clipped, strangulated vowels will have the climate-warmer peasantry back up on their perches in no time. It must be galling for such illustrious and noble fellows to have to stoop to travelling to foreign climes to put the record straight. A couple of hundred years ago he and his pals would simply have flogged and/or hung a sampling of the unwashed rabble to instil some order. Nowadays, what with constraints imposed by 'Human Rights' legislation they feel the need to 'discuss the issues'.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

I've been asked if I see some resemblance between two heroes of mine, Viscount Monckton** and Joe Bastardi. It must be a trick of the light.










** His grandfather, Viscount Monckton Mark I, was involved, in the late 50s, with oil in Iraq. It would be mischievous to suggest that the 3rd Viscount Monckton might be carrying a heavy burden of grief over the way the Iraq Petroleum Company was nationalised by a bunch of savages. The late Saddam Hussein and his gang were beneficiaries of of this skulduggery.

Three cheers for the 3rd Viscount, I say, as he carries the flaming Sword of Truth into the darkness inhabited by the warmers.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Let's call it a draw and forget sending money to Al Gore, OK?


I'm all for draws.

Considering that headline about minus 39C in Lethbridge, I'd say "Winter draws on!"


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> ** His grandfather, Viscount Monckton Mark I, was involved, in the late 50s, with oil in Iraq. It would be mischievous to suggest that the 3rd Viscount Monckton might be carrying a heavy burden of grief over the way the Iraq Petroleum Company was nationalised by a bunch of savages. The late Saddam Hussein and his gang were beneficiaries of of this skulduggery.
> 
> Three cheers for the 3rd Viscount, I say, as he carries the flaming Sword of Truth into the darkness inhabited by the warmers.


With MacDoc, this works two ways. 
1. If he disagrees with someone who has petro-chemical interests, he calls conflict of interest. 
2, If he agrees with someone who has petro-chemical interests he declares: "Why, even the petro-chemical industry is coming around to my rather laudable viewpoint!"

MacDoc is very flexible in these matters.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> One of the denier favs Dear Lord Monckton
> Richard Littlemore | Pompous Prat Alert! Viscount Monckton on Tour
> gets his comeuppance in Copenhagen.....
> 
> What looks like a small crowd coming to listen to his enlightened viewpoint actually turns out to be 5 .....count em 5 voluntary attendees and the remainder protesters to his nonsense...
> [/URL]


So the Warmists planted some shills to shout at him? What's this-an open exchange of ideas or an episode of _Punk'd_? Nice to see Warmists behaving desperately, though.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, and the climatgators even found two, count 'em, TWO on the list they doubt. Seems to me that leaves about 139 they don't, doesn't it?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Gee Sinc, Joe Bastardi's on that list!


I was happy to see David Bellamy on that list. I used to watch _Don't Ask Me_, a fine program with Magnus Pyke and sweet Miriam Stoppard. I ran into Derek Griffiths in Toronto once and couldn't keep myself from approaching him to mention how much I enjoyed that show.


----------



## MacDoc

> *Exposure to Coal Lowers IQ in Newborns
> *
> by Susan Kraemer in Carbon/ GHG Reduction
> 
> When my friends across the border are astonished at the sheer stupidity that dominates American politics and national discourse – and exclaim “Is there something in the water over there?” they might be on to something. It turns out, there actually is something in the water over here affecting us. And in the air. It’s coal.
> 
> 
> Physicians for Social Responsibility released a groundbreaking medical report, “Coal’s Assault on Human Health,” which takes a new look at the devastating impacts of coal on the national health.
> 
> Researchers estimate that every year another half million children are born in the U.S. with blood mercury levels high enough to reduce IQ scores and cause lifelong loss of intelligence.
> 
> Coal pollutants act on the nervous system to cause loss of intellectual capacity, primarily through mercury. This is costly to society. The report estimates that this costs the nation up to $43.8 billion annually in remedial education and lost lifetime income.
> 
> “The findings of this report are clear: while the U.S. relies heavily on coal for its energy needs, the consequences of that reliance for our health are grave,” says one of the principal report’s principal authors; Dr. Alan H. Lockwood, a professor of neurology at the University at Buffalo.
> 
> Not only does coal make our health a drain on our own nation’s economy, but it also isn’t helping us be as smart as we need to be to help the rest of the world take on the huge global challenges of even surviving the next few centuries; due to catastrophic climate change.
> 
> It also increases the incidence of major diseases. Coal contributes to four of the top five causes of mortality in the U.S. and our most costly chronic illnesses: our asthma, our diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimers, and stroke.
> 
> So when we Americans continue to vote for politicians who reduce our educational funding and vote for politicians who filibuster globally accepted climate change legislation – - and we even mount protests against getting non-profit health care that is in our own best interest – - don’t blame us.
> 
> It’s not us, it’s the coal we’ve been breathing. We are fossil fools.


Exposure to Coal Lowers IQ in Newborns | Green Living Ideas

the original report
Coal's Assault on Human Health


----------



## adagio

Well geez, Doc, if coal makes you stupid then the Chinese must be the dumbest on earth given the sheer magnitude of the number of coal fired plants they currently have and the numbers are increasing every month.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> So the Warmists planted some shills to shout at him?


Proof/link/quote/source? 

This needs to be investigated forthwith. I leave it in your capable hands, Macfury.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

adagio said:


> Well geez, Doc, if coal makes you stupid then the Chinese must be the dumbest on earth given the sheer magnitude of the number of coal fired plants they currently have and the numbers are increasing every month.


Watch out for the Chinese, adagio, they're coming to take over the world. They're putting into practice now everything they learned from the barbarians, and they're charging ahead regardless, just like Europe and America in days of old.

Start learning Mandarin.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Proof/link/quote/source?
> 
> This needs to be investigated forthwith. I leave it in your capable hands, Macfury.


They attended with the intention to shout him down and acted as shills for the warmists. This is not an illegal matter. No investigation is necessary.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





SINC said:


> Let's call it a draw and forget sending money to Al Gore, OK?


 There you go. AlGoreugh!phobia. Always the Right Science/Gospel Truth answer. You Betcha .

AlGoreugh!phobia = induced irrational fear and loathing of all things environmental and especially related to anthropogenic global warming and any proposed remedial action.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Watch out for the Chinese, adagio, they're coming to take over the world. They're putting into practice now everything they learned from the barbarians, and they're charging ahead regardless, just like Europe and America in days of old.
> 
> Start learning Mandarin.


I've argued this for a long time. You can make whatever decisions you want about what kind of culture you'd like to see in your own country and make those decisions for all of the right and just reasons--then get knocked flat on your ass by a vigorous culture who isn't hampered by those notions.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I was happy to see David Bellamy on that list. I used to watch _Don't Ask Me_, a fine program with Magnus Pyke and sweet Miriam Stoppard. I ran into Derek Griffiths in Toronto once and couldn't keep myself from approaching him to mention how much I enjoyed that show.


Nice to see they're happy for a change. Your posts recently have been so negative, with 'doubts' (not like you at all) and 'don'ts'.

David Bellamy is also a great favourite of mine. I well remember him bouncing my baby niece on his knee at a festival in Craigtoun Park here in Fife way back in 1988, I think. A quiet, charming man with no pretensions to body building.


----------



## SINC

This seems apt:


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>





Macfury said:


> They attended with the intention to shout him down and acted as shills for the warmists. This is not an illegal matter. No investigation is necessary.


shills,It takes one to know one?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> A quiet, charming man with no pretensions to body building.


A bear of a man with a pipe!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> They attended with the intention to shout him down and acted as shills for the warmists.


They probably learned the trick from the folk that used to follow Sir David King around the world.



Macfury said:


> This is not an illegal matter.


Did someone say it was? 



Macfury said:


> No investigation is necessary.


A bit slippery, that one. Do you mean investigation is only necessary if it were an illegal matter?

"What are you doing, man!?"
"Investigating this ..."
"Is it an illegal matter?"
"No."
"Then stop!"

On the other hand:

"What are you doing, man!?"
"Investigating this ..."
"Is it an illegal matter?"
"The object of the investigation is to provide an answer to that question."

Or, my take:

"What are you doing, man!?"
"Investigating this ..."
"Is it an illegal matter?"
"Irrelevant"

It must be so tiring working away constantly, popping up in threads and forums all over the place trying to keep the wheels on the coolists' turnip cart. I do admire you.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I've argued this for a long time. You can make whatever decisions you want about what kind of culture you'd like to see in your own country and make those decisions for all of the right and just reasons--then get knocked flat on your ass by a vigorous culture who isn't hampered by those notions.


It just isn't fair, is it? So get ready, make sure you've got some cushions to land on, roll with the punches and learn to survive in the new world order.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> They probably learned the trick from the folk that used to follow Sir David King around the world.


I think a bunch of Pharisees used it on _King_ David.



Snapple Quaffer said:


> It must be so tiring working away constantly, popping up in threads and forums all over the place trying to keep the wheels on the coolists' turnip cart. I do admire you.


I have abundant energy for this, so much so that I could possibly spell the world's energy needs in time of crisis. But unlike you I see the wheels popping off the warmist cart, and that shabby vehicle toddling off into the ocean (being submerged more quickly of course, due to rapidly rising sea levels.)


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> It just isn't fair, is it? So get ready, make sure you've got some cushions to land on, roll with the punches and learn to survive in the new world order.


I'm trying to toughen up our own country while the locals sing Kumbaya. You'll have to do your own bit for the British Empire, since I'm pretty much stretched to the limit here.


----------



## FeXL

Macfury said:


> With MacDoc, this works two ways.
> 1. If he disagrees with someone who has petro-chemical interests, he calls conflict of interest.
> 2, If he agrees with someone who has petro-chemical interests he declares: "Why, even the petro-chemical industry is coming around to my rather laudable viewpoint!"
> 
> MacDoc is very flexible in these matters.


 Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam



> The big irony behind top globalists descending on Copenhagen in luxury private jets and stretch limos is not just the fact that their own behavior completely contradicts their self-righteous hyperbole about CO2 emissions, but that their propaganda is vehemently supported by the very same big oil interests they accuse climate skeptics of pandering to.
> 
> Probably one of the most flagrant examples of climate cronyism to emerge from the climategate scandal were emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner” while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.
> 
> The emails reveal that the CRU was *also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil*, under its former identity as Esso.
> 
> “Now who is the shill for Big Oil again?” *asks Anthony Watts*. “Next time somebody brings up that ridiculous argument about skeptics, show them this.”


Emphasis from original.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> I see the wheels popping off the warmist cart, ...


Do you really? Your missives often suggest this - but are you truly confident that this is some misguided phase the world has fallen victim to. If so, you a much more optimistic person than I am.


----------



## Vandave

adagio said:


> Well geez, Doc, if coal makes you stupid then the Chinese must be the dumbest on earth given the sheer magnitude of the number of coal fired plants they currently have and the numbers are increasing every month.


Crickets... chirp chirp....


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Anthony Watts - no surprises there. Fully paid up coolistdeniersceptic. A convert to the cause, as I understand it.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> Do you really? Your missives often suggest this - but are you truly confident that this is some misguided phase the world has fallen victim to. If so, you a much more optimistic person than I am.


I am confident that this phase of human faddism will be considered a joke at some point, along the lines of "the Russkies are changing the weather" during the Cold War. My concern is that the people doing the Charleston today are trying to force others to perform that zany dance alongside them. Herd mentality can cause a great deal of short-term pain before the animals disperse.


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>


It was the evil Ice Queen who put a spell on many of the world to believe it was warming when actually the land was cooling. The sea ice and polar glaciers were growing. The Alpine/Mountain Glaciers have grown down the mountains taken over the lower elevations and she will soon release her Neanderthal minions from their caves to take over the world and enslave the peaceful valley folk and low lying coastal and island people.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Crickets... chirp chirp....


MacDoc has no time for your nonsense. He has greater concerns awaiting him after his airplane trip to Africa.


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> Herd mentality can cause a great deal of short-term pain before the animals disperse.


Yes, well in retrospect and in the grand scheme of things the Soviet Union was short-term.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> It was the evil Ice Queen who put a spell on many of the world to believe it was warming when actually the land was cooling. The sea ice and polar glaciers were growing. The Alpine/Mountain Glaciers have grown down the mountains taken over the lower elevations and she will soon release her Neanderthal minions from their caves to take over the world and enslave the peaceful valley folk and low lying coastal and island people.


Peace on Earth was all it said...


----------



## MacDoc

and the heat goes on....must be faeries burning too much coal



> *Climate change turns up heat on mushrooms*
> Dec 09, Biology/Ecology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have discovered that spring-fruiting fungi, including the morel and St George’s mushroom are *fruiting nearly three weeks earlier than they did 50 years ago.*
> 
> The study, carried out by an international team of scientists, including a biologist from Royal Holloway, University of London, examines the changes in the time of spring fruiting in Norway and the UK between 1960 - 2007.
> 
> The findings are being published in the 'Proceedings of the Royal Society' this week and show not only how global warming has lead to the earlier fruiting of spring fungi but that climate affects the growth of organisms over much longer time scales than previously thought.
> 
> Alan Gange, Professor of Microbial Ecology, at Royal Holloway, says, “It is well known that organisms such as birds or plants are laying or flowering earlier, due to higher prevailing temperatures in the spring. However, we found that higher temperatures as long ago as the previous summer cause fungi to fruit earlier in the following spring.”
> 
> These findings show the effects of climate change have an impact over longer periods than previously believed. “Even if we do manage to reverse climate change the effects will last longer than we previously thought, so the climate today could affect the growth of mushrooms in 18 months time”, he said.
> 
> Many fungus species spend their lives in the soil as a fibrous mat called a mycelium. Professor Gange believes the fungi used to be kept in check by sharp frosts earlier in the year but the lack of these frosts has meant nothing is forcing the fungi to remain dormant in the soil and so they appear earlier.
> 
> Professor Gange said, “The entire pattern of fungal growth has changed, meaning that the vital ecosystem functions of decomposition and nutrient cycling must have speeded up considerably, as our autumns and winters have become warmer”.
> 
> “This means the disappearance of leaf litter and rotting of things like compost heaps happen more quickly than they used to. In woodlands tree growth is likely to be quicker because of greater availability of nutrients.”
> 
> Despite the contrasting climates of the UK and Norway the results were consistent between both countries because both climates have experienced warming over the winter.
> 
> Provided by Royal Holloway, University of London


see critters and plants don't give a **** about denier nonsense - they just adapt as best they can and provide scientists with a fine record of change...


----------



## KC4

FeXL said:


> Big Oil Behind Copenhagen Climate Scam
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis from original.


Interesting FeXL....
I can see how BIG OIL (hell...BIG BUSINESS of many kinds) could be revenue neutral through this Carbon scheme and benefit greatly from the business model (shall I dare say "business *environment*" ) stabilization that would be afforded by tighter defined controls. Once you know what you have to work with - you can work it for all it's worth...and I think it's potentially worth a lot to some - but not all. ..oh, yes and there's the rub. Nasty.

Ever _herd_ that saying, "Be careful what you wish for?"


----------



## adagio

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Watch out for the Chinese, adagio, they're coming to take over the world. They're putting into practice now everything they learned from the barbarians, and they're charging ahead regardless, just like Europe and America in days of old.
> 
> Start learning Mandarin.


I'm not worried. According to Doc everyone with coal plants has a low IQ. I'm sure we can beat those Chinese folks.


----------



## FeXL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Anthony Watts - no surprises there. Fully paid up coolistdeniersceptic. A convert to the cause, as I understand it.


'Kay, fine, so you don't have a high opinion of Anthony Watts. No issues with that.

The question is, can you disprove his argument?


----------



## Macfury

> “...the climate today could affect the growth of mushrooms in 18 months time”, he said.


----------



## CubaMark

*The importance of fungi*

Fungi are one of the most important groups of organisms on the planet. This is easy to overlook, given their largely hidden, unseen actions and growth. They are important in an enormous variety of ways

Read more...


----------



## Macfury

> Fungi are one of the most important groups of organisms on the planet.


----------



## CubaMark

Finally! *Now you're getting it!*


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I am confident that this phase of human faddism will be considered a joke at some point ...


Any sort of time line here? In your lifetime?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

adagio said:


> I'm not worried.I'm sure we can beat those Chinese folks.


You'd be better joining them. With your superior IQ you'd be king.


----------



## MacDoc

> Originally Posted by *Macfury*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I am confident that this phase of human faddism will be considered a joke at some point ..._


Your denier ilk fall into that category now....put on the red nose and clown paint and you'll get along right well with Lord Monckton.


----------



## CubaMark

Al Gore bashes climate-change deniers: "Global warming deniers persist in this air of unreality" | Crooks and Liars

_Andrea Mitchell interviewed Al Gore today (Wed, 9 Dec 2009) to talk about climate-change deniers, since Copenhagen, with its many moving parts, has begun. And with the summit, the rash of climate-change and global-warming deniers has really stepped up. What makes these people deny proven science? Digby and Paul Krugman discuss the hatred of reality by conservative loons.

Anyway, Gore asks the question that a Sarah Palin could never answer logically: Why are the polar ice caps disappearing? The bat**** crazy deniers like Palin don't know the caps exist maybe because she can't see them from her house..._



> *MITCHELL*: Congratulations on the book. You write in your new book, "Our Choice," "The global warming deniers' arguments are fraudulent and often nonsensical." Yet even today, one of the best-known voices in the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, has an op-ed in the Washington Post, and she is escalating a major attack against Copenhagen and against -- against the summit. Palin calls it "junk science." She says, "The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worst."
> 
> What's your response to that?
> 
> *GORE:* Well, you know, the -- the global warming deniers persist in this air of unreality. After all, the entire north polar icecap, which has been there for most of the last 3 million years, is disappearing before our eyes. Forty percent is already gone. The rest is expected to go completely within the next decade. What do they think is causing this?
> 
> The mountain glaciers in every region of the world are melting, many of them at an accelerated rate, threatening drinking supplies -- drinking water supplies and agricultural water supplies. We have these record storms, drought, floods, fires, three deaths (ph) in the American West, climate refugees beginning now, expected to rise to the hundreds of millions unless we take action.
> 
> These effects are taking place all over the world exactly as predicted by the scientists, who have warned for years that, if we continue putting 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every day, the accumulation -- that's going to trap lots more heat, raise temperatures, and cause all of these consequences that are already beginning.
> 
> *MITCHELL*: Well, one of the things that she has written recently on Facebook is that this is doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that makes the public feel like owning an SUV is a sin against the planet.
> 
> *GORE*: Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a -- a principle in physics. It's not a question of debate. *It's like gravity; it exists.*


Read more at www.crooksandliars.com


----------



## KC4

*Hundreds show up in Copenhagen to protest Global Warming*

....


----------



## BigDL

MacDoc said:


> Your denier ilk fall into that category now....put on the red nose and clown paint and you'll get along right well with Lord Monckton.


I am so pleased the community in which I reside changed its spelling not to be confused with the Monckton Bozo as the community is the butt of enough jokes as is.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Your denier ilk fall into that category now....put on the red nose and clown paint and you'll get along right well with Lord Monckton.


The CO2 Special:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

A denier's lament.

Hang on, CubaMark, I see that Gore chappie claims that gravity exists!

If he thinks we're going to fall for that sort of tosh he's mistaken. I mean, it might exist in some places, but that doesn't mean it's a global problem. The biggest giveaway is clouds. They seem to manage fine without it. The Moon's never fallen on us. This is the biggest swindle to be perpetrated on the taxpayers since they claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we all had to stump up the cash so that a load of goons could march in and trash the place looking for them. Never found 'em.

Next thing we'll be subjected to abuse ... 'gravity-deniers', that sort of thing ... when the proof is all around us that we're right.
They'll wheel out 'scientists' by the cartload, weaselly bespectacled little fellows with bad skin and dandruff, knowing b*gger-all about anything except how to con more research grants out of taxes paid by decent, honest, god-fearing folk.

Sorry, but that boat just won't float.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## BigDL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> A denier's lament.
> 
> Hang on, CubaMark, I see that Gore chappie claims that gravity exists!
> 
> If he thinks we're going to fall for that sort of tosh he's mistaken. I mean, it might exist in some places, but that doesn't mean it's a global problem. The biggest giveaway is clouds. They seem to manage fine without it. The Moon's never fallen on us. This is the biggest swindle to be perpetrated on the taxpayers since they claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and we all had to stump up the cash so that a load of goons could march in and trash the place looking for them. Never found 'em.
> 
> Next thing we'll be subjected to abuse ... 'gravity-deniers', that sort of thing ... when the proof is all around us that we're right.
> They'll wheel out 'scientists' by the cartload, weaselly bespectacled little fellows with bad skin and dandruff, knowing b*gger-all about anything except how to con more research grants out of taxes paid by decent, honest, god-fearing folk.
> 
> Sorry, but that boat just won't float.


Now that massive gains have been attained to deny global warming through Climategate. This method now dubbed Geneticgate was employed once again by RightScience/Gospel Truth rugged individualists to attack the theory of evolution. 

Not only does this revelation destroy Darwin’s pet theory but proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Gregor’s Mendel’s work with pea plants the work that modern genetics is based upon was falsified. No one, to this day, has been able to reproduce Mendel’s results.


> Mendel’s actual experiments are more complicated than described above. For example, in 1936, the statistician R.A. Fisher used a chi-square test to analyze Mendel's data and concluded that Mendel's results with the predicted ratios were far too perfect, indicating that adjustments (intentional or unconscious) had been made to the data to make the observations fit the hypothesis. Later authors have claimed Fisher's analysis was flawed, proposing various statistical and botanical explanations for Mendel's numbers. It is also possible that Mendel's results are "too good....”


There is no doubt in any credible scientist’s mind that Intelligent Design is the last word and the Right Science/Gospel Truth on how every person, animal, plant or organism is here on earth and why everything works together so well and why men especially white men and exclusively white, rich men from northern countries must have Dominion over everyone and everything.You Betcha

The ASTONISHING FACTS HERE Gregor Mendel: The Pea Plant Experiment


----------



## Macfury

If Mendel were alive today, he would be held accountable for both his raw data and the conclusions derived therefrom--just as the Climategate researchers will be.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

BigDL said:


> There is no doubt in any credible scientist’s mind that Intelligent Design is the last word and the Right Science/Gospel Truth on how every person, animal, plant or organism is here on earth and why everything works together so well and why men especially white men and exclusively white, rich men from northern countries must have Dominion over everyone and everything.You Betcha


Glory Halleluyah!

Now it's time to roll back the Enlightenment and put Reason back in the box. Pol Pot had the right idea. Year Zero here we come. Dead dog lap puppies? "You ain't seen nuthin' yet", to quote Saint Ronald.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> If Mendel were alive today, he would be held accountable for both his raw data and the conclusions derived therefrom--just as the Climategate researchers will be.


Researchers are always held accountable for their raw data and conclusions. It's called the scientific method, you see.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

That was a terrible shot, Macfury. You must be tired.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Mark Fiore has blown the lid off it all - Science Gate


----------



## FeXL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Researchers are always held accountable for their raw data and conclusions. It's called the scientific method, you see.


Quite familiar with the process, thankyouverymuch.

BTW, where is the CRU's raw data, anyway?

Riiight. The dog ate it...


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> Quite familiar with the process, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> BTW, where is the CRU's raw data, anyway?
> 
> Riiight. The dog ate it...


Then you agree dogs prefer real science, rather than the dog’s breakfast of Viscount Monckton sciencey equations and calculations, which were rapidly dismissed as bunkum as explained here RealClimate: Cuckoo Science


----------



## eMacMan

*Do as Al Gore Says not as He Does.*

Old news that Al Gore's main home uses 20 times the national energy average. Not quite sure how his other two homes do nor how much CO2 is produced with his lavish use of private jets.

Personally I am willing to nominate the carbonator for the Ig Noble award for hyprocrisy.

This explains how he offsets that monster carbon footprint:



> On Thursday, former U. S. vice-president Al Gore delivered a major address calling on his country to abandon all fossil fuels within 10 years. By 2018, U. S. electricity and fuel should come entirely from "renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources," he said. Tickets to the event encouraged attendees to "please use public transit, bicycling or other climate-friendly means" to reach the lecture hall.
> 
> 
> So how did Mr. Gore and his retinue arrive? In two Lincoln Town Cars and a full-sized SUV that sat idling with the air conditioners blasting while the Gore party was inside.
> It was 34 C in Washington. Al Gore can't be expected to get into an overheated vehicle after he's worked up a sweat telling others how to save the planet.
> 
> 
> Remember, too, the Nobel prizewinning environmentalist lives in a Tennessee mansion that produces a carbon footprint 20 times that of the average American home. A sizeable chunk of his personal fortune comes from royalties on a zinc mine which had to be temporarily closed five years ago in part because the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled it one of the worst-polluting mine sites in America. Illegal toxins were frequently discharged into nearby rivers.
> 
> 
> Mr. Gore's Live Earth benefit concert last summer flew scores of rock bands to stages around the world in carbon-spewing private jets. To cover the emissions from his own frequent use of private jets, Mr. Gore set up a company that buys carbon offsets, so that in effect he is paying himself for his carbon indulgences, writing off the expense on one hand, while pocketing the proceeds on the other.
> 
> 
> Apparently if the world is ever to reach the carbon-free future Mr. Gore dreams of, it will have to get there without Al's help.


I wonder if once he is finished with those carbon credits he re-uses them by re-selling them at an exorbitant profit?

Entire article here:
Do as Al says, not as Al does


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> There you go. AlGoreugh!phobia. Always the Right Science/Gospel Truth answer. You Betcha .
> 
> AlGoreugh!phobia = induced irrational fear and loathing of all things environmental and especially related to anthropogenic global warming and any proposed remedial action.


Deja Vu All over again


----------



## FeXL

BigDL said:


> Then you agree dogs prefer real science, rather than the dog’s breakfast of Viscount Monckton sciencey equations and calculations, which were rapidly dismissed as bunkum as explained here RealClimate: Cuckoo Science


Huh? I'm sorry BigDL, this went right over my head. Can you please explain to me the connection to my post?

My point was that the CRU has admitted that the original raw data has been lost, deleted, the dog ate it, whatever and, therefore, no accountability is possible. Subsequently, no true peer review is possible.

This absence of raw data would get you kicked out of a 7th grade science fair, let alone what is pawned off as world class research.

Scientific method=fail.


----------



## BigDL

FeXL said:


> Huh? I'm sorry BigDL, this went right over my head. Can you please explain to me the connection to my post?
> 
> My point was that the CRU has admitted that the original raw data has been lost, deleted, the dog ate it, whatever and, therefore, no accountability is possible. Subsequently, no true peer review is possible.
> 
> This absence of raw data would get you kicked out of a 7th grade science fair, let alone what is pawned off as world class research.
> 
> Scientific method=fail.


Dogs prefer real science to junk science.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> The CO2 Special:


You are totally pathetic.


----------



## MacDoc

Funny HadCrut doesn't cover the Arctic at all.....

The critters up there have more sense than he denidiots clinging to their failed meme and stolen emails

Arctic Report Card

Get over it
*it's warming
we're primarily responsible
the world it taking on the task of managing and reducing the risk....*

Loonie renewables only treehuggers, luddites and deniers clinging to a failed meme have no place at the table to discuss the future path.....well deserved oblivion....


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Funny HadCrut doesn't cover the Arctic at all.....
> 
> The critters up there have more sense than he denidiots clinging to their failed meme and stolen emails
> 
> Arctic Report Card
> 
> Get over it
> *it's warming
> we're primarily responsible
> the world it taking on the task of managing and reducing the risk....*
> 
> Loonie renewables only treehuggers, luddites and deniers clinging to a failed meme have no place at the table to discuss the future path.....well deserved oblivion....



I've got news for you old-timer, the table is an illusion. If this is the world dealing with it, then I'm delighted--because the countries that matter are doing nothing. 

"Remember the meme."


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Yeah, and the climatgators even found two, count 'em, TWO on the list they doubt. Seems to me that leaves about 139 they don't, doesn't it?


Phew! I did count 'em. Very, very impressive. I do love lists. They're so very orderly.

Tell you what, I've got a list too. As a return favour can I ask you to count up the names on this list. Unfortunately there aren't any signs of as colourful a character as Joe Bastardi on the list, nor did I any see 'bears with smoking pipes' like our dear old David Bellamy.

Here's the link/source/quote etc for those too lazy to Google when it doesn't suit them, or who only swim in the deniersphere of the Googlesphere.

This is the statement above the list (my italics):

_Statement from the UK science community

10 December 2009

We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities. The evidence and the science are deep and extensive. They come from decades of painstaking and meticulous research, by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity. That research has been subject to peer review and publication, providing traceability of the evidence and support for the scientific method.

The science of climate change draws on fundamental research from an increasing number of disciplines, many of which are represented here. As professional scientists, from students to senior professors, we uphold the findings of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concludes that ‘Warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ and that ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations’._

And here is the list (I'll do like you and run it over more than one post - it'll make it easier for you to count):

*Aberdeen University*

Adam Price 
Brice R Rea
 Bryn Hubbard 
Colin D Macleod
 Dr Colin P North
 Dr D Burslem 
Dr D Johnson 
Dr E Molyneux 
Dr J U Smith
 Dr Leslie R Noble 
Dr M Solan 
Dr M Young 
Dr Mark Robbins
 Dr Michelle A Pinard
 Dr R A Stephenson 
Dr Sandra Telfer
 Dr Sarah Woodin
 Jessica Adams
 Kerrie Farrar 
M L Gorman
 Mark Reed
 Peter Clift
 Prof. Adrian J Hartley
 Prof. Andrew Megarg
 Prof. I Alexander
 Prof. Paul A Racey 
Prof. Pete Smith 
Sarah Buckmaster
 Scott McGrane 
X Lambin

*Aberystwyth University*

Dr Alun Hubbard
 Dr Simon Cook 
Femke Davids
 Michal Mos 
Naomi Cope-Selby
 Prof. John Pomeroy
 Prof. Michael Hambrey
 Prof. Mike Walker 
Richard David Williams 
Tom Holt
 Dr John H R Gee
 Elaine Jensen

*Anglia Ruskin University*

Prof. John Waterhouse

*Aston University*

Dr D Cornford

*Bangor University*

Dr Rachel C Taylor
 Dr Wolfgang Wuster
 Prof. James Scourse
 Prof. Michel Kaiser
 David Reynolds
 Dr Anita Malhotra
 Dr Mark Rayment Dr P Butler
 Dr R L Robinson
 Prof. Gareth Jones
 Prof. John Farrar
 Prof. Douglas Godbold
 Simon Creer
 Stuart Jenkins

*Bath Spa University*

Dr Debra Enzenbacher
 Dr Thomas Hill

*Bath University*

Chris Budd

*Belfast University*

Dr Nicki Whitehouse

*Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland*

Helen Kettle

*Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council*
Dr Jennifer Dungait
 Dr Kit Macleod
 Dr Anita Shepherd
 Felicity Crotty
 Liz Dixon
 Prof. Keith Goulding

*Birkbeck, University Of London*

Dr Becky Briant
 Julia Heathcote

*Birmingham University*

David Dominguez-Villar
 Dr Catherine Jex
 Dr Chris Kidd
 Dr Guy Harrington
 Dr Ian Boomer
 Dr Lesley Batty
 Dr William Bloss
 Johanna Gietl
 Martin Widmann
 Michaela Kendall
 Prof. Ian J Fairchild
 Prof. John Thornes
 Prof. Roy M Harrison
 Vivien Bright


----------



## SINC

A list of people who want to create a carbon market to sell fictitious credits to save the world? A very good idea for Gore's bank account.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

More of that list:

*Brighton University*

Dr James Ebdon
 Dr Anja S Rott

*Bristol University*

Aidan Farrow
 Andrew Keech
 AV Gallego-Sala
 C D Coath
 Cat Downy
 Charlotte O'Brien
 Corey Archer
 Douglas Kelly
 Dr Colin M Lazarus
 Dr Daniel J Lunt
 Dr Daniela Schmidt
 Dr Elizabeth Bagshaw
 Dr Fiona Whitaker
 Dr J L Wadham
 Dr Jon Bridle
 Dr Morten Andersen
 Dr S O'Doherty
 Dr Sarah Cornell
 Edward Gasson
 Emma J Stone
 GL Foster
 Hannah Rose
 James Rae
 Jessica Stephenson
 Jo House
 Joao Zilhao
 Jonathan Day
 Katerina Michaelides
 Katherine Williams
 Krystyna Golabek
 Marko Scholze
 Martin Genner
 Martyn Tranter
 Michelle Felton
 Nathalie Stroeymeyt
 Navitt Sagoo
 Nicholas L Charlton
 Orly Razgour
 Peter Hopcroft
 Peter Tomiak
 Prof. Andy Ridgwell
 Prof. Colin Prentice
 Prof. Derrick Vance
 Prof. Jonathan Bamber
 Prof. Paul Valdes
 Prof. PeterÂ*Simmonds
 Prof. Stephen Sparks
 Prof. Tony Payne
 Pru Foster
 Rich Pancost
 Ruza Ivanovic
 Sandy P Harrison
 Susan Little
 Tamsin Edwards
 Tim Elliott
 W Harris

*British Antarctic Survey*

Emily Shuckburgh
 A J Cook
 A Jenkins
 Andrew Orr
 D A Newnham
 David Goulden
 Deb Shoosmith
 Derek Forward
 Dr Clare Enright
 Dr J C King
 Dr Kathryn C Rose
 Dr L C Sime
 Dr M Belchier
 Dr Mike Curtis
 Dr Phil Trathan
 Dr R Mulvaney
 Dr TA Lachlan-Cope
 Dr Tom Bracegirdle
 Dr Phil Anderson
 E F Young
 Edward Maksym
 Eric W Wolff
 Gareth Marshall
 H Gudmundsson
 Hamish D Pritchard
 Jon Shanklin
 Keith Nicholls
 M R Prior-Jones
 N Abram
 N J Lang
 Paul Holland
 Peter Fretwell
 Prof. Andrew Clarke
 Prof. David G Vaughan
 R Bridgeman
 R V Downey
 Sally Thorpe
 Susan J Foord
 Tara J Deen

*British Geological Survey*

Anna Harrison
Ceri James
Dr J Everest
H Kessler
John G Rees
Mark Barron
Mike Browne
Mike Ellis

*British Oceanographic Data Centre*

David P Cotton
Dr Margaret Wallace
Hannah R Freeman
M E Charlesworth
Malcolm Hearn
Brunel University
Alice Baynes
Charlotte Miller
Dr Daniel Pickford
Dr Philip Collins
Dr Stephen Kershaw
Katherine Aoki
Robert McCann
Suzanne leroy
Yulia Anopa

*Cambridge University*

Ailsa Benton
Alex Thornton
 Alice Moncaster
 Andrew Bateman
 Aradhna Tripati
 Bonnie Metherell
 C L Batchelor
 Cameron Rye
 Colm-cille Caulfield
 Dr Andrew Robinson
 Dr Andrew Thompson
 Dr Babette Hoogakker
 Dr Charles Turner
 Dr Georgina Sawyer
 Dr Ian Willis
 Dr J G Guzman
 Dr M Kalberer
 Dr Martin Bougamont
 Dr Neil Harris
 Dr Peter Braesicke
 Dr Poul Christoffersen
 Dr R A Cox
 Dr V I Tsanev
 Dr Tony Whitten
 Emma Thompson
 Glenn Carver
 Jonathan Green
 K L Sheen
 Louise O'Brien
 Lucy Browning
 Luke Knowles
 Maria Russo
 Mark Spalding
 Michelle L Cain
 Oliver Bazely
 Prof. Andrew Balmford
 Prof. Hans-F Graf
 Prof. Harry Elfderfield
 Prof. Ian Hall
 Prof. John Pyle
 Prof. Liz Morris
 Prof. Michael E McIntyre
 Prof. Mike Bickle
 Prof. Nick McCave
 Prof. Peter Haynes
 Prof. Philip Gibbard
 Prof. Roderic L Jones
 Richard Preese
 Robyn Inglis
 Ruth Mugford
 Savrina Carrizo
 T P Flower

*Cardiff University*

Carsten Muller
 Dr Caroline Lear
 Dr Hefin Jones
 Dr Isabelle Durance
 Dr Joanne Lello
 Dr Rob Thomas
 Jennifer Pike
 Prof. Lynne Boddy
 Prof. Nicholas Pidgeon
 Prof. Paul Pearson
 Prof. Steve Ormerod
 Prof. William O C Symondson
 Roger Falconer

*Centre for Ecology and Hydrology*

Prof. Patricia Nuttall
 Adam Vanbergen
 Andrew Picken
 Annette Burden
 C F Braban
 C Fiedler
 CÃ©cile MÃ©nard
 Chris Huntingford
 Christopher Andrews
 David V Evans
 David Welch
 Dr Adam Vanbergen
 Dr C Helfter
 Dr Chris Huntingford
 Dr Chris M Taylor
 Dr Douglas Clark
 Dr Ed Rowe
 Dr Eleanor Blyth
 Dr Francis Daunt
 Dr Gina Mills
 Dr Harry Harmens
 Dr Harry Harmens
 Dr J Burthe
 Dr KarstenÂ*SchÃ¶nrogge
 Dr Kerry J Dinsmore
 Dr M L Coyle
 Dr Marsailidh Twigg
 Dr Rich Ellis
 Dr Richard Harding
 Dr Stephen Cavers
 Dr Tony Dore
 Dr Chiara Di Marco
 E Nemitz
 F Hayes
 H L Price
 Heath Malcolm
 Iain Proctor
 Jarret Mhango
 Jill Thompson
 Juliete Young
 Lara Salido
 Lina Mercado
 Margaret Dunn
 Neil Cape
 P C M Kelly
 Pawel Misztal
 Peter Levy
 Prof. David Fowler
 Prof. J P Burrows
 Prof. Michael P Harris
 Prof. Sarah Wanless
 Raia Massad
 Robert Moore
 Robert T E Mills
 Sarah Wanless
 Sue Owen
 Susan M Owen

* Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science*

David Mills
 Dr Andy South
 Dr Julia L Blanchard
 Joe Scutt Phillips

*MPA Science Advisory Panel*
Dr Peter Ryder (Chairman)

*Climate & Health Council*

Prof. Mike Gill (Co Chair )

*Countryside Council for Wales*

Clive Walmsley

*Cranfield University*

Dr Jim Crawford
 Prof. William Stephens
 Professor Sir John O'Reilly

*Durham University*

Clare L Bambra
 Dr Anne Le Brocq
 Dr Aoibheann Kilfeather
 Dr Christopher R Stokes
 Dr Divya Tolia-Kelly
 Dr Ian S Evans
 Dr James Baldini
 Dr Jeff Warburton
 Dr Judy R M Allen
 Dr Paul Harrison
 Dr Philip A Stephens
 Dr S A Woodroffe
 Dr Thomas White
 Dr Laura Corrigan
 Fiona Bracken
 Heather Kelly
 James Innes
 Jerry M Lloyd
 Joy A Jarvie
 K H Baker
 Natasha LM Barlow
 Prof. Brian Huntley
 Prof. David N Petley
 Prof. Ian Shennan
 Prof. Phil Macnaghten
 Prof. Ray Hudson
 Prof. Stuart Lane
 Prof. T P Burt
 Ralf Ohlemuller
 Steven Hancock
 Tom Mason
 Wishart A Mitchell


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

And more:

*Earthwatch Institute*

Nigel Winser

*Edge Hill University*

Dr Vanessa Holden
 Prof. Annie Worsley

*Edinburgh Napier University*

Dr Mark Huxham
 Linda Gilpin
 Paul Tett

*Edinburgh University*

Addisu Hunegnaw
 Alastair Robertson
 Alessio Bozzo
 Anders Lindfors
 Andrea Nightingale
 Anitra Fraser
 Brian Cameron
 Claire Bulgin
 Colin Chilcott
 Colin Graham
 David C Finnegan
 Debbie Polson
 Dr Andrew Cross
 Dr Andy Casely
 Dr Andy McLeod
 Dr Arash JafarGandomi
 Dr Casey Ryan
 Dr Christopher Merchant
 Dr Dave Reay
 Dr Elizabeth Richardson
 Dr Eva Panagiotakopulu
 Dr Gabi Hegerl
 Dr Graham Russell
 Dr Iain H Woodhouse
 Dr Kate Darling
 Dr Laetitia Pichevin
 Dr Mark Wilkinson
 Dr Mike Mineter
 Dr Paul Eke
 Dr Pete Nienow
 Dr Peter Brownsort
 Dr Santiago de la PeÃ±a
 Dr Simon J Allen
 Dr Stephen Elphick
 Dr Stuart MacCallum
 Dr Wesley Fraser
 Dr Hugh C Pumphrey
 Dr Joanna M Cloy
 Dr Lawrence Dritsas
 Dr Marc J Metzger
 Dr Michael Barkley
 Dr Nick Hulton
 Dr Simon Jung
 Duncan Forgan
 Emily Brady
 Gail Jackson
 Graham Dawes
 Hugh Sinclair
 Ian Main
 John Greenhough
 M Edwards
 Magnus Hagdorn
 Mark Parrington
 Mary Elliot
 Maurizio Mencuccini
 Mike Barkley
 Nicholas Hulton
 Oliver Sus
 Owen Embury
 Patrick Meir
 Paul C Stoy
 Paul van Gardingen
 Prof. Andrew Dugmore
 Prof. David Stevenson
 Prof. David Sugden
 Prof. Dirk Kroon
 Prof. Geoffrey Boulton
 Prof. Jane M Jacobs
 Prof. John Moncrieff
 Prof. Martin Siegert
 Prof. R S Harwood
 Prof. Sandy Tudhope
 Prof. Simon Tett
 Prof. Stephen Salter
 Prof. Stuart Haszeldine
 Ruth Doherty
 Simon M Mudd
 Simone Morak
 Stephan Matthiesen
 Stuart Gilfillan
 Tony Cowton
 Vivian Scott
 Walter Geibert
 William D Taylor

*Environment Agency*

Alex Webb
 Dr Mark Everard
 Dr Roger Wade
 Harriet Orr
 Richard West
 Russell, Kylie

*Environmental Systems Science Centre*
Kevin Hodges
 Prof. Keith Haines
 Prof. Robert Gurney

*Essex University*

Dr David Bebbington
 Prof. I Colbeck

*Exeter University*

Prof. Peter Cox
 AlemtsehaiÂ* A Turasie
 Chris Turney
 Clive Sabel
 Dr A Bruegger
 Dr Alistair Harborne
 Dr Bob Beare
 Dr Chris Fogwill
 Dr Duncan Russel
 Dr Ilya M D Maclean
 Dr Jasper Knight
 Dr Jonathan Bennie
 Dr Kathryn Yusoff
 Dr Patrick Hamilton
 Dr Robert Wilson
 Dr Sarah Hodge
 Dr Shirley Wynne
 Dr Stephan Harrison
 Dr Van-Veen, Frank
 Dr Dominic Mc Carthy
 E Husain
 Emma Kennedy
 Iain Hartley
 Jon Moore
 Kellie-Smith, Owen
 Kieran Walesby
 Luiz Aragao
 Lyndsey Holland
 Peter Connor
 Prof. Christopher Caseldine
 Prof. Dan Charman
 Prof. Ian Jolliffe
 Prof. John Thuburn
 Prof. Michael Winter
 Prof. Slobodan Djordjevic
 Prof. Timothy Quine
 Richard Jones
 Rolf Aalto
 Shay O'Farrell
 Stan Yip
 Susan Kay
 Thomas Roland
 Tim E Jupp
 Tom Blight
 Tristan Kershaw
 Tristan Quaife
 Turney, Christian

*Faculty of Public Health*

Prof. Alan Maryon-Davis

*Freshwater Biological Association*

Dr Elizabeth Y Haworth


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> A list of people who want to create a carbon market to sell fictitious credits to save the world? A very good idea for Gore's bank account.




You've made a big mistake there, Sinc. With respect, I must point it out to you before you start counting.

Nothing in the statement** above the start of the list in any way supports your contention that these people want to create a carbon market to sell fictitious credits to save the world. I can't see mention of even the word 'carbon' in the statement. Maybe some denier lap puppies can hack the site and insert it!

** Did you read it? It's always best to read first and read with care, before rushing to judgement. But I'm sure you know that. 

Since you don't want to play the counting game today, I'll postpone the posting of the rest of the list. I'm disappointed.


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I'm disappointed.


As you should be since it is the actions of those folks who enable the Al Gores of the world to reap profits on carbon credits.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

FeXL said:


> Quite familiar with the process, thankyouverymuch.[?QUOTE]
> 
> You'rewelcome.
> 
> 
> 
> FeXL said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, where is the CRU's raw data, anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a tease or do _you_ know where it is?
> 
> 
> 
> FeXL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiight. The dog ate it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That'll hardly be one of those dead dogs then - maybe a lap puppy?
> But, seriously, if you're sure of that, and being Father of the Thread, don't you think you should at least inform the authorities?
Click to expand...


----------



## Macfury

Snap: Next time, just a link to the undersigned, please.


----------



## bryanc

I think that the point Snapple is trying to make is that the list of credentialed scientists and the diversity of institutions accepting the scientific validity of anthropogenic climate change is *VERY LONG*. Among any long list of human beings, you're going to find some cheaters and self-serving a$$holes, but that does not take away from the credibility of the others on that list. Just as importantly, to suggest such a long and diverse list (and it should be noted, that list was just from the UK and we only got to the "F's"; a global list of climatologists who accept the science supporting an anthropogenic role in global climate change would be much longer), represent people participating in a global conspiracy is ludicrous.

Aas the Mark Fiore animation linked earlier in this thread so cleverly illustrated, the personalities, poor social graces, or even flawed methodologies of people who've made important contributions to science has no bearing on the truth of the of conclusions drawn. In science, all important findings are challenged and tested in many ways by many people. If someone fudged their data, someone else would find out. And if there were substantial inconsistencies in the theory, there would be vigorous debate. That's how science works.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> A list of people who want to create a carbon market to sell fictitious credits to save the world? A very good idea for Gore's bank account.


That or they don't want the global warming gravy train of billions in research grants to go off the rails.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> billions in research grants


Research grants must be much larger on your planet.


----------



## Macfury

Surprisingly, though, the Hadley CRU conclusions were widely supported by a majority (not a consensus) of scientists, raw data and flawed methodologies notwithstnding. It took a whistleblower to pop the lid off that deception, while participants in peer review merely nodded assent.

Warmists are behaving as adherents to any other idea that's suddenly been blown off the rails, falling back to less tenable positions. I've heard the Hadley CRU studies quoted front and centre for years--tree ring data being one of the most common. Suddenly we hear that there are "hundreds of thousands" of studies just as convincing.


----------



## Adrian.

*Europe Pledges Billions for Climate Aid for Poor Nations*



> BRUSSELS — The European Union will contribute about $3 billion starting next year to help poorer countries deal with climate change, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain announced on Friday, a move that seeks to improve the chances of reaching an accord next week at climate change talks in Copenhagen.
> 
> The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, speaking alongside Mr. Brown here at a summit of E.U. heads of state, said that France would contribute some $620 million next year to the so-called fast-start fund, which is designed to run over a three-year period until 2012, and could amount to an European contribution of more than 6 billion euros — or nearly $9 billion — in total.


 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/science/earth/12climate.html?_r=1&hp

Financing them won't be a big bother either - the IMF isn't getting much business these days, they have some change left over to lend out. 

Progress in Copenhagen!


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> Research grants must be much larger on your planet.


If governments haven't spent billions on scientific research related to climate change, what have they spent Bryan? In your world of course. Are they outsourcing to India?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

Hurrah for the EU! Better them than us!


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> And if there were substantial inconsistencies in the theory, there would be vigorous debate. That's how science works.
> 
> Cheers


"The debate is over." - Al Gore


----------



## eMacMan

Both sides put CO2 at about 10% of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is the predominate gas and overall packs a lot more punch. There is a big discrepancy as to what percentage is manmade. Extremes being 10 and 30%. 

If we take the middle that means man is responsible for 2% of greenhouse gases which is far less than one good burp from a volcano, God forbid that Yellowstone should blow its top again.

Canada is therefore responsible for at the most .1% of total greenhouse gasses. Canada is an extremely cold climate and all indicators show it is getting colder. Doing anything that would cause some of its citizens to have to choose between heating their homes or eating would be completely irresponsible even if it does reduce our population.

Manmade global warming theory fails even without the deliberate attempts to hide the decline.


----------



## BigDL

Vandave said:


> "The debate is over." - Al Gore





BigDL said:


> There you go. AlGoreugh!phobia. Always the Right Science/Gospel Truth answer. You Betcha .
> 
> AlGoreugh!phobia = induced irrational fear and loathing of all things environmental and especially related to anthropogenic global warming and any proposed remedial action.


Should seek treatment for AlGoreugh!phobia


----------



## Adrian.

Vandave said:


> "The debate is over." - Al Gore


Did your brain power down for that post....?


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Did your brain power down for that post....?


Your user agreement does not allow for insulting comments on EhMac. I know you are upset, but please refrain from expressing it this way.


----------



## Dr.G.

My main concern with "cap and trade" is the reality that speculators will drive up the cost of the "trade", much like oil and gold have been driven up far more than necessary. As well, how will the "cap" be distributed around Canada? Who will make the decision?


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> My main concern with "cap and trade" is the reality that speculators will drive up the cost of the "trade", much like oil and gold have been driven up far more than necessary. As well, how will the "cap" be distributed around Canada? Who will make the decision?


The costs will be driven down to customers and thus borne by consumers. The profits will be reaped by the companies, with large commissions skimmed off by various brokers, UN agencies, etc. for international trades.


----------



## bryanc

Dr.G. said:


> My main concern with "cap and trade" is the reality that speculators will drive up the cost of the "trade", much like oil and gold have been driven up far more than necessary. As well, how will the "cap" be distributed around Canada? Who will make the decision?


All valid and reasonable concerns, and notably unrelated to the science.



bryanc said:


> if there were substantial inconsistencies in the theory, there would be vigorous debate.





Vandave said:


> "The debate is over." - Al Gore


If A then B.
Not B.
----------
Therefore not A.

This is the logical form known as Modus tollens. From this we can conclude that there are not substantial inconsistencies in the theory.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave

Adrian. said:


> Did your brain power down for that post....?


Did yours? 

It seems you missed the point. Science is always open for debate. Theories are always being tested. 

If Einstein had Al Gore's attitude, he never would have questioned Newton's laws and come up with Relativity. 

The debate isn't over... it's just getting started. Theories need to be tested and prodded. They need to be challenged and rethought. That's how we move forward. We are a long ways from understanding our planetary climate systems. To say the debate is over is ignorant at best.


----------



## Dr.G.

I agree with the science, bryanc, since I am able to see the effects of global warming drifting by the coast of St.John's each Spring, in the form of thousands of icebergs ......... when there is a Spring. Attached is a picture taken in early April, with an ice pack coming inshore and extending for dozens if not hundreds of miles up the coast here in NL and out into the Atlantic Ocean. This was usually gone by mid-March. Now, it can stay until late May, causing our non-Springs.

However, I am not sure about "carbon credits" and "cap and trade". There seems to be too much room for manipulation and abuse, or merely ignoring the "cap" that was set for a country or an industry. Here in Canada, would it be federal, provincial, of municipal levels of government that determines which industries fall under this cap, and which will "blow the top off of the cap".

Then, there is the issue of non-polluting energy. Much of the energy that ON needs, especially in the summer, could be supplied from another power plant built on the Churchill River here in Labrador. However, if Quebec refuses to allow it to be sent to ON, what then? Force ON to use coal fire electrical plants to generate this needed electricity?


----------



## MacGuiver

Here are some figures from my planet Bryan since you haven't provided any from yours. This is just from one program in the US. And advocates of this program are crying for more cash. They're only getting a measly sum less than $2 billion. 



> The US Global Change Research Program is in serious need of an overhaul if it is to meet today’s data and information needs associated with preparing for, mitigating, and building resilience to a troubling set of climate change consequences. *Just under $2 billion in federal funding goes to support climate and global change research in the agencies and departments participating in the USGCRP*. The National Academy of Sciences has put forth thoughtful recommendations for updating the program’s research elements and priorities, but, as far as we can tell, the program has not begun to substantially re-direct its research agenda and budget. Moreover, an examination of available budget materials, especially the annual report to Congress, Our Changing Planet, reveals reporting practices so unclear and inconsistent as to defy meaningful oversight. This first post in a new CSW investigative series about the USGCRP begins to diagnose the obstacles to reform, and makes recommendations for improving government accountability.


Link to source:US Global Change Research Program: Budget reporting impedes meaningful oversight (posting from Climate Science Watch)


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> Science is always open for debate.


Of course it is. As soon as someone discovers something that draws into question well supported theories, debates flare up like acne before prom night. That's what makes the resounding lack of debate on this (and other well-established theories, like evolution, continental drift, the atomic theory of matter, etc.) a reliable indicator, even for those who are not well-educated in the field, that the theory is sound.

There is obviously lot's left to be learned about how global climate works, and part of what is so infuriating about the intellectually dishonest approach of the deniers is that the healthy and normal debate about the detailed mechanisms or which model best describes the data, is being mis-characterized as dispute about the basic theory that human activity is changing the climate. It's like the Creationists pointing at papers in evolutionary biology journals disputing a specific phylogenetic relationship and saying that "Darwin was wrong: scientists are on the verge of refuting evolution!"

Here's another link for your perusal.... don't argue with me, argue with over 700 Canadian scientists with expertise in the field who have signed their names to a document calling on Stephen Harper to man-up and take some leadership in Copenhagen.


----------



## BigDL

Dr.G. said:


> I agree with the science, bryanc, since I am able to see the effects of global warming drifting by the coast of St.John's each Spring, in the form of thousands of icebergs ......... when there is a Spring. Attached is a picture taken in early April, with an ice pack coming inshore and extending for dozens if not hundreds of miles up the coast here in NL and out into the Atlantic Ocean. This was usually gone by mid-March. Now, it can stay until late May, causing our non-Springs.
> 
> However, I am not sure about "carbon credits" and "cap and trade". There seems to be too much room for manipulation and abuse, or merely ignoring the "cap" that was set for a country or an industry. Here in Canada, would it be federal, provincial, of municipal levels of government that determines which industries fall under this cap, and which will "blow the top off of the cap".
> 
> Then, there is the issue of non-polluting energy. Much of the energy that ON needs, especially in the summer, could be supplied from another power plant built on the Churchill River here in Labrador. However, if Quebec refuses to allow it to be sent to ON, what then? Force ON to use coal fire electrical plants to generate this needed electricity?


I agree with you Dr.G. It seems to me to be a method to start to commodify the air.

I would rather see as you suggest that "clean" sources of energy replace "dirty" sources. Get rid of the source of the problem, rather than play a number games that as per usual the average citizen will hit them in the pocket book.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Snap: Next time, just a link to the undersigned, please.


Mac. Thanks for the advice.

I've considered it.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Snap: Next time, just a link to the undersigned, please.





Snapple Quaffer said:


> Mac. Thanks for the advice.
> 
> I've considered it.


As the non-moderator, moderator I am glad to see people not get bogged down by the philosophy of a Libertarian by endorsing acting freely.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> As you should be since it is the actions of those folks who enable the Al Gores of the world to reap profits on carbon credits.


I'm heartened that you understand and agree with my disappointment, namely that you didn't want to count.

(The 'since' in your reply is redundant, by the way.)

I note that you've watered down the attempt to discredit the people in the list I so thoughtfully provided. This is a welcome step in the right direction.

You started with [my italics, of course]:

"A list of people who _want_ to create a carbon market to sell fictitious credits to save the world? A very good idea for Gore's bank account."

to

" ... it is the actions of those folks who _enable_ the Al Gores of the world to reap profits on carbon credits."

Your beef, which I do understand, is with Al Gore. It should most emphatically _not_ be with the people whose names appear on that list.


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> for your perusal.... don't argue with me, argue with over 700 Canadian scientists with expertise in the field who have signed their names to a document calling on Stephen Harper to man-up and take some leadership in Copenhagen.


Have you seen the list? It took me all of 2 seconds before I started laughing. 

Most of those scientists are not qualified to comment on the subject of global warming. Biologists do not understand the math and physics behind finite element modeling. It seems like more than half that bunch are biologists.

This is nothing but a political document. It has next to nothing to do with science.

I have a geological engineering degree so I have some appreciation of planetary history. My education had little to do with climate or climate modeling. I do however, have a fair bit of experience is finite element models, which is used for climate modeling. Knowing what I know, I have a very hard time believing that these models are anywhere near modeling reality. In my field we have a hard enough time trying to model a very controlled system with well known inputs and parameters. To prove a model out, you need to calibrate it with data (preferably collected after your model). Climate models have yet to do that. If anything, the last ten years of cooling raises some serious questions.


----------



## bryanc

Vandave said:


> Have you seen the list? It took me all of 2 seconds before I started laughing.
> 
> Most of those scientists are not qualified to comment on the subject of global warming. Biologists do not understand the math and physics behind finite element modeling. It seems like more than half that bunch are biologists.


I'd be happy to provide you with some email addresses if you'd like to take that up with my colleagues who do paleoclimatic modeling based on the composition of the biological detritus in lakes. Indeed the biological sciences are among the most important in developing an understanding of the historical climate of earth. Furthermore, biology departments tend to be among the biggest at Canadian universities, so it's to be expected that a sampling of Canadian scientists will have a large number of biologists.

The whole point here is that research from an enormous diversity of fields, based on an enormous diversity of observable phenomena and theoretical frameworks all come to the same conclusions.

While science cannot prove that these conclusions are true, it would be the height of folly to ignore their warnings.



> Knowing what I know, I have a very hard time believing that these models are anywhere near modeling reality.


If you have the expertise, why not read the peer-reviewed research and see for yourself?



> To prove a model out, you need to calibrate it with data (preferably collected after your model). Climate models have yet to do that.


As I understand it, this is exactly what has been done. Obviously only limited data is available since we developed these techniques, but the models fit historical data well.



> If anything, the last ten years of cooling raises some serious questions.


On the contrary, the data appears to be warmer than the predicted models unless you start from 1998, which was an aberrantly warm year, even among the warming trend.


----------



## bryanc

MacGuiver said:


> Here are some figures...


I apologize. I misread what you had initially posted as implying that individual research programs were receiving funding in the billions, which is preposterous.

And I have to admit that I'm surprised so much funding was going into the field as a whole. I do think this is a good thing, as we obviously need to know a lot more about the climate, but, from reading the link, it seems that a lot of this funding is going into big agencies (NOAA, NASA, etc.), launching satellites, and building large supercomputers, etc, that will and are also doing lots of other things not really related to climate research.

Cheers


----------



## Vandave

bryanc said:


> I'd be happy to provide you with some email addresses if you'd like to take that up with my colleagues who do paleoclimatic modeling based on the composition of the biological detritus in lakes. Indeed the biological sciences are among the most important in developing an understanding of the historical climate of earth. Furthermore, biology departments tend to be among the biggest at Canadian universities, so it's to be expected that a sampling of Canadian scientists will have a large number of biologists.


Are you sure they are doing modeling? Most biologists have no concept of partial differential equations and multivariable calculus, which is the math that underlies computer models. Most biologists struggle with first year calculus. 

In any case, that type of modeling is within a much more controlled system and is something that you can monitor and calibrate a model to. The climate is a far more complicated system that operates on massive time scales with all sorts of variables that we have yet to understand. 

Again, my point is that many of the signatories to that letter are unlikely to understand or have peer reviewed the underlying science. If that is the case, then their signing such a letter is really a political statement.



bryanc said:


> The whole point here is that research from an enormous diversity of fields, based on an enormous diversity of observable phenomena and theoretical frameworks all come to the same conclusions.


How so?



bryanc said:


> While science cannot prove that these conclusions are true, it would be the height of folly to ignore their warnings.


I agree. We need to study this more to increase our level of understanding. If we don’t really understand the problem we are fooling ourselves that we know the solution. There might be better and more cost effective solutions than cutting CO2.



bryanc said:


> If you have the expertise, why not read the peer-reviewed research and see for yourself?


Time. Don’t have it.



bryanc said:


> As I understand it, this is exactly what has been done. Obviously only limited data is available since we developed these techniques, but the models fit historical data well.


That doesn’t prove anything. You can tweak a model all you want to fit historic data well. 

Here is a simple example. Go pick a stock price from Yahoo and put the data into excel showing the fluctuations. Now take excel and have it create a formula to fit the data. What do you think the odds are that this formula is going to predict the future price of the stock?



bryanc said:


> On the contrary, the data appears to be warmer than the predicted models unless you start from 1998, which was an aberrantly warm year, even among the warming trend.


"It is a Travesty Why We Can't Explain Why Global Warming has Stopped!” – Climate Scientist


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Dr.G. said:


> However, I am not sure about "carbon credits" and "cap and trade". There seems to be too much room for manipulation and abuse, or merely ignoring the "cap" that was set for a country or an industry. Here in Canada, would it be federal, provincial, of municipal levels of government that determines which industries fall under this cap, and which will "blow the top off of the cap".


I'm convinced, Dr. G., that there will certainly be manipulation and abuse. The carbon credit feeding trough will be too big a host for _any_ self-respecting parasite to ignore. There will be much skulduggery, all deniable of course.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> Both sides put CO2 at about 10% of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is the predominate gas and overall packs a lot more punch.


eMacMan, with respect, do you know that carbon dioxide is more potent as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than is water vapour? Water vapour in itself is not so much the worry, as the fact that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, it not only adds to the greenhouse effect on its own, but enables more water vapour to be _present_ in the atmosphere - as the atmosphere warms, it can carry more water vapour. This, in turn, produces more of the greenhouse effect. This is part of the positive feedback that forms the nightmare scenario of a runaway greenhouse effect. Yes, water vapour makes the bigger overall contribution, but relatively (to the water vapour concentration) small increases in carbon dioxide will have an effect out of all proportion to their size.

If you are aware of all this, then I apologise - no disrespect intended.


----------



## KC4

How Interesting to find where the buck trails stop....
Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com

and...



> Still, the really interesting question is less about the facts than it is about the psychology. Last week, I suggested that funding flows had much to do with climate alarmism. But deeper things are at work as well.


Bret Stephens: The Totalities of Copenhagen - WSJ.com


----------



## adagio

bryanc, I say this in a non demeaning way. You are naive. Billions are being poured into trying to prove AGW exists but virtually none to prove the opposite. If I want to get a grant to study the effects of global warming on caterpillars, no problem. If I wish to receive a grant to study the hypothesis that there has been no change in caterpillars in the last 100 years, forget it. Denied. I am amazed that you haven't clued into this. Never before has it been so easy to get grant money, ie "a job" as long as it has something to do with AGW. I have to admit if my salary/livelihood depended on going the politically correct route, I'd likely suck it up and do likewise. It is very much in all these scientists interests to keep the AWG ball rolling. 

Like you said there isn't any real definitive proof that AWG is real. That's the kicker. It is very much a "maybe". In the meantime the developed world is being asked to cough up *BILLIONS* in a giant shell game in which the middle class get sucked dry to prop up third world shiit holes. It's a giant ponzi scheme. I might have believed in AWG if not for the likes of Al Gore, Ken Lay, Maurice Strong etc. The fact that these sleezeballs are involved tells me some fine BS is going on. The science I trained in while in college has gone bye bye. If the dog ate my raw data, my paper would have got a big fat "*F*"

Follow the money.


----------



## BigDL

I wonder who would be willing to bank roll a study into the explosion of fairies at the bottom of the garden because of AGW? It's to confirm the effects of global warming. Hey! Anyone. Come on!

Ok! Who is willing to fund a study to prove there are the same or fewer fairies at the bottom of the garden because the world is in fact not warming. Hey! Hey! Over here. COME ON! This isn't fair.

It's a conspiracy because I can't get funding.


----------



## groovetube

Seems like a no win situation. There are hundreds of billions of dollars at stake in the oil business, if global warming is proved without a shadow of a doubt, and, by your assertion, the same kind of dollars and livelihoods on the line to keep the global warming beliefs alive.

Both sides pointing the finger and yelling the other has ulterior motives. For the average joe, like myself, who wouldn't know climate science beyond setting my thermostat, it's become a war of who can yell loudest, create the illusions of scandal, real or otherwise, to sway public opinion.

Amazingly enough, public opinion still seems firmly in the majority for the global warming theory.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Amazingly enough, public opinion still seems firmly in the majority for the global warming theory.


Not that simple. Some polls show minority support (and sinking) for anthropgenic global warming, some show majority. Depends on the poll. Recent CNN poll shows fewer than half of Americans convinced:

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Skepticism on global warming heating up? - Blogs from CNN.com

This one shows 61% support for anthropogenic:

New poll: 70 percent of Americans agree that global warming is occurring


----------



## Adrian.

adagio said:


> bryanc, I say this in a non demeaning way. You are naive. Billions are being poured into trying to prove AGW exists but virtually none to prove the opposite. If I want to get a grant to study the effects of global warming on caterpillars, no problem. If I wish to receive a grant to study the hypothesis that there has been no change in caterpillars in the last 100 years, forget it. Denied. I am amazed that you haven't clued into this. Never before has it been so easy to get grant money, ie "a job" as long as it has something to do with AGW. I have to admit if my salary/livelihood depended on going the politically correct route, I'd likely suck it up and do likewise. It is very much in all these scientists interests to keep the AWG ball rolling.
> 
> Like you said there isn't any real definitive proof that AWG is real. That's the kicker. It is very much a "maybe". In the meantime the developed world is being asked to cough up *BILLIONS* in a giant shell game in which the middle class get sucked dry to prop up third world shiit holes. It's a giant ponzi scheme. I might have believed in AWG if not for the likes of Al Gore, Ken Lay, Maurice Strong etc. The fact that these sleezeballs are involved tells me some fine BS is going on. The science I trained in while in college has gone bye bye. If the dog ate my raw data, my paper would have got a big fat "*F*"
> 
> Follow the money.



That's because Exxon will fund you... or the Ford Foundation... or the Fraser Institute.


Oh, and **** holes...you mean this one?


----------



## Adrian.

Adagio go hang out with Krauthammer and the other racist jerk offs in Washington.

This guy raises the bar of stupidity. One of the founders of _National Interest_. Great place to get some quality work on politics :lmao:. 

washingtonpost.com

See what your arguments look like in print?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Not that simple. Some polls show minority support (and sinking) for anthropgenic global warming, some show majority. Depends on the poll. Recent CNN poll shows fewer than half of Americans convinced:
> 
> CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Skepticism on global warming heating up? - Blogs from CNN.com
> 
> This one shows 61% support for anthropogenic:
> 
> New poll: 70 percent of Americans agree that global warming is occurring


Easy now' macfury. Still appears to be a majority, whether it's 80 percent of 60. It was just an interesting observation, either way, and not a definitive conclusion for either opinion. Relax.


----------



## MacDoc

Science by popular opinion XX)

What's that about virgin birth outpolling evolution you say....fire the doctors - bring in the padres..


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

adagio said:


> Billions are being poured into trying to prove AGW exists but virtually none to prove the opposite.


Do you mean that they start with a belief, then set about proving it, like looking for the Holy Grail or searching for Atlantis? Do you think they've stated what the end result is to be, because they 'believe' it, and then systematically go rooting around looking for the evidence, like alchemists trying to turn lead into gold because they believe it's possible? I don't think that is the case. I would have thought that their goal has been trying to find out what is happening, having noticed certain naturally occurring phenomena.

I understand the heated comments and confusion that pervade the mass media and internet. I understand the efforts being made to turn the argument against the science and the scientists.
The problem is that the waters have been muddied, so that there is uncertainty about what's around the corner. Now people are (a) angry because they feel, quite rightly, that their wallets are under threat, and (b) they're scared in case the predictions about climate instability are correct. The resentment that there are people paid to investigate the nature of climate change is also understandable. However denial, anger and resentment are as much use as t*ts on a bull when trying to understand our natural environment.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Now people are (a) angry because they feel, quite rightly, that their wallets are under threat, and (b) they're scared in case the predictions about climate instability are correct. " 

Personally, I am concerned that my current financial situation is "under threat", but I am more concerned that the predicitons re "climate instability" are not only correct, but that their predicitons are taking place quicker and with more impact, than first predicted by actual scientists who have been at this for years. We shall see.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Dr.G. said:


> Personally, I am concerned that my current financial situation is "under threat", but I am more concerned that the predicitons re "climate instability" are not only correct, but that their predicitons are taking place quicker and with more impact, than first predicted by actual scientists who have been at this for years. We shall see.


Those are my own feelings too, Dr. G.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Easy now' macfury. Still appears to be a majority, whether it's 80 percent of 60. It was just an interesting observation, either way, and not a definitive conclusion for either opinion. Relax.


Nope, the first one has 45% anthropogenic. The over 60 figure is just whether or not the world is getting warmer at all.


----------



## Dr.G.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Those are my own feelings too, Dr. G.


I can only use annecdotal evidence that I see, or that is being told to me by reliable friends from around North America. Things are changing, and while change is normal, it is happening much too rapidly, in my opinion, for it to be by mere chance. 

Still, I am hopeful that ordinary people will do their part to help slow down this rapid change in our climate. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc

Hell I suspect NL might be a stop on the transpolar cruises coming soon.



> In the 1850s the route of the Northwest Passage was figured out by mariners who had been sent to find the lost Franklin Expedition, but no one actually made the complete passage in a single vessel until 1903-6 when Roald Amundsen traversed the passage in his small sailboat Gjoa. He had to winter over three winters in order to complete the passage.* The Nordhavn 57 Bagan followed the same route this summer making it in one month. T*his summer at least 7 recreational vessels are attempting the NWP, including two British officers in a 17’ sailboat! (Mad Dogs and Englishmen!)


some good photos and interesting bits...

Nordhavn 57 Conquers The Northwest Passage on August 30! | BoatTEST.com


----------



## Dr.G.

"Hell I suspect NL might be a stop on the transpolar cruises coming soon." Hope they have super ice cutters, since due to the melting glaciers, more icebergs and smaller pieces of ice are floating down from Greenland, and then being blown around coastal NL. Back in 2001, it extended over 80 miles from the St.John's Harbor. This picture if of April 1st of this year. The ice pack is coming earlier and staying longer, and is extending further out into the Atlantic each year. Icebergs in March are expected ........... but not in June.

Soon, there will be polar bears walking along Water Street, North America's oldest street.


----------



## eMacMan

Just for the record I strongly support initiatives to reduce pollution and needless consumption. I will go so far as to propose shutting down the oil sands completely until the oil companies clean up the environmental mess they have already made and show that they can produce oil with out also producing toxic sludge.

However I have huge problems with Carbon Offset trading. The main intent of this apparition seems to be to allow the heavy duty users to continue business as usual, line the traders pockets, while greatly inflating the cost of all the things that are essential to life. All done without reducing CO2 or any real pollutant by any amount whatsoever.

The GW alarmists claim the cost to Canadians will be about $60 billion per year which they are hoping that $43 billion will be borne by the big companies with no impact on consumers. We know from bitter experience that those companies will pass along, at a very minimum, double that $43 billion. Even if they pass it along at cost that is at the very least $6000 per family per year.

I know my family and a lot of others cannot withstand that sort of financial attack. 

Beyond that we also know that these schemes usually cost at least ten times the original guesses so the overall impact on a Northern Climate such as ours could be totally devastating.

Still I guess the most efficient way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce population and Carbon Trading may prove to be a brutally effective tool of extermination


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Nope, the first one has 45% anthropogenic. The over 60 figure is just whether or not the world is getting warmer at all.


I know you like to cherry pick and throw around big words to make yourself look smart on a forum.

But unfortunately macfury, I couldn't care less.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> Nope, the first one has 45% anthropogenic. The over 60 figure is just whether or not the world is getting warmer at all.


Those numbers would be lower if the media did their job and stopped hiding the climategate story and providing damage control stories. Reading most media reports, "look shiny ball" comes to mind.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I know you like to cherry pick and throw around big words to make yourself look smart on a forum.
> 
> But unfortunately macfury, I couldn't care less.


Proof positive when ya got nothin', ya go with it.


----------



## bryanc

adagio said:


> You are naive. Billions are being poured into trying to prove AGW exists but virtually none to prove the opposite.


I think it's you who are naive if you think the oil industry isn't spending billions to try to distract our society from the idea that the obviously and unequivocally unsustainable consumption of their reduced carbon products is causing damage to the environment. Oil, like Tobacco before it,is facing the inevitable awakening of society to the harm the consumption of their products causes. Weather it's global warming or just pollution in general, our society is going to {has to} drastically reduce it's consumption of these products, and that's going to radically redistribute the wealth in our civilization. 

Some people are positioned to profit from this, and they're doing everything in their power (ethical and otherwise) to accelerate the process. Others (and many of these people are the most powerful and wealthy our civilization has ever known), are doing everything in their (not inconsiderable) power (ethical and otherwise) to slow and, if possible, prevent, our emergence from a fossil fuel dependent economy.

I think the outcome is a done-deal... Thermodynamics says we can't continue being dependent on fossil fuel, and the sooner we make the transition the better as far as I'm concerned. If global warming is the catalyst that triggers the transition, that's fine with me. But in the long run, the reason we convert to sustainable energy sources is irrelevant, as long as it happens sooner rather than later.

This is why I don't understand those of you who are opposing the acceptance and adoption of the principles of green house gas reduction. It's like naively opposing the actions of Ducks Unlimited because they only want to protect wetlands because they want to shoot ducks... the bottom line is that Ducks Unlimited is doing an effective job of protecting wetlands, and they should be supported in that laudable effort (even if, as I, you don't ethically approve of the recreational hunting of wildlife) in the same way that anti-global warming activists should be supported for trying to reduce pollution, even if you don't agree about the importance of one particular pollutant (CO2).

Cheers.


----------



## Macfury

I support Ducks Unlimited because they won't try to force me to hunt ducks or pay for their ammunition. Supporting those who consider CO2 a pollutant will result in a loss of freedom of choice and considerable expense. Let the fossil fuels run out on their own if there's only a teensy bit left (I doubt this, but will except your premise). Rising prices will then see people gladly switch to whatever is emerging at the time.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I support Ducks Unlimited because they won't try to force me to hunt ducks or pay for their ammunition.


There, there, Macfury. Nobody's going to try to force you to hunt ducks, now. Easy, easy ...
You _will_, though, pay for any ammunition you use when you go shooting at them, won't you? I'm sure you'll be able to exercise great Freedom of Choice and buy ammunition anywhere you want. Or maybe some kind soul will give you some - a little charity now and then is a good thing.



Macfury said:


> Supporting those who consider CO2 a pollutant will result in a loss of freedom of choice and considerable expense.


You'd better get used to the idea.



Macfury said:


> Let the fossil fuels run out on their own if there's only a teensy bit left (I doubt this, but will except your premise). Rising prices will then see people gladly switch to whatever is emerging at the time.


_We'll_ run out before that great king of fossil fuels, coal, runs out. I don't doubt that.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> You'd better get used to the idea.


I'm sure some nations will roll over and expose their bellies. They'll get used to it quickly.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

And some will be rolled over as events overtake them.


----------



## groovetube

there'll be some who bet the farm on yesterday's technologies, and some that'll be ahead of the curve, when those, er, yesterday's technologies runs out.

I did read that coal will be here for a very long time to come. Is this in fact really true?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

groovetube said:


> I did read that coal will be here for a very long time to come. Is this in fact really true?


It depends on what figures you want to give credence to, i.e. who provided them. Some figures suggest that 'recoverable' coal reserves might only last of the order of 30 years. Pessimistic, eh? It just means (assuming we continue to want to burn coal) we'll have to either find more recoverable coal, or reject those figures out of hand as inconvenient, which is much easier.

There are lots of sites which give a rundown on 'proven' coal reserves, 'recoverable' coal reserves and projected lifetimes for them assuming different projected rates of consumption. See what you think of the figures.

Then again there are different sorts of coal. Some are suitable for industrial use, some for domestic use, and some of very low quality.

(One of my favourite coal stories came from a TV programme about the salvaging of the German fleet which had been scuttled at the end of the first world war in Scapa Flow, Scotland. One valuable commodity to be recovered was the coal in the ships' bunkers. Some of this found its way into the hearths of local Scots who were shocked to find, after burning it, that the grate irons were twisted and warped. They'd burned steam coal which had a very high calorific value, much higher than the normal domestic coals they would have bought from their coal merchants. Please, excuse the digression.)


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> And some will be rolled over as events overtake them.


And some will merely stand up to the nonsense.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> And some will merely stand up to the nonsense.


And get knocked down.


----------



## groovetube

this is almost getting comical


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

There is much that I find comical about this thread, groovetube. 


Wait for it ...


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> And get knocked down.


It's funny--the persuasive nature of global warmists always seems to give way to underlying threat. It really is about control.


----------



## sharonmac09

Here's an interesting video that both sides of the GW debate should watch. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

Not a bad video. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> It's funny--the persuasive nature of global warmists always seems to give way to underlying threat. It really is about control.


 "Threats under the bed." :lmao:

Actually, it's not funny at all.

It won't be the thermists that threaten and/or do the knocking down. Mother Nature will do that, given the right 'provocation'. She is the ultimate libertarian. Her Market rules. _She_ has control. Just give her the excuse she needs to exercise it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Yes, a calmly presented video. Thanks, sharonmac09.


----------



## groovetube

Snapple Quaffer said:


> There is much that I find comical about this thread, groovetube.
> 
> 
> Wait for it ...


never disappoints.


----------



## Dr.G.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yes, a calmly presented video. Thanks, sharonmac09.


I agree. Fairly well balanced. Merci, Sharon.


----------



## SINC

Here's another video 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

hmmm. Maybe if I had 15 more beers...


----------



## eMacMan

*Danes See Threat in French Cooking Oil*

Found on Yahoo news and here:
Danes see bomb threat in French cooking oilcrapo

This is the entire article, link is just for reference. 


> *C*OPENHAGEN, Dec 12, 2009 (AFP) - A French group which advocates the use of cooking oil to run vehicles had its novel fuel confiscated by Danish police on the ground it could be used to make bombs during the Copenhagen climate talks.
> Members of the association "Roule ma Frite" (Roll on Fries) had travelled to the Danish capital on a bus powered by used vegetable oil -- but theirreturn home now hangs in the balance.
> "Police came and confiscated the oil for our return journey on the ground that it could be used to make bombs," Gregory Gendre, the coordinator of the group, told AFP.
> Three police vans stopped the bus near the Danish environment ministry on Friday, checked the identity of its 20 occupants and then seized 17 jerrycans containing a mixture of vegetable oil and diesel.
> They also confiscated a ladder.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

A terrorist incident nipped in the bud by the looks of it.

Mind you, crêpes cooked in a mixture of oil and diesel is something not to be missed.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Here's another video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


LOL!!

Thanks for that SINC. Hilarious!:lmao:

MacGuiver


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Hill-billy-larious! :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

I was looking for the rodeo song video, cause I figured it'd go with the flow.


----------



## MacGuiver

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Hill-billy-larious! :lmao:


Yeah it is funny, a hillbilly could predict the climate better than the elitist charlatans at Hadley.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah it is funny, a hillbilly could predict the climate better than the elitist charlatans at Hadley.


Funny? Only funny? Hang on there, I thought it was supposed to be "Hilarious :lmao:" That's way more than just plain old 'funny', surely?

But I digress.
I have found the following carefully selected content from emails leaked from a certain Palin Chicken Sh*t & Moonshine webmail server somewhere in the Ozarks:

From LeRoy:
_"Hey, Zeb, yew figgered out a general solution fer that system a' couple hundred close coupled partial differential equations ah give yew t'utha night?"_

From Zeb:
_"Yep. About the clarmint? Figgered it wuz gonna rain 'n it did."_

Only a churl would deny that this supports your brilliantly observed, and eloquently stated thesis.


----------



## groovetube

knee slappin and crackin another brewski, twice in one day.

What a thread.


----------



## SINC

Just in passing, I thought it should be noted:

Alberta shivers amid record lows

Last Updated: Sunday, December 13, 2009 | 3:36 PM MT 

CBC News

Edmonton has established a record it would probably rather forget.

The Alberta capital recorded the lowest temperature in North America overnight Saturday — and set a record as the lowest temperature on a Dec. 13 in the city's history — as the current deep freeze established records across the province.

"Edmonton International Airport was the coldest place in Canada," Peter Spyker, a meteorologist with Environment Canada, said Sunday. "It was –46.1 [C] without the wind chill. I believe at one point it got to –58 with the wind chill."

The previous record for Dec. 13 was –36.1 C, set in 2008.

AGW?

Gimme a friggin' break.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Good grief!

It sounds as if you are truly getting a break from AGW.

Reminiscent of that post about the Lethbridge newspaper article.


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Good grief!
> 
> It sounds as if you are truly getting a break from AGW.
> 
> Reminiscent of that post about the Lethbridge newspaper article.


Odd thing is that it has been going on for 10 consecutive years now. Getting cooler, that is.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

There's been a lot of loose talk about desertification around the globe over recent years too. For large numbers of people, apparently, desertification spells disaster.
Try telling that sort of thing to the good folk of Cumbria in the North East of England. In late November of this year buildings and bridges in places such as Cockermouth and Workington were destroyed by the rain. The rain gauge at a place called Seathwaite Farm recorded nearly 12.5 inches of rain in 24 hours, _if you can believe it_.

Considering these comparisons, it's as easy to understand your confusion as it is the confusion of a desert dweller told about the rain in Cumbria.


----------



## SINC

Comparisons? To -50 below zero C plus? I think not. So it rains a lot there at times.

Like I said when we broke the record yesterday, the record was only a single year old for the date way back in 2008 when the last record fell.

It's continually getting colder and no data can dispute that.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> It's continually getting colder and no data can dispute that.


Just incase you missed it, one of the primary predictions of the current climate models is more extreme weather everywhere... more hotter, more colder, more wetter, more dryer. What you're observing is right in line with what the AGW climate models predict. Of course, that doesn't prove they're right, but it certainly not inconsistent with their models. 

Cheers


----------



## SINC

Oh, I didn't miss that cover story at all. It's only logical the believers would CTA (Uh, that's CYA plural in case you missed it ) with that kind of thing.


----------



## groovetube

yup. he missed it.


heard this one a bunch of times. About as intelligent as me saying the abnormally warm weather in Ontario was absolutely evidence of global warming. Because it was, warm...


----------



## SINC

I see ya still got nothing and continue to use it gt. Along with the usual personal put downs. Classy indeed.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> I see ya still got nothing and continue to use it gt. Along with the usual personal put downs. Classy indeed.


I'm pretty sure he'll have a lot more personal attacks to keep the thread rolling. Not much else, but lots more of that to come.
These "intellectuals" can be a surly bunch.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc

Sinc still doesn't understand the arctic dipole - and I thought Toronto was COTU. 

No Sinc it's not "getting colder" globally.












> World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record
> 2009 among 5 warmest years*: "Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.*"


continues

World Meteorological Organization and NOAA both report: 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record Climate Progress

recall that map










You're a pretty small region in a large planet that continues to warm and one of the reasons you are cold is the shift in the weather patterns due to a rapidly warming Arctic.

Continental highs get parked and cold intensfies - it is in NO way indicative of over global energy gains....but do keep your head buried in those tarry sands....

Wake up call coming very soon......


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I see ya still got nothing and continue to use it gt. Along with the usual personal put downs. Classy indeed.


Sinc the house is glass.

I address your posts, but you choose to make it personal.


----------



## MacDoc

I noticed Sinc over looked this last month...doesn't fit the program










and the continental high producing the current cold WEATHER










Wonder what he'll say next week....



> The GFS, WRF and GEM are not in complete agreement about how far down we go or even where the coldest of the cold will be, but all agree that tomorrow night and Sunday are going to be ridiculously cold around Edmonton. Windchill warnings are out for most of northern and central Alberta already, stopping just north of Red Deer.
> Monday looks disgusting around here at this point and Tuesday morning could be a stopper if the GEM is right. Many people have the chance to see -40 or better temps without the windchill. Hoping for and extra push of warm from the west to keep that stuff east, but that is only wishful thinking.
> As I type the -40s are still way up north but Fort Mac is reporting -38C with a chill of -51. Not looking forward to that! Only -17C at the moment but the wind is picking up giving -27 chills. *There is reason to smile though. A lovely warm bomb is forecast to shove the cold out late Tuesday and give us a week of shorts weather. *


----------



## Macfury

I pray for the "warm bomb." I will not turn my furnace on at all and reduce my cabon footprint.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Comparisons? To -50 below zero C plus?


I cannot see how you could possibly interpret anything in my post as a comparison to -50C 'plus' (by which I think you probably mean 'or lower'   ).
The only temperatures comparable with your truly magnificent -50C, of which you are understandably and justifiably proud, would be the temperatures in Antarctica, or Siberia, in their winters. -50C is very impressive - and you're quite welcome to it.
However, Central Alberta, is simply that - Central Alberta. It's not the whole planet. The controversy surrounding AGW concerns the entire planetary system.



SINC said:


> So it rains a lot there at times.


It actually rains 'there' quite a lot during the winter months. The episode I mentioned was exceptional by any standards anywhere and was included as an extreme example to compare with desertification. The purpose of _making_ that comparison was precisely to point up the fallacy in quoting these extreme examples as proof one way or the other - e.g. that the planet's getting more arid or that the planet's getting much wetter. Thus your oft repeated news of your cold weather doesn't prove anything about the planet as a whole.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> You're a pretty small region in a large planet that continues to warm and one of the reasons you are cold is the shift in the weather patterns due to a rapidly warming Arctic.


Ah yes, that would be those warm -50 degree high pressure bombs the Arctic keeps dropping on us for the past 10 years. Yep, right you are. It's warming up to -50 is it? BS.


----------



## Macfury

If it's warm, it's warming.

If it's cool it's warming. 

If it's stable it's a grace period in the warming.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> If it's warm, it's warming.
> 
> If it's cool it's warming.
> 
> If it's stable it's a grace period in the warming.


They realized early on that warming was a tough sell when people were shivering so they changed the marketing scheme from Global Warming to Climate Change. Every weather event now becomes an omen of our doom.


----------



## groovetube

sneaky son of a guns.

hic.


----------



## KC4

Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer


EUROPOL, the European Police Office

http://www.europol.europa.eu/images/pressreleases/carbon_credit_carousel.pdf

5 Billion euros, eh? How much actual pollution reduction technology could that have bought instead?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> If it's warm, it's warming.
> 
> If it's cool it's warming.
> 
> If it's stable it's a grace period in the warming.


For a picosecond (you caught me there, you rascal), I'd thought you'd gone off reservation, Macfury.

Of course, we all know that your real position is:

If it's warm, it's cooling.
If it's cool, hee-hee, we're right and they're wrong.
If it's stable it's ... hang on, someone's been cooking the data, because it's cooling!

You are a tease.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

KC4 said:


> Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer
> 
> 5 Billion euros, eh? How much actual pollution reduction technology could that have bought instead?


Annoying, isn't it?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MacGuiver said:


> ... they changed the marketing scheme from Global Warming to Climate Change.


Global Warming leads to Climate _Change_ - that was always the idea. Tricky to latch on to, I admit.


----------



## MacDoc

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by KC4
> Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer
> 
> 5 Billion euros, eh? How much actual pollution reduction technology could that have bought instead?
> Annoying, isn't it?
> __________________


Yep - horrid scheme - one reason Harper wants it.... scam central.
Cap and Trade is *con* game.....in both meanings of the word..

Meanwhile despite the howls of denidiots who have now painted themselves in a _"no place at the table"_ corner...



> *China might decline climate funding from U.S., other developed nations *
> 
> * Agence France-Presse
> 14 Dec 2009 1:38 AM
> by Agence France-Presse
> 
> BEIJING—China has said it might not take a share of any funding for emerging nations to fight climate change, the Financial Times reported Monday, in an apparent concession at fraught talks in Copenhagen.
> 
> “Financial resources for the efforts of developing countries (to combat climate change are) a legal obligation,” vice foreign minister He Yafei told the newspaper in an interview in the Danish capital.
> 
> _*“That does not mean China will take a share—probably not ... We do not expect money will flow from the US, UK (and others) to China.”*_
> 
> So far, the European Union has pledged 7.2 billion euros ($10.6 billion) in aid, which emerging nations have slammed as “insignificant.”
> 
> Beijing also insists that rich nations should provide technological assistance to emerging economies to help them fight global warming.
> 
> But amid an escalating war of words with the United States at the UN conference in Copenhagen, which is set to end on Friday, He’s appeared to be a conciliatory gesture.
> 
> “China will not be an obstacle (to a deal),” He said, according to the Financial Times.
> 
> “I know people will say if there is no deal that China is to blame. This is a trick played by the developed countries. They have to look at their own position and can’t use China as an excuse.”
> 
> The world’s two largest carbon polluters have clashed on key issues such as how to share out the burden of slashing greenhouse gases or whether the United States owes developing countries a “climate debt.”
> 
> China has vowed to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, but experts say given economic growth projections, its emissions could still double.
> 
> Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is expected in Copenhagen Wednesday and join other leaders, including U.S. President Barack Obama, in crunch talks the next day.


China might decline climate funding from U.S., other developed nations | Grist


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Meanwhile despite the howls of denidiots who have now painted themselves in a _"no place at the table"_ corner...


MacDoc, the table is full of greedy fools. Only people like you are jealous about not being there.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

And now this:

BBC News - Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'

Is anyone surprised? I don't think so.


----------



## MannyP Design

Denidiots? Lord have mercy, MacDoc, that is a clever one. Whoooo!

How do you exactly pronounce that? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Denidiots? Lord have mercy, MacDoc, that is a clever one. Whoooo!
> 
> How do you exactly pronounce that? :lmao:


Difficult to pronounce for one who flies across the world by jet, lives in the suburbs on environmentally sensitive land and sells a class of products most likely to wind up in landfill.


----------



## Adrian.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> And now this:
> 
> BBC News - Copenhagen climate summit negotiations 'suspended'
> 
> Is anyone surprised? I don't think so.


Anyone who has followed such negotiations know that this is routine behaviour from both sides - nothing really matters until the last hours. 

You're right, I am not surprised - I'm informed.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If it's warm, it's warming.
> 
> If it's cool it's warming.
> 
> If it's stable it's a grace period in the warming.


If it's warm, you have to look at long term global data to see anything meaningful.

If it's cool, you have to look at long term global data to see anything meaningful.

If it's stable, you have to look at long term global data to see anything meaningful.

Look up the difference between "weather" and "climate."


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Look up the difference between "weather" and "climate."


Not me. This is the type of evidence routinely offered by warmists.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Not me. This is the type of evidence routinely offered by warmists.


So true. We are still quite a bit cooler than the Medieval warming period. That's the one the warmists considered an anomoly and eliminated from their models.

Also so convenient that they used data from urban weather stations and ignored the cooler nearby rural data altogether. 

Still if you wanna make a bundle forcing the sale of Carbon Credits, you do what you gotta do.beejacon


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Yet more from the front:

BBC News - Developing nations return to Copenhagen climate talks


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yet more from the front:
> 
> BBC News - Developing nations return to Copenhagen climate talks



My favourite quote:



> The G77-China bloc, speaking for developing countries, said the Danish hosts had violated democratic process.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Those crazy Danes, eh Macfury?

Years ago while walking past the Amalienborg Palace, my wife and I watched a pair of Royal Life Guardsmen marching on opposite sides of the 'square' with rifles sloped and bayonets gleaming. Suddenly one of them stopped and yelled across to the other one. He, in turn, and after consulting his watch, bellowed back. Number one let fly with what I imagine was something along the lines of "****'s sake!" in Danish and they both recommenced their marching.

I was mightily impressed with this, contrasting it with the poofy, tight-ar*ed, stuffy approach to all things Guardsy around Buckingham Palace. The incident added greatly to the cautious respect that I've always had for the Danes. They really couldn't give rat's about anything, while still living the life and maintaining a civilised mien.

But, I would advise any attendees at the Copenhagen bash to be careful with what they concede to the Danes. It's all take with them. Remember, to paraphrase Kipling's lines, and with apologies to the old goat, " ... once you pay the Dane his geld, you'll never get rid of the Dane."

Our Chinese friends know what they're doing. They're in it for the long game.

You are learning Mandarin, aren't you, Macfury?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> You are learning Mandarin, aren't you, Macfury?


Guǎn nǐ zìjǐ de shì!


----------



## bryanc

eMacMan said:


> We are still quite a bit cooler than the Medieval warming period. That's the one the warmists considered an anomoly and eliminated from their models.


One model? All models? Which models? Got a Link? It was certainly included in the data I've seen. Interestingly, this warming period didn't occur in the southern hemisphere. 



> Also so convenient that they used data from urban weather stations and ignored the cooler nearby rural data altogether.


Link? Most of the data I've seen has been based on temperatures of oceans, lakes, isotope compositions of tree rings, distributions of insect mouthparts in sediments, etc. so I don't see how the urban/rural thing could be ignored as urban areas didn't exist when most of these phenomena occurred.

Or maybe you're just looking at a tiny pice of the data and seeing what you want?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Guǎn nǐ zìjǐ de shì!


Oh, but I think it is our business ... we don't want to be caught with our breeks down by any of that Manchurian Candidate nonsense.

Official! Macfury is a Chinese mole!


----------



## Macfury

Lies, I tells ya.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

:lmao:

The truth is out.

All things come to pass.


----------



## MannyP Design

Engineering bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel | R&D Mag



> This new method has two advantages for the long-term, global-scale goal of achieving a cleaner and greener energy economy, the researchers say. First, it recycles carbon dioxide, reducing greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Second, it uses solar energy to convert the carbon dioxide into a liquid fuel that can be used in the existing energy infrastructure, including in most automobiles.
> 
> While other alternatives to gasoline include deriving biofuels from plants or from algae, both of these processes require several intermediate steps before refinement into usable fuels.
> 
> "This new approach avoids the need for biomass deconstruction, either in the case of cellulosic biomass or algal biomass, which is a major economic barrier for biofuel production," said team leader James C. Liao, Chancellor's Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering at UCLA and associate director of the UCLA–Department of Energy Institute for Genomics and Proteomics. "Therefore, this is potentially much more efficient and less expensive than the current approach."


----------



## SINC

So lemme get this straight. A team of international climate scientists have determined that their predecessors were wrong about the dates of past extinctions when they had solid evidence such as carbon dating and the like to work with. (They were only out by 7,500 years or so, give or take a few thousand years.)

And thousands of teams of international climate scientists are now telling us what is going to happen in the future for which they have zero evidence? (Unless of course they have also invented future evidence.)

And we should trust them? 

Extracted DNA pokes holes in theory of sudden mass extinction



> EDMONTON — Woolly mammoths and ancient horses disappeared from North America thousands of years later than originally thought, casting doubt on common theories of a sudden mass extinction, says a researcher from the University of Alberta.
> 
> Duane Froese and a *team of international researchers have been studying the dramatic changes in climate conditions* at the end of the Pleistocene era about 13,000 years ago using evidence gathered at a dig on the Yukon River in northern Alaska.
> 
> Mammoths and wild horses used to thrive on the cold, shortgrass prairies left bare when the rest of the continent was covered by glaciers.
> 
> According to the fossil record, mammoths and horses disappeared quickly; the youngest fossils date to between 13,000 and 15,000 years ago.
> 
> But new research techniques enabled Froese and his colleagues to find evidence of mammoths and wild horses as recently as 7,600 years ago, indicating the mammals held on in slowly dwindling herds for about 5,000 years longer than originally thought, he said.


Mammoth discovery hidden inside frozen dirt


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Engineering bacteria to turn carbon dioxide into liquid fuel | R&D Mag


Well, with that out of the way, all we need to do is find some new ways to raise taxes, increase UN power, restrict freedoms and line the pockets of businesses in bed with the UN!


----------



## BigDL

I hate it when non government agencies (NGO’s) get in cahoots with the UN. These NGO’s are always a detriment to Mankind. Now working in the field of global warming shocking!


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Well, with that out of the way, all we need to do is find some new ways to raise taxes, increase UN power, restrict freedoms and line the pockets of businesses in bed with the UN!


That is the entire focus of the slime assembled in Copenhagen.beejacon
As I have stated earlier, exterminating a sizable slice of the world's population is the quickest most efficient way to reduce Carbon emissions. The leaders assembled have already established that they will not shirk at performing such a repugnant task, as long as they and theirs are safely tucked away in their bunkers.

Sadly Canada seems destined to order its surplus populace to be quick frozen should they fail to pay Al Gore's tithe.beejacon Our one forlorn hope is that Global Warming will arrive in time to save us. That hope is mighty thin given the current cooling trend that had to be fudged out of the GW data.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

An interesting read - the article in the Edmonton Journal, that is. Your response is a not unusual farrago of assumptions, misinterpretations and errors.



SINC said:


> So lemme get this straight.


Head scratching stuff Sinc, eh? 

It seems that Professor Froese and his colleagues have stretched the tail of the extinction to dates further into the future than the dates provided by *carbon dating of fossils*, by using *carbon dating techniques on the soil* in which he had discovered the DNA. The new evidence suggests that the same group of animals still became extinct, but over a longer period of time.
You will have noted the sentence:
_"Then they used radio carbon dating on the soil found with the DNA to pin down the age of the samples."_



SINC said:


> ... their predecessors were wrong about the dates of past extinctions when they had solid evidence such as carbon dating and the like to work with.


I doubt that a scientist would use the word 'solid' as you have done. That is an error on your part. Theories aren't 'solid' - they're ways of trying to explain the meaning of observations and measurements. New observations and measurements either refine a theory on the one hand, or cause it to be cast aside in favour of a new one. What's happened here, it seems, is the former - a refinement. Or, we have a new theory, which resembles the old one but with 'added value'.



SINC said:


> And thousands of teams of international climate scientists are now telling us what is going to happen in the future for which they have zero evidence? (Unless of course they have also invented future evidence.)
> 
> And we should trust them?


This is a mighty jump from Professor Froese's work to the studies on climate change, the assumption being that you can successfully tie in, somehow, the import of the professor's work with your derision of the viewpoint that there is no global warming. The connection is so tenuous that it fails.

'Lemme get this straight' indeed!


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The connection is so tenuous that it fails.


Nice try at fudging the connection, but is sticks like glue. The bottom line is that climate scientists have been, and will continue to be wrong.


----------



## groovetube

and that ladies and gentlemen, is the last word.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> and that ladies and gentlemen, is the last word.


Not quite. Have a listen to this Greenpeace protester in Copenhagen:

Lord Monckton shreds Global Warming & Greenpeace


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Nice try at fudging the connection, but is sticks like glue. The bottom line is that climate scientists have been, and will continue to be wrong.





groovetube said:


> and that ladies and gentlemen, is the last word.


Simply Add a "You Betcha and a " Say no more say no more, Know whatcha mean know whatcha mean, knewit knewit, knudge knudge, wink wink, a nod is better than a wink to a blind bat.tptptptp


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Not quite. Have a listen to this Greenpeace protester in Copenhagen:
> 
> Lord Monckton shreds Global Warming & Greenpeace


When hunting elephants follow the bunny tracks of junk science to the truth, you betcha


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> When hunting elephants follow the bunny tracks of junk science to the truth, you betcha


Well, the Greenpeace protester certainly knows a lot about her cause, doesn't she? 

Some excellent explanations she gives as to why she is there making a fool of herself.


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Not quite. Have a listen to this Greenpeace protester in Copenhagen:
> 
> Lord Monckton shreds Global Warming & Greenpeace


She hadn't a clue. Just blindly following her handlers. This is why believers get all hissy and stomp their feet when someone dare challenge their position with a debate.


----------



## groovetube

well we could spend p-a-g-e-s of this thread pointing out the idiocies of protestors and bloggers on both sides of the issue. And then thump our chests in unison, and chant our opinions backed up by 46 years 'in the business'.

It would truly, change the world.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> well we could spend p-a-g-e-s of this thread pointing out the idiocies of protestors and bloggers on both sides of the issue. And then thump our chests in unison, and chant our opinions backed up by 46 years 'in the business'.
> 
> It would truly, change the world.


Watch your octave. Lest ye be chastised.  Facts are facts but don't destroy your honourable opponent with 'em.


----------



## BigDL

MacGuiver said:


> She hadn't a clue. Just blindly following her handlers. This is why believers get all hissy and stomp their feet when someone dare challenge their position with a debate.


Prove the interview item was with a random interviewee. Was the woman really a Greenpeace supporter? How would I, or anyone else for that matter, know this isn't someone staged to make the Viscount look good and thereby supporting your thesis "of following her handlers."


----------



## MacGuiver

BigDL said:


> Prove the interview item was with a random interviewee. Was the woman really a Greenpeace supporter? How would I, or anyone else for that matter, know this isn't someone staged to make the Viscount look good and thereby supporting your thesis "of following her handlers."


Actually here is something easier for you to do since you're well informed. Prove what he claims is false.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Prove the interview item was with a random interviewee. Was the woman really a Greenpeace supporter? How would I, or anyone else for that matter, know this isn't someone staged to make the Viscount look good and thereby supporting your thesis "of following her handlers."


You really must pay more attention. I guess you didn't notice the huge Greenpeace banner behind her on a small stage which she stood right in front of during the interview?


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> You really must pay more attention. I guess you didn't notice the huge Greenpeace banner behind her on a small stage which she stood right in front of during the interview?


Its just the usual shoot the messenger strategy the Greens resort to when confronted with hard questions.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Prove the interview item was with a random interviewee. Was the woman really a Greenpeace supporter? How would I, or anyone else for that matter, know this isn't someone staged to make the Viscount look good and thereby supporting your thesis "of following her handlers."




You can tell because she uses the same "facts" that a lot of people here use. :lmao:


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> You really must pay more attention. I guess you didn't notice the huge Greenpeace banner behind her on a small stage which she stood right in front of during the interview?


Based on these ironclad facts if a person goes to a picket line and stands there in front of union banners it makes the person a Union Member if you are reporting on the matter?


----------



## BigDL

MacGuiver said:


> Actually here is something easier for you to do since you're well informed. Prove what he claims is false.


I have not represented this as anything. It is not for me to prove this is not staged it is for the person that says this is real to prove it is real. 

I question the Viscount as he is known to misrepresent the facts therefore he is suspect in my view. If someone chooses to believe the Viscount's RightScience/Gospel Truth on faith that is up to them. 

Your "facts" are suspect in my mind now prove your case. Or not.


----------



## MacGuiver

BigDL said:


> I have not represented this as anything. It is not for me to prove this is not staged it is for the person that says this is real to prove it is real.
> 
> I question the Viscount as he is known to misrepresent the facts therefore he is suspect in my view. If someone chooses to believe the Viscount's RightScience/Gospel Truth on faith that is up to them.
> 
> Your "facts" are suspect in my mind now prove your case. Or not.



Since you know the facts, which ones has he misrepresented here with this "staged protestor"?


----------



## BigDL

BigDL said:


> Then you agree dogs prefer real science, rather than the dog’s breakfast of Viscount Monckton sciencey equations and calculations, which were rapidly dismissed as bunkum as explained here RealClimate: Cuckoo Science





BigDL said:


> .....I question the Viscount as he is known to misrepresent the facts therefore he is suspect in my view. If someone chooses to believe the Viscount's RightScience/Gospel Truth on faith that is up to them.
> 
> Your "facts" are suspect in my mind now prove your case. Or not.


The "RealClimate: CucKoo Science" showed up the Viscount's discount facts. I now suspect that the Viscount may be misrepresents the facts. I question the quality of the Viscount's interview as being "just a little too good" to be true.


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> Based on these ironclad facts if a person goes to a picket line and stands there in front of union banners it makes the person a Union Member if you are reporting on the matter?


Now that is just plain silly. Did you watch the video at all? She told the interviewer that she was a Greenpeace member.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Now that is just plain silly. Did you watch the video at all? She told the interviewer that she was a Greenpeace member.


'm a billionaire send me $5000 and I can transfer $100,000 to your bank account if you provide with certain banking information. 

I will know you know this is true when I receive $5000. It is true cause I said.


----------



## MannyP Design

Boy, this thread has taken a turn for the--oh, who am I kidding?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Nice try at fudging the connection, but is sticks like glue. The bottom line is that climate scientists have been, and will continue to be wrong.


In the first paragraph of your post, you gave a brief but flawed (by the use of the word 'solid') summary of a newspaper article. In brief, that article announced new evidence, developed using new techniques, that indicates that the extinction of the megafauna of North America can now be dated to about 5000 years later than had been considered previously.

You then deliver yourself of an almighty "And ... " as you lead us into your second paragraph. The inference which you wish the reader to draw is that because there has been a re-calibration of a past event due to new evidence being presented, one should give no credence to quite different research which, controversially, has implications for the future.

On your part it was a poorly attempted connection, which couldn't even be graced with the epithet 'fudged'.

I would encourage you to re-read the article carefully. It's very interesting.

After that you can resume your battle in defence of your 'bottom line'.


----------



## SINC

No need to resume. I never quit. Someone has to stand against the questionable GW movement to help themselves to our wallets with their "snake oil" carbon credit plans.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> No need to resume. I never quit. Someone has to stand against the questionable GW movement to help themselves to our wallets with their "snake oil" carbon credit plans.


As near as I can tell we don't even get snake oil. Al Gore and his forty thieves take everything you have. When they got it all they put you out on an ice flow.


----------



## BigDL

When all else fails let's resort to AlGoreugh!phobia as the final word. You Betcha,


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Thank you for your chatty reply, Sinc.



SINC said:


> No need to resume. I never quit.


Of course you don't. And so you shouldn't. This is the Wyle E. Coyote Syndrome. I would urge you to constantly redouble your efforts, on the purely selfish grounds that you provide entertainment of the highest quality, gratis.



SINC said:


> Someone has to stand against the questionable GW movement to help themselves to our wallets with their "snake oil" carbon credit plans.


This is a modern reprise of the old Red Menace hysteria of the 50s. Oh, where is Joe McCarthy in our hour of need? Sadly, the 3rd Viscount Monckton doesn't cut it - he doesn't have the manly boorishness of old Joe. Any suggestions as to good candidates for Joe 2.0?
On the whole, it's good that you have a hobby horse to ride in your retirement. It keeps the brain active, even if misdirected. I hope you get some physical exercise as well. I would have thought that ice sculpting would be a popular pastime over there in your -50C plus[_sic_] fastness.

I thank you, once again, for the heads up regarding that newspaper article.


----------



## gordguide

According to the organizers of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, over the 11 days of the gathering and including the travel by the 15,000 delegates, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders attending, the event will cause an additional 41,000 tonnes of CO2 to be emitted.

This is equal to the CO2 emissions over the same 11 days produced in Middlesbrough, UK, an industrial town of 140,000 noted for it's chemical plants and heavy industry; it was the first industrial target of the Luftwaffe during WWII.

Copenhagen's largest Limousine Service, which normally has 12 Limo's on the road in the capital, has 200 on contract for the event.

An additional 1,000 Limos have been reserved by other firms. Limo's have had to be imported from Sweden and Germany, since the summit will require more than all the Limo's registered in the nation of 43 million.

There are no hybrid cars registered in Denmark, because the nation imposes prohibitive luxury taxes on the type. The Danish government, however, has volunteered the fleet it owns. All five will be made available to delegates.

The airport in Copenhagen expects 140 private jets, and has re-routed scheduled flights to other airports to cope with the expected influx of aircraft. Passengers who would normally embark and disembark in the city will presumably have to take alternative transportation from other Danish airports to their Copenhagen homes.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## eMacMan

> (paraphrased) Just heard a very prominent environmental scientist on CBC radio. He does embrace the harmful CO2 emissions point of view.
> 
> Basically he said that Cap and Trade will hit consumers very hard. Will transfer most of the money to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, (& Al Gore) and will not reduce emissions. He went so far as to say it would be better for Copenhagen to fail outright than to adopt Cap & Trade.
> 
> He also pointed out that concealing data sources was not good science. Nor is trying to throttle opposing viewpoints.


I will freely admit that even 5 years ago I believed that CO2 emissions were a major problem requiring a drastic solution. Every time I did a search on a related topic I would find two viewpoints. The alarmists telling me that they had done all the research have faith they were right, no they would not consider sharing the raw data or the computer modeling. The opposing viewpoints described their research in detail, explained how they reached their point of view and most importantly left a trail so that someone wanting to question the research could. Most importantly what I am seeing is that historically current temperature trends are on the high end but not even as high as during the relatively recent medieval high. Also there is a very consistent cycle that involves a fairly rapid plunge into a major ice age followed by gradual warming. We are clearly reaching the end of the current warming trend with or without mans CO2 contribution. 

While a new ice age is probably not going to settle in during my lifetime, my view from Canada is if continued CO2 emissions will delay it at all, that is preferable to winters in the -40s.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

I think that cartoon is apt. We have to prepare ouselves for whatever climate the Earth throws at us, instead of pretending we can control it.


----------



## chasMac

That raises a good point. Maybe next the Danes should host a Copenhagen Comet Collision Conference.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> That raises a good point. Maybe next the Danes should host a Copenhagen Comet Collision Conference.


To the best of our knowledge, the dinosaurs probably perished from colder temperatures. I find it astonishing that, even though the warmists have changed their crusade to "climate change" ( a hideous marketing error, I might add) they have absolutely no concern for what might happen if the planet becomes colder. They're only interested in controlling and taxing fossil fuels under the guise of protecting us from carbon dioxide leading to warming. 

What is the plan if the climate cools? To release CO2 at greater rates to keep the temperature where it is now?


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> What is the plan if the climate cools? To release CO2 at greater rates to keep the temperature where it is now?


I think the point the cartoon was trying to make is that humans have about as much chance of manipulating the earth's climate as the dinosaurs did shooting down a comet. All due credit to T-Rex for predicting the impending impact though.


----------



## Macfury

chasMac said:


> All due credit to T-Rex for predicting the impending impact though.


I have always been partial to the T-Rex. But the MacDoc Stegasaurus is calling him a Denidiot for failing to go along with the herd. No place at the table for T-Rex.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I have always been partial to the T-Rex. But the MacDoc Stegasaurus is calling him a Denidiot for failing to go along with the herd. No place at the table for T-Rex.


I now see you'er confused. The Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus et al are the deniers and that your camp. 

As partial as you may be to T-Rex, MacDoc would identify more closely with T-Rex in the context of the cartoon. 

Perhaps this therory would be something you may grasp, the Brontosaurus is thin on one end goes thick in the middle and tapers off thin on the far end. I hope you are not confused by this.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> I now see you'er confused. The Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus et al are the deniers and that your camp.
> 
> As partial as you may be to T-Rex, MacDoc would identify more closely with T-Rex in the context of the cartoon.
> 
> Perhaps this therory would be something you may grasp, the Brontosaurus is thin on one end goes thick in the middle and tapers off thin on the far end. I hope you are not confused by this.


I think the best before date on this thread is well overdue. 

Please, Mayor, lock it up and put it out of it's misery. :lmao:


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> I think the best before date on this thread is well overdue.
> 
> Please, Mayor, lock it up and put it out of it's misery. :lmao:


+1 :clap:


----------



## chasMac

MannyP Design said:


> I think the best before date on this thread is well overdue.


And yet it keeps drawing our gaze like some horrific car accident. Ah well, it keeps all the BS one place (or tries to anyways).


----------



## groovetube

true it'd just spill into a new one of all the climate experts furiously posting their google links.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I now see you'er confused. The Stegosaurus, Brontosaurus et al are the deniers and that your camp.
> 
> As partial as you may be to T-Rex, MacDoc would identify more closely with T-Rex in the context of the cartoon.


Well not at all, since MacDoc claims he holds the mainstream view, that held by the Stego--who is also tapered at both ends (the Stego, not MacDoc).


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I find it astonishing that, even though the warmists have changed their crusade to "climate change" ( a hideous marketing error, I might add) they have absolutely no concern for what might happen if the planet becomes colder.


This is the recycling of old tat.

I would like to produce as evidence, Post 911, from the keyboard of our good friend MacGuiver, in which he opined: 
_"They realized early on that warming was a tough sell when people were shivering so they changed the marketing scheme from Global Warming to Climate Change._

That assertion, of the 'change', is strikingly similar to your own less than worthy offering.

The implication is that 'they' have changed their minds ... and they haven't.

As I replied, in Post 916, _"Global Warming leads to Climate Change - that was always the idea."_

The idea put about is that 'Global Warming' was deliberately changed into something else called 'Climate Change'. It is a simpleminded falsehood, injected into the Bubbasphere, to be repeated mindlessly by the gullible. Denier Commissars repeat it every now and then to keep the wheels of disinformation turning.

As for the plaintive, _"they have absolutely no concern for what might happen if the planet becomes colder."_, worry not, Macfury. An experiment is already under way deep in the frozen wastes of Central Alberta. A test subject has been keeping us informed as the temperatures plunge. All appears to be well at present. It seems that heat generated under the collar as blood rushes to the head provides adequate defence against, and I quote, "_-50 degree high pressure bombs the Arctic keeps dropping on us_".


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> This is the recycling of old tat.


I don't find their relabeling astonishing (I like it). I find the fact that there's no concern for cooling astonishing.


----------



## CubaMark

*Science not faked, but not pretty*



> E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
> 
> The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## KC4

Wow. Everybody is getting their piece of the action. (no pun intended) 
POP OFFSETS - Offset your carbon by funding the unmet need for family planning


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Science not faked, but not pretty*


That tree ring study was bogus--through and through.


----------



## MacGuiver

KC4 said:


> Wow. Everybody is getting their piece of the action. (no pun intended)
> POP OFFSETS - Offset your carbon by funding the unmet need for family planning


So I could absolve my carbon sins by funding the execution of some unborn child in an impoverished country? Gaia would surly be pleased!


----------



## chasMac

MacGuiver said:


> So I could absolve my carbon sins by funding the execution of some unborn child in an impoverished country? Gaia would surly be pleased!


You are a Mac user? (I read an article in PC world that something like 90 percent of Mac users are progressive lefties).

Just askin'...


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> So I could absolve my carbon sins by funding the execution of some unborn child in an impoverished country? Gaia would surly be pleased!


Gaia is a harsh mistress...


----------



## MacGuiver

chasMac said:


> You are a Mac user? (I read an article in PC world that something like 90 percent of Mac users are progressive lefties).
> 
> Just askin'...


ChasMac, I'm safely in the minority. I bought my mac because its the best computer made, not for the world views of the company or its majority of users.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac

MacGuiver said:


> ChasMac, I'm safely in the minority. I bought my mac because its the best computer made, not for the world views of the company or its majority of users.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Me too.


----------



## SINC

chasMac said:


> Me too.


Yep, agreed.


----------



## eMacMan

*NW Passage open for first time ever*

Remember reading about some environmentalist that hearing the passage was open tried to kayak it in 2008. Recall something about him having to be rescued after he was jammed up in the ice. With that in mind.

Classical Values :: The Northwest Passage



> The Northwest Passage The melting of Arctic sea ice has caused the North West Passage to open up again. _The Northwest Passage is a sea route through the Arctic Ocean along the northern coast of North America via the waterways amidst the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The various islands of the archipelago are separated from one another and the Canadian mainland by a series of Arctic waterways collectively known as the Northwest Passages or Northwestern Passages._ _Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903-6._​How about some other voyages:
> 1940 Canadian RCMP officer Henry Larsen
> 1957 the United States Coast Guard cutter _Storis_
> 1977 sailor Willy de Roos
> 2005 47 ft aluminium sailboat, _Northabout_, built and captained by Jarlath Cunnane
> I blame it on man made global warming. Except for 1903-06, 1940, 1957, and 1977.
> Fortunately The BBC knows the real truth. _The most direct shipping route from Europe to Asia is fully clear of ice for the first time since records began, the European Space Agency (Esa) says._ _Historically, the Northwest Passage linking the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans has been ice-bound through the year._
> _But the agency says ice cover has been steadily shrinking, and this summer's reduction has made the route navigable._
> _The findings, based on satellite images, raised concerns about the speed of global warming._
> _The Northwest Passage is one of the most fabled sea routes in the world - a short cut from Europe to Asia through the Canadian Arctic._
> _Recent years have seen a marked shrinkage in its ice cover, but this year it was extreme, Esa says._
> _It says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978._​I guess no one was monitoring it in 1903-06,1940, 1957, and 1977. Too bad. They might have seen some interesting things about.


For whatever reason Larsen's 1944 return trip did make the above list.


----------



## gordguide

Apparently, regarding the dinosaur age, the initial climate was very oxygen rich ... much more so than today. Without that high energy air, the winged dinosaurs would not be able to breathe (and burn) enough fuel (oxygen) to fly given the large size.

Over time (a very, very long time) CO2 levels rose and smaller flying dinosaurs emerged, while at the same time large earthbound animals emerged and were able to feed themselves off the plant life, which thrives on CO2 rich environments (carnivores, regardless of what they actually eat, always are dependent on the relative health of the plant eating animals).

The whole point of all that, is that the energy mix of the atmosphere determines what life forms will fail, survive, thrive or emerge. There is no "right" or "wrong" climate, as far as the planet and as far as life forms go, unless you look at it selfishly, and place human life above others.

The current climate "emergency" is true ("small-c") conservative thought at it's best ... preserve what exists (ie human comfort and human planetary dominance) and fight climate change.

The irony of it all is that it goes right up against another, conflicting "small-c" conservative group ... the "let's not get hasty and do things before we're absolutely, positively sure it's necessary" school of thought.

I find that strangely entertaining.

" ... You are a Mac user? (I read an article in PC world that something like 90 percent of Mac users are progressive lefties). ..."

Must have been the US edition ... Americans, probably because political history is never taught except in the context of their own experience, have no idea what conservative and liberal values really are. The Republican Party in the US was founded and is based on Classic Liberal theory.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> I don't find their relabeling astonishing (I like it).


No 'relabelling' at all- it was always GW leading to CC. Very simple logic, but beyond the wits of many denier adherents (but not, I suspect, beyond yours). This 'relabelling' tosh is deliberately rehashed as news in order to keep denier Bubbas excited.

What you 'like' is to try and cast it as something new and sinisiter - desperate tactics.



Macfury said:


> I find the fact that there's no concern for cooling astonishing.


This is a red herring based on the erroneous assumption that we are experiencing global cooling. This, in turn, is another desperate measure designed to misinform, mislead and otherwise misdirect the Denier hoplites in their poorly focussed fury.

Your comment has as much value as saying that you are astonished that there is no concern for the plague of frogs that is going to afflict the planet.

I admire the cheek you display with the transparency of your tactics.


----------



## gordguide

The Russians (Institute of Economic Analysis, Moscow) are reporting that the Climate Research Center at the University of East Anglia (the one with the leaked data problem) ignored Russian weather data that had the most complete and uninterrupted climate records in favour of data near cities that are incomplete and/or interrupted, or both, because city data tends to show more warming due to improving human attempts to warm themselves in homes and buildings.

The Russians say that the examination of data records which comprised part of the leak (ie not the eMails themselves that have so far garnered the most attention) revealed the CRC ignored the best data covering 40% of Russia in favour of incomplete and interrupted data from stations covering 25% of Russia, predominantly urban Russia.

Say what you want about the Russians, but they control a huge northern land mass and made science a priority in the 20th century, arguably more so than any nation. They also have a huge amount at stake with regard to climate change; in fact they are being pro-active and taking steps that insure that if climate change is real, most visibly with their stepped-up activity establishing sovereignty in the Arctic, they are prepared for all eventualities.

This is disturbing news that implies bias.

One of the leaked eMails refers to two studies using Russian data that members of the CRC were able to prevent from being published in the current peer-reviewed literature. Those papers used the more robust and compete data available from the non-urban weather stations. *

The "missing" Russian data suggests a warming trend, but that trend is significant in two ways; the trend is not really found in non-urban areas, and when you include all the Russian data (urban and rural) the warming trend is significantly reduced; 1.6C since 1860 vs 2.06C with the data the CRC chose to use, while claiming it represented all of Russia.

The CRC reports (from the Climate Research Unit, or CRU) are what the IPCC reports are based on to a large extent.

This is the kind of stuff that really bothers me. I don't mind being told something that's true, but I hate it when I'm told something "for my own good" based on cherry-picked data. I really cannot understand what motivates people to do this stuff (health care people do it just as much); isn't the real data "bad enough" for them? Why stretch the truth about it and risk people ignoring your message?

Because that's exactly what happens when people find out about it, and that's exactly what's happening now in the opinions of the general public.

The media, up to now, have been generally supportive of the CRC, saying that although the leaks were not entirely beneficial, in the long run they are just the friendly, casual banter between friends that prove nothing; that there is no "smoking gun" there.

We shall see, I guess.

* The eMail in question:
" ...
March 2004
From: Phil Jones
To: Michael Mann
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
..."


----------



## MacDoc

So urban heat islands explains this????

Arctic Report Card



> About the Report Card
> Issued annually, the Arctic Report Card is a timely source for clear, reliable and concise environmental information on the state of the Arctic, relative to historical time series records. Some of the essays are based upon updates to articles in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society State of the Climate in 2008.
> *Material presented in the Report Card is prepared by an international team of scientists and is peer-reviewed by topical experts of the Climate Experts Group (AMAP) of the Arctic Council.*
> 
> The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) provides collaborative support through the delivery and editing of the biological elements of the Report Card.
> The audience for the Arctic Report Card is wide, including scientists, students, teachers, decision makers and the general public interested in Arctic environment and science. The web-based format facilitates future timely updates of the content.


..give us a break GG

..if anything the Russians like the Saudi's are against fossil fuel curbs..

Satellites have been in use since 1970 and the trends in the Arctic are abundantly clear....
I can give you dozens of papers tracking global warming in Siberia and many from diverse disciplines with feet on the ground....



> Mon, May 04,* 2009 *10:33:07 IST
> 
> 
> A JOINT US-Russian team of scientists from Wellesley College in United States and Irkutsk State University in Russia has found that Lake Baikal in Siberia is in the process of severe ecological disruption as a result of global warming.
> 
> The lake is supposed to have the richest fauna and flora in the world.
> 
> The analysis has been done by lead scientist Marianne V Moore and his four associates and their main findings are as follows:
> 
> 1. The lake’s food web, endemic diatoms, has become vulnerable with the reduction in the length of winter time in the area.
> 2. The lake’s climate has become measurably milder over recent decades and annual precipitation is increasing.
> 3. The average ice depth in the lake has decreased in recent decades.
> 4. The ice-free season of the area has increased in length.


CT I would have thought beneath you...


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> No 'relabelling' at all- it was always GW leading to CC. Very simple logic, but beyond the wits of many denier adherents (but not, I suspect, beyond yours).


Perhaps they've been consistent in the British Isles. Each term means something different. However, the term "global warming" was used almost exclusively by greenhouse gassers a decade ago. Only when temperatures failed to rise as expected and predicted was the term "climate change" widely used. It's not new and sinister--it's a rather sad little tactic.



Snapple Quaffer said:


> This is a red herring based on the erroneous assumption that we are experiencing global cooling.


We are certainly experienceing some cooling. However, my comment isn't based on current temperature data, but the notion that we can actually cool the planet down by controlling our wee influx of CO2. If it is possible to cool the planet by this means, then we must decide how cool is _too_ cool. Perhaps you know already and I just missed it.


----------



## Macfury

Gotta love MacDoc's tiny little protests--calling up micro-studies to stiff into the cracks as the global warming movement explodes in his face.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc said:


> Satellites have been in use since 1970 and the trends in the Arctic are abundantly clear...


Oh REALLY? _Abundantly_ clear, eh? Well, the Arctic is actually ahead of the 20 year average as far as ice buildup, mi amigo. And It hasn't returned to the infamous 2006 melt that some area fond of recalling at the most convenient.

The only areas that are behind the average are the Hudson Bay and Barent Sea.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> Oh REALLY? _Abundantly_ clear, eh? Well, the Arctic is actually ahead of the 20 year average as far as ice buildup, mi amigo. And It hasn't returned to the infamous 2006 melt that some area fond of recalling at the most convenient.


Pay no attention to that ice in the Arctic. MacDoc is focusing on a lake in Russia now! 

"O-m-m-m-m-m-m.... o-m-m-m-m-m-m-m."


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> Pay no attention to that ice in the Arctic. MacDoc is focusing on a lake in Russia now!
> 
> "O-m-m-m-m-m-m.... o-m-m-m-m-m-m-m."


What I find particularly amusing, is that a lot of the non-denidiots (snicker) seem to base a lot of their arguments on data from nearly four years ago (when the ice melt was at it's worst) while completely ignoring data that's being released in real time.

The rate of ice melt is dropping considerably fast (from 7 or 8 percent to 1 to 4.5 percent, depending on whose data you prefer), and growth is actually increasing depending on the region. That "smidge" of growth, as GrooveTube describes, is *82,000 square kilometers per day*. And that's just for the month of November.

And I know this doesn't need to be said, but it's like it really needs to be addressed time and time again: The so-called "denidiots" aren't arguing that we need to curtail pollution, just the notion that, somehow, spending money on (or trading) credits will save the world will do more harm than good. All it does is shift responsibility. Companies have purchased hectares of forest land for the sole purpose of offsetting carbon credits so they (or others) can continue business, unabated. They are putting a price tag on pollution and with the idea that it's okay to pollute so as long as you pay for it.

That is the wrong message.

The chances that money will be used for something beneficial to the environment are slim. I'm willing to wager it'll be lining the pockets of already morbidly obese fat-cats. Businesses should be given incentives to reduce pollution, or better technology. Not give them "outs" to continue making a mess.

But hey, this is just one "denidiots" opinion.


----------



## adagio

Unprecedented warming? Just a slight exaggeration. The big picture tells a much different story. Check out the video that puts our current climate in context.

Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale Watts Up With That?


----------



## SINC

Tick . . . tick . . . tick

Just waiting for one of the believers to trash adagio's figures with yet more bunk . . .


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> Tick . . . tick . . . tick
> 
> Just waiting for one of the believers to trash adagio's figures with yet more bunk . . .


Science vs. Science. Who will win? :lmao:


----------



## KC4

MannyP Design said:


> Science vs. Science. Who will win? :lmao:


It's easier to predict who will lose. I say all of us.


----------



## adagio

MannyP Design said:


> The chances that money will be used for something beneficial to the environment are slim. I'm willing to wager it'll be lining the pockets of already morbidly obese fat-cats. Businesses should be given incentives to reduce pollution, or better technology. Not give them "outs" to continue making a mess.
> 
> But hey, this is just one "denidiots" opinion.


This is exactly what a few of us have been saying right from the beginning of this whole sham. Too many naive folks have equated pollution with the farce that has been presented to the world. Fortunately many intelligent people are waking up to the fact there has been gross manipulation in what "we've" been told. Our Canadian contingent in Copenhagen should pack up their bags right now and walk away. If our government has billions to spare then lets spend it at home on real environmental issues and tell the African despots to go %*&^$


----------



## adagio

KC4 said:


> It's easier to predict who will lose. I say all of us.


Yes, inevitably the human race will lose just as the dinosaur era lost too. No entity on earth has, or will ever have, any control whatsoever on our planet's climate. We can't stop volcanic eruptions, we've no control over the tides. We can't prevent the shifting of the earth's crust resulting in great upheavals. Our ancestors chanted and danced for rain, some threw virgins down sacred wells when there were droughts. All for naught. We'll have floods and droughts, hurricanes and tsunamis whether mankind survives or not. The cockroach will probably outlive us though.


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> Our ancestors chanted and danced for rain, some threw virgins down sacred wells when there were droughts. All for naught.


Their descendants carry signs and chant that they will douse the Promethean fires so that Gaia will once again smile upon them. Heaven help us all.


----------



## SINC

adagio said:


> This is exactly what a few of us have been saying right from the beginning of this whole sham. Too many naive folks have equated pollution with the farce that has been presented to the world. Fortunately many intelligent people are waking up to the fact there has been gross manipulation in what "we've" been told. Our Canadian contingent in Copenhagen should pack up their bags right now and walk away. If our government has billions to spare then lets spend it at home on real environmental issues and tell the African despots to go %*&^$


:clap:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Perhaps they've been consistent in the British Isles. Each term means something different.


Well, yes, but the one results from the other. That's an easy enough idea, even if you don't like it.



Macfury said:


> However, the term "global warming" was used almost exclusively by greenhouse gassers a decade ago. Only when temperatures failed to rise as expected and predicted was the term "climate change" widely used. It's not new and sinister--it's a rather sad little tactic.


It's more a sad indictment of the ludicrous way scientific matters are reported in the mainstream media. There have been some very poorly reported and hyped up notions about scientific matters that have misinformed the public over the years. The notion of greenhouse gases is over a hundred years old. Serious research into climate change was going on as much as three decades ago. The notion that the greenhouse effect could lead to instability in the climate through global warming is _not_ new. It certainly hasn't been invented within the past ten years.



Macfury said:


> We are certainly experienceing some cooling.


Not globally. Locally, this is very likely to happen.



Macfury said:


> However, my comment isn't based on current temperature data, but the notion that we can actually cool the planet down by controlling our wee influx of CO2.


Are you suggesting that the 'wee' influx (which is, actually, all that is needed to cause an effect out of all proportion to its size) is causing a global warming effect? Are you suggesting that we need to do some sort of cooling?



Macfury said:


> If it is possible to cool the planet by this means then we must decide how cool is _too_ cool.


The answers to 'how cool is too cool?' and 'how hot is too hot?', can both be answered by the considering how much disruption to agriculture, water supplies, global trade, global security etc has to occur before total chaos and the collapse of any pretence at human civilisation. Your call.



Macfury said:


> Perhaps you know already and I just missed it.


If I knew so would you, presumably.


----------



## gordguide

Love the comment about satellites. The weather station data not used by CRU are un-interrupted back to 1860.

Lake Baikal is the oldest freshwater lake on Earth, at over 25 million years. It contains 20% of the world's fresh water; is the deepest freshwater lake on Earth (1,600+ m, roughly 1 mile deep), and the cleanest. It is home to more than 1500 species of plants and animals, two thirds of which exist no where else on Earth. It provides a very good record of prehistory climate; it is rare amongst freshwater lakes in that it has never been covered or altered by a glacier.

" ...
Relative changes in the level of Lake Baikal, amounting to hundreds of meters in Quaternary time, are well documented. Data presented here show that tectonic displacements of the lake outlet or former shoreline features are entirely sufficient to explain these relative lake-level changes. In contrast, the morphology and hydrology of the lake make its level hydrologically insensitive to climate change. Available evidence indicates that, throughout the past several hundred thousand years, Lake Baikal was a dilute, through-flowing lake controlled by the level of its outlet. On the basis of geologic data alone, climatic effects on lake level, whatever their magnitude, are difficult to separate from those caused by active rift tectonism. However, consideration of (1) the hydrologic budget of the lake and (2) the configuration of the outlet suggests that potential lake-level fluctuations due solely to climate change were less than about 2 m.
..."
-"Water-level changes in Lake Baikal, Siberia: Tectonism versus climate"
Geology; June 1998; v. 26; no. 6; p. 531-534; DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(1998)026<0531:WLCILB>2.3.CO;2
© 1998 Geological Society of America
Steven M. Colman
1 U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543

If, over hundreds of thousands of years, climate can account for a fluctuation of +/- 1 meter in lake level, it's hardly likely that any modern change can be attributed to climate, regardless of the level of that change.


----------



## MacDoc

1991 is that your current position?? It's almost 2 decades later Gord....science moves forward as does climate change and our scientific understanding of it...

60 years of careful work



> The conclusions shown here for this enormous body of freshwater result from careful and repeated sampling over six decades," said Henry Gholz, program director for NCEAS at the National Science Foundation (NSF), which funded the research. "Thanks to the dedication of local scientists, who were also keen observers, coupled with modern synthetic approaches, we can now visualize and appreciate the far-reaching changes occurring in this lake."
> 
> Lake Baikal is the grand dame of lakes. In 1996, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) declared it a World Heritage site because of its biological diversity. It boasts 2500 plant and animal species, with most, including the freshwater seal, found nowhere else in the world.
> 
> The lake contains 20 percent of the world's freshwater, and it is large enough to hold all the water in the United States' Great Lakes. It is the world's deepest lake as well as its oldest; at 25 million years old, it predates the emergence of humans.
> 
> In more recent times, it was a dedicated group of humans who made this study possible.
> 
> "Our research relies on a 60-year data set, collected in Lake Baikal by three generations of a single family of Siberian scientists," Moore said. "In the 1940s, Mikhail Kozhov began collecting and analyzing water samples in anticipation that this lake could reveal much about how lakes in general function.
> 
> "Ultimately, his daughter Olga Kozhova continued the program, followed by her daughter, who is also a co-author of today's paper: Lyubov Izmest'eva."
> 
> The decades-long research effort survived the reign of Stalin, the fall of the Soviet Union, and other social and financial upheavals in the region.
> 
> Data collection continued through every season, in an environment where winter temperatures drop to -50 degrees F.
> 
> The data on Lake Baikal reveal "significant warming of surface waters and long-term changes in the food web of the world's largest, most ancient lake," write the researchers in their paper. "Increases in water temperature (1.21°C since 1946), chlorophyll a (300 percent since 1979), and an influential group of zooplankton grazers (335 percent since 1946) have important implications for nutrient cycling and food web dynamics."


nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Global Warming Affects World's Largest Freshwater Lake - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

..if it's so stable why the change now.

The issue is not 100,000 years Gord ...*the issue is now.*

How do you explain this? Charted every year by international teams. I noticed you avoided that compendium entirely.
Arctic Report Card

or this

TerraNature | Melting permafrost methane emissions: Another threat to climate change

snip 



> Siberia is one of the fastest warming regions on Earth - average temperatures have increased *3°C in the last 40 years.*


Heat islands.....?? 

Temperature records are not based on a single line of inquery....this has 8









••

MF quite spewing denier blog tripe about your pet CT ...it's about on par for you...



> What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change12.05.08
> 
> By any other name ... Whether referred to as "global warming" or "climate change," the consequences of the widescale changes currently being observed in Earth's climate system could be considerable.
> The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
> 
> To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases. Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"1
> 
> Broecker's term was a break with tradition. Earlier studies of human impact on climate had called it "inadvertent climate modification."2 This was because while many scientists accepted that human activities could cause climate change, they did not know what the direction of change might be. Industrial emissions of tiny airborne particles called aerosols might cause cooling, while greenhouse gas emissions would cause warming. Which effect would dominate?
> 
> For most of the 1970s, nobody knew. So "inadvertent climate modification," while clunky and dull, was an accurate reflection of the state of knowledge.
> 
> The first decisive National Academy of Science study of carbon dioxide's impact on climate, published in 1979, abandoned "inadvertent climate modification." Often called the Charney Report for its chairman, Jule Charney of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, declared: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."3
> 
> In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
> 
> *Definitions *
> 
> Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
> 
> Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.


continues

The history of the terms with references to the papers
NASA - What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

and despite your repeated lies MacFury ...it has *NOT* been cooling...



> Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known
> John Pickrell in Copenhagen
> for National Geographic News
> *December 8, 2009*
> 
> *The past decade has been the hottest on record,* according to new global warming data released today at the Copenhagen climate conference by the World Meteorological Organization.
> 
> What's more, 2009 is shaping up to be the fifth warmest year since coordinated record keeping began in 1850, according to preliminary figures released by the Geneva-based UN organization. The final report, including December climate data, will be released in March 2010.
> 
> The new data, collected from land-based weather stations across the world, as well as by ships, buoys, and satellites, does not show a slowdown or reversal of the global warming trend, Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), said at a press briefing.


continues
Global Warming "Marches On"; Past Decade Hottest Known

what you think you repeat deniosphere garbage frequently enough that is will somehow become anythong other than wishful thinking on your part???


----------



## MacDoc

*How best to deal with it??...*
.open to scoundrels and scalliwags like any human endeavour...this one perhaps more than most as it crosses national boundaries. 

Don't confuse the two issues.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc, yes... please... LET'S talk about *now*. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

*NOVEMBER 2009*
_In November, the average rate of Arctic sea ice growth slightly exceeded the 1979 to 2000 average growth rate for the month_. However, at the end of the month, some regions, in particular the Barents Sea and Hudson Bay, still had much less ice cover than normal.

*Overview of conditions*
Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2009 was 10.26 million square kilometers (3.96 million square miles). This was 1.05 million square kilometers (405,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for November, but 420,000 square kilometers (160,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in November 2006. In general, the ice edge is now at or slightly beyond its average location, with two notable exceptions: Hudson Bay and the Barents Sea.










*OCTOBER 2008*









*An expected paradox: Autumn warmth and ice growth*

As is normal for this time of year, ice extent increased rapidly through most of October. However, this year, the increase was particularly fast, which contributed to above-average air temperatures near the surface. A look back at the entire melt season from March through October reveals that the Arctic sea ice is showing some unusual changes in growth and melt cycles.

*OCTOBER 2007*

_While sea ice is again growing_, we didn't actually get above the previous absolute minimum record extent, set on September 20–21, 2005, until October 14 of this year. 

*The Northwest Passage has re-frozen*
After several weeks of nearly ice-free conditions in August and throughout September, the channels of the Northwest Passage now have sections covered with newly formed ice. Though some portions of the channels appear to still be fairly free of ice, all possible routes would now require ice-hardened vessels or icebreakers to transit.


----------



## groovetube

OH MY GOD!!!!! in November the ice growing average was higher so that means all climate change theories are wrong! (don't mind the melting caps mind you).

You betcha! as DL would say.

sorry no other way to address this true spot of intelligence.


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> MacDoc, yes... please... LET'S talk about *now*.


Pay no attention to the ice behind the curtain!

I love to see him drag out the same old graphs, though.


----------



## groovetube

right!

Here comes the ice age people!

macfury will say hocus pocus! Ala Kazzam!!

And it will be... so!


----------



## BigDL

Funny how deniers will just "deny, deny deny" to paraphrase Gomer Pyle (or perhaps a bunch of gomers or is it goobers I mean the term red necks use.) 

I will assist the deniers by pointing out that MD used the words UN and UNESCO therefore its all part the great domination conspiracy of the world by a governing body which is not Corporate and NEOCON. Funny though MP D quotes the same source to deny.



nsidc.org said:


> Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering. To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.
> 
> In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008, Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007, and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice.


 Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis: Questions about Arctic sea ice



nsidc.org said:


> Muir Glacier in Alaska, like many glaciers around the world, has changed through time. At top, the glacier in 1941; at bottom, the glacier in 2004. From NSIDC's  Repeat Photography of Glaciers collection .


----------



## MacDoc

> NOVEMBER 2009
> *In November, the average rate of Arctic sea ice growth slightly exceeded the 1979 to 2000 average growth rate for the month.* However, at the end of the month, some regions,* in particular the Barents Sea and Hudson Bay, still had much less ice cover than normal.*


That the best you have Manny???.....:lmao::lmao:

You do realize ice area dipped below the all time record earlier this year.









You conveniently ignore the October record??

That said, annual single layer ice cover has little import..it's like saying _oh wow mom the pond froze over a couple days early this year._ 

When multi- year ice and ice shelves return -be sure to let us know...



> Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert | Reuters
> 29 Oct 2009 ... Fri, Oct 2 2009. Broken Arctic sea ice as seen from a window in from a U.S. Coast Guard C130. OTTAWA (Reuters) - The multiyear ice covering ...


Multiyear Arctic ice is effectively gone: expert | Reuters

You're smarter than this Manny ...get over it...

_It's warming
We're primarily responsible
We have some opportunity to mitigate the risks.._


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> right!
> 
> Here comes the ice age people!
> 
> macfury will say hocus pocus! Ala Kazzam!!
> 
> And it will be... so!


No, no the magic isn't MF's it's the Ice Queen as explained earlier. Now MF and her minions Hmmm You Betcha  



BigDL said:


> It was the evil Ice Queen who put a spell on many of the world to believe it was warming when actually the land was cooling. The sea ice and polar glaciers were growing. The Alpine/Mountain Glaciers have grown down the mountains taken over the lower elevations and she will soon release her Neanderthal minions from their caves to take over the world and enslave the peaceful valley folk and low lying coastal and island people.


----------



## MacDoc

For those NOT drinking the denier Koolaid 



> *Arctic Meltdown*
> Three-part series airing: Thursday December 3, 10 & 17, 2009 at 10 pm ET/PT on CBC News Network


Arctic Meltdown : The Nature of Things with David Suzuki : CBC-TV

all three parts can be watched in full on line.


----------



## Macfury

If it appears on MacDoc's favourite TV show, it's got to be true. Bring a pad and pencil folks!


----------



## SINC

Suzuki is not a climate scientist. His only real claim to fame is assisting with the over population of the planet.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Suzuki is not a climate scientist. His only real claim to fame is assisting with the over population of the planet.


no, but he does have a phd in zoology and understands very well the impact of a changing climate on the oceans and the animal population.

So I might listen to an opinion or two on his part, over a pile googling loud mouths on a forum.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> No, no the magic isn't MF's it's the Ice Queen as explained earlier. Now MF and her minions Hmmm You Betcha


The ice queen.

fantastic.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> OH MY GOD!!!!! in November the ice growing average was higher so that means all climate change theories are wrong! (don't mind the melting caps mind you).
> 
> You betcha! as DL would say.
> 
> sorry no other way to address this true spot of intelligence.


And the so-called enlightened ones continue to sling sh¡te from the peanut gallery. So much for the downward spiral. LOL.

And you STILL continue to offer nothing of substance.


----------



## MannyP Design

MacDoc, you're the one ignoring data. The trend shows ice growth. PERIOD. The warming trend in the Arctic is slowing and the ice caps are recovering from the 2006 melt that put everyone into a panic.

OCTOBER 2009









*At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008*. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

Can you get it now?

How about the year before: October 2008










*The Northwest Passage has re-frozen
*After several weeks of nearly ice-free conditions in August and throughout September, the channels of the Northwest Passage now have sections covered with newly formed ice. Though some portions of the channels appear to still be fairly free of ice, all possible routes would now require ice-hardened vessels or icebreakers to transit.​
Yes, MacDoc I AM smarter than that. And your tunnel vision is getting more and more apparent. Do you not see the contradiction? How does ice grow when the Earth is apparently heating up? :heybaby:

BTW, the site doesn't always update on a month per month basis. So while you believe it's my doing to ignoring specific months--look to the site. Feel free to enjoy 2009's data.


----------



## MannyP Design

I see a difference, can you see a difference?


----------



## Dr.G.

Speaking to a neighbor of mine, who has a Ph.D. in Meteorology and a Ph.D. in Geology (an amazing person), I was told that this "new ice" is not thick and therin lies the problem, along with the melting away of the permafrost layer in certain parts of Canada's arctic regions. Core samples are getting thinner and thinner, and while there may be a gain in the layering, the overall trend is for the decrease in the overall mass of these glacial sheets. 

I don't claim to be a scientist, and while I have my doubts about "cap and trade", as an educated I still like to look at all sides as well as I can, reading as much as I can from various sources.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> The notion that the greenhouse effect could lead to instability in the climate through global warming is _not_ new. It certainly hasn't been invented within the past ten years.


No, the change in usage has largely been adopted by the various lobby groups promoting CO2 schemes.



Snapple Quaffer said:


> Are you suggesting that the 'wee' influx (which is, actually, all that is needed to cause an effect out of all proportion to its size) is causing a global warming effect? Are you suggesting that we need to do some sort of cooling?


I'm not suggesting that CO2 is a significant factor at all. Or that we need to do any cooling.



Snapple Quaffer said:


> The answers to 'how cool is too cool?' and 'how hot is too hot?', can both be answered by the considering how much disruption to agriculture, water supplies, global trade, global security etc has to occur before total chaos and the collapse of any pretence at human civilisation. Your call.


The people who pretend to speak on my behalf have already appeared to have decided that they wish to control the globe's thermostat so that it does not go higher than 2.0 degrees Celsius above where it is. (I believe somebody named Canute set this limit). 

If it's my call, then I will decide that if the mean temperature of the globe falls by more than 1.0 degrees Celsius, that we need to place a premium on the production of carbon dioxide, to bring the globe back up to today's temperatures.


----------



## FeXL

> *Siberia is one of the fastest warming regions on Earth - average temperatures have increased 3°C in the last 40 years.*


I'd like to address this:



> Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.
> 
> ...
> 
> They specifically state that lack of measurement is not the cause. If they claim the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia would look. Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.


Linky

From the original, scroll down.



> The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
> 
> Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
> 
> Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
> 
> The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
> 
> The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
> 
> On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
> 
> IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
> 
> The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
> 
> Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.


And, in order to cover it up:



> Climategate emails show that Phil Jones of CRU, acting as a reviewer of the CRU data used in the HadCRU gridded temperature, “went to town” to block the publication of criticisms of his handling of Russian data.





> (Text from the original email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann)
> 
> Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.


Good. Solid. Scientific. Process.

Cherry pick the data that shores up your argument, ignore and/or delete that which does not and browbeat anyone who may disagree with you. 

Sound like anyone else we know?

Oh, and I apologize for the missing rolling eyes, general lack of abusive tone and shortage of name calling...


----------



## Macfury

FeXL said:


> I'd like to address this:


Just as the tree ring study used only the few trees with rings that supported warming, but ignored the majority of available trees nearby that showed no warming. 



> Thus the key ingredient in most of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series, depends on the influence of a woefully thin subsample of trees and the exclusion of readily-available data for the same area. Whatever is going on here, it is not science.



Ross McKitrick: Defects in key climate data are uncovered - FP Comment


----------



## chasMac

We might just dodge the bullet:



> Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen *US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries*





> ...his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort — and a 10-day meeting — from ending in total collapse


Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## adagio

I sure as hell hope there is no agreement of any kind. This whole thing stinks. Whether you believe in AGW or not it no longer matters. This whole carbon cap and trade scheme is a scam!!!!!!! I've said so from the beginning when Gore opened his mouth and started scaring the shiit out of folks with his BS and lies. The man is a snake oil salesman and he belongs in prison right along side Madoff. He's as dirty as they come. His pals pushing this carbon trade are downright scary too. There are trillions of dollars at stake here. What the hell happen to climate talk? All I've seen so far is a bunch of despots with their hands out begging. No mention of what they would contribute. Then there are China and India who have turned their countries into polluted cesspools for the almighty buck. What a friggin disgrace they are. They have some damn nerve telling us we should freeze in the dark while they carry on spewing REAL toxins into the air and water with no consequences from the international community. 

The sad part about all this is legitimate science has taken a beating. Who do we trust now? As long as any kind of money is involved we'll never know right or wrong, truth or lies. The only thing I can see is each one of us do our own little part to lesson the impact on the environment around us. Environmentalism is good. Let's not let it be hijacked by liars and schemers whose sole intent is to line their pockets.


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> What the hell happen to climate talk? All I've seen so far is a bunch of despots with their hands out begging. No mention of what they would contribute.


Because at its heart, that's all the IPCC and the Untied Nations care about. Most of the delegates are fully aware that they are attending a wealth-transfer summit and sometimes they forgetto keep up the window dressing.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Because at its heart, that's all the IPCC and the Untied Nations care about. Most of the delegates are fully aware that they are attending a wealth-transfer summit and sometimes they forget to keep up the window dressing.


Yes and the way the transfer works is that ten barrels of pork go to the indian agent to distribute to the indians. The agent (Al Gore or Goldman Sachs) declares nine of the barrels spoiled and sends the tenth one along to whichever tribe gives him the biggest kickback. The other nine he sells to the highest bidder and pockets the proceeds.


----------



## SINC

Just follow the money to get the truth folks.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Speaking to a neighbor of mine, who has a Ph.D. in Meteorology and a Ph.D. in Geology (an amazing person), I was told that this "new ice" is not thick and therin lies the problem, along with the melting away of the permafrost layer in certain parts of Canada's arctic regions. Core samples are getting thinner and thinner, and while there may be a gain in the layering, the overall trend is for the decrease in the overall mass of these glacial sheets.
> 
> I don't claim to be a scientist, and while I have my doubts about "cap and trade", as an educated I still like to look at all sides as well as I can, reading as much as I can from various sources.


balanced look G, well said.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> And the so-called enlightened ones continue to sling sh¡te from the peanut gallery. So much for the downward spiral. LOL.
> 
> And you STILL continue to offer nothing of substance.


what's the point Manny? My google link TRUMPS your google link!

Do really think that's an intelligent game? I enjoy this thread for two reasons. The stupidity shown by those who think they know what they're talking about, some fun in mocking there, and mainly, there are a few posters who seems to have a good background, and actually do offer good insights and information, beyond some graph they googled that apparently proves their point. As if, that is really offering -anything-, of substance...


----------



## eMacMan

Of course new ice is not as thick unless of course you compare it to 1903, 1940, 1944, 1957 and 2006. When you compare it to those years it is a lot thicker. More importantly this is the third year in a row that it is building.

Is the climate still warming? Long term probably. Is it the end of the world? No! Are man made CO2 emissions a major contributor leading to catastrophic system failure? Obviously not or we would not be in the midst of an extended cooling phase.

Cap & Trade will cost the developed world Trillions. Very little will go to developing or undeveloped nations. Most will end up in the vaults of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Al Gore. That is money that would be much better spent reducing the actual toxins that mankind is dumping into his nest.

Wanna pass a law banning blister packs? I'm with ya!

Wanna legislate that new coal burning power plants should be in the middle of populated areas & that the excess heat generated be piped to the cities buildings? I'm with ya!

Wanna put legislation in place that will make it easier and less expensive for me to go off the power grid? I'm with ya!

Wanna ban Mercury in light bulbs including CFBs.? I am really with ya!

However neither these nor a hundred other things require or will even be hastened by Cap & Trade.


----------



## Macfury

^^^^^^

I'm with ya!


----------



## adagio

I'm with ya too, eMacMan!!!


----------



## Dr.G.

groovetube said:


> balanced look G, well said.


Merci, gt. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G.

washingtonpost.com

"COPENHAGEN -- With time running out to forge a comprehensive climate agreement, negotiators at the U.N.-sponsored talks are considering a new draft agreement that would not require a binding treaty by 2010 but would lay the groundwork for a more ambitious target in limiting the rise of temperatures around the globe."


----------



## gordguide

As I understand it, the Copenhagen talks were never tasked with creating a binding agreement (eg like Kyoto was). The end result was always the creation of a statement that would lead to later negotiations and perhaps an agreement.

It would seem that it's exactly what was achieved. Although the end document doesn't please everyone, it's within the intended mandate of the conference.


----------



## Macfury

I have read today that the Copenhagen summit ended with hopes "sliced to ribbons." I had hoped for "tatters," but we must take what we can get and move on.


----------



## SINC

Yep, the "deal" is the biggest "non-deal" I have yet to see regarding the climate.


----------



## chasMac

I read in the G&M that it's a "promise now, implement later" deal. Knowing what politicians promises are worth, there is hope that absolutely nothing will come of Copenhagen.


----------



## Macfury

*Copenhagen deal in ribbons*

This statement was really over the top:



> Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries, compared the proposed deal to the holocaust.
> 
> "[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It's a solution based on values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces."


Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject | Environment | guardian.co.uk



> Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama's speech as "ridiculous" and the US's initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as "a joke".


Barack Obama's speech disappoints and fuels frustration at Copenhagen | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## adagio

chasMac said:


> I read in the G&M that it's a "promise now, implement later" deal. Knowing what politicians promises are worth, there is hope that absolutely nothing will come of Copenhagen.


amen


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> what's the point Manny? My google link TRUMPS your google link!
> 
> Do really think that's an intelligent game? I enjoy this thread for two reasons. The stupidity shown by those who think they know what they're talking about, some fun in mocking there, and mainly, there are a few posters who seems to have a good background, and actually do offer good insights and information, beyond some graph they googled that apparently proves their point. As if, that is really offering -anything-, of substance...


So you're saying it's just better to sling feces?


----------



## Macfury

adagio said:


> amen


"Denidiots... blah, blah, blah... you're all gonna fry... blah, blah, blah... you will have no place at the table in Copenhagen... blah, blah, blah... let me look on the internet to find some more old charts."


----------



## chasMac

Macfury said:


> "Denidiots... blah, blah, blah... you're all gonna fry...


At least, if we fry, we're taking them with us.beejacon


----------



## CubaMark

Climate Change for Idiots | Crooks and Liars





> On September 11, 2001, our world changed forever.
> 
> And not just because of the obvious. For three days after the attack on the World Trade Center, all commercial aviation came to a standstill in the United States. For the first time since 1914, when Tony Jannus piloted a wooden, open-air Benoist XIV biplane in the first commercial passenger-carrying airline flight from St. Petersburg to Tampa, Florida, traffic in the friendly skies above the amber waves of grain came to a screeching halt. And in those three crucial days, our entire understanding of global warming underwent a fundamental transformation.





> Five thousand planes, give or take a few, are in flight over the United States at any given moment. In a single day, more than 87,000 are leaving contrails all over those friendly skies. On average, 64 million jet planes take off and land somewhere in the States, leaving behind contrails. Divide six cirrus clouds the size of Massachusetts into 64 million contrails, and that’s a lot of clouds. All this cloud cover is bouncing the sun’s energy back into space, keeping our planet cool in what’s been called ‘global dimming,’ which should be a good thing, right?





> those deniers are completely correct about one thing - the earth has been here before. Back when the only life capable of surviving in such an atmosphere and climate was precursors of bacteria. Totally natural, ya betcha. If we're really lucky, the earth will recover on its own, just like it did the first time around... in another four billion years.
> 
> Welcome to Venus, folks...


(The excerpts above do not do justice to the full article, which you can read here, courtesy of CrooksAndLiars.com)


----------



## Macfury

So what you're saying is that all of the air flight to Copenhagen in private jets created contrails aplenty?

Edit: Never mind. I read the article. The guy should get back on his meds. Hed doesn't even manage to tie his initial premise into the article. Explains how he's going to use math or chemistry to explain what is happening, then doesn't.

Last time I read an article by "nonny mouse."


----------



## MacDoc

hardly requires comment...

snip


> Homegrown science supports Al Gore's warning at the Copenhagen climate conference this week that polar ice is melting faster than previously believed.
> Dr. David Barber, director of Winnipeg's Centre for Earth Observation Science, now predicts the Arctic could be free of summer ice and navigable within the decade, saying the ice cap is shrinking and deteriorating.
> *On an expedition in September* to check out an apparent recovery of the polar cap in the Beaufort Sea, Barber's team found instead a heavily decayed honeycomb structure of ice, weakened by years of melting and refreezing.
> ...
> While the Earth's average temperature has gone up 0.7C in the last 30 years, the Arctic has increased 2 degrees.
> 
> NASA scientists reported earlier this year that Arctic ice has thinned more than 60 centimetres in four years, while the volume of old ice has dropped 40 per cent. The smaller the mass, the faster it melts.


Something's rotten under the Arctic cap - thestar.com

Boots on the ground too....I wonder if they sighted any of the now almost extinct _escendo tepidus denier _doing measurements in the real world.


----------



## Vandave

Homegrown 'science' indeed.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

You've gotta start somewhere, VD.

Does your Mom know?


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> So you're saying it's just better to sling feces?


yes Manny. Slinging feces is always better...


----------



## KC4

Sling away Gang.....Just make sure you pick those turds up by the clean end.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> yes Manny. Slinging feces is always better...






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## SINC

*Futility of Copenhagen talks laid bare

Climategate revealed how little scientists know for sure about climate




Legend holds that King Canute, the 11th-Century Danish monarch of England, placed his throne in the surf and commanded that tides to stop.

Of course, the seas paid him no heed and Canute is said to have drowned as a result of his own arrogance.

History tells a slightly different version.

Canute's courtiers were convinced he was divine. To persuade them he had no godly powers, he placed his throne on the shore and sat in it commanding the tides not to come in even as the ocean rose around him. His followers had to admit his humanity -- and the sole divinity of God -- before Canute would permit himself to be rescued.

The world leaders gathered at the farcical Earth summit in Copenhagen -- ironically in Canute's home of Denmark -- are behaving like the legendary Canute rather than the historical one: They have commanded the planet's temperature not to rise by more than two degrees Celsius.

Even as their draft climate treaty was watered down again on Saturday from its already tattered and diluted earlier versions, the clause insisting that the Earth's average temperature be held to no more than a 2 C rise was kept in.

As if it were possible for humans to accurately predict and control worldwide temperatures. What nonsense.

And if you think the leaders don't mean exactly two degrees or aren't serious about their pledge, consider that a huge disagreement erupted on the conference floor on Thursday when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said he was confident the world could meet his target of a two-degree cap on warming.

This was considered a diplomatic faux pas of the highest order.

Some island nations and developing countries had been demanding a heat rise of just 1.5 degrees. For the secretary-general to use the twodegree target in his speech was taken as a sign he was siding with the rich nations, who have been pushing the higher cap.

As if there were some mechanism, no matter how costly or intricate, by which to regulate climate and temperature with enough precision that leaders can rationally decide whether it is better to hold at a two degree rise or dig down deeper and try for 1.5.

Even if you believe in the increasingly unlikely theory that manmade carbon emissions are dangerously changing our climate and driving up global temperatures, it is absurd to think humans are capable of jiggering with those temperatures to within tenths of a degree of warming.
It's not as if there is an giant thermostat in the sky.

Click to expand...

*


> Yet there are all these leaders and diplomats and experts arguing, Canute-like, over what the acceptable temperature should be a century from now, as though they could decree it and it would be so.
> 
> One of the many, many interesting insights Climategate has given the world is just how embryonic the study of climate remains.
> 
> Last month, of course, thousands of computer files and e-mails between many of the world's leading climate researchers were leaked from the Climate Research Unit in Britain. They talk about playing tricks with temperature records to hide the fact that the world's temperature has not been rising as fast as predicted, if at all.
> 
> There are comments about making computer graphs show a sharp, unusual rise in temperature over the last 50 years that admit, "We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"
> 
> An exchange between two American scientists -- Tom Wrigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and Kevin Trenberth of NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System project -- reveals the two of them wondering about the cause of "the lack of warming at the moment."
> 
> Then Trenberth admits to Wrigley that in their computer models of future climate, there are unable to get the "energy balance" right.
> 
> The whole idea behind manmade global warming is that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are trapping more of the sun's energy near the Earth and letting less of it bounce back into space. This "imbalance" is causing the planet to warm.
> 
> But Trenberth admits just a few months ago, "We are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going."
> 
> The scientists the United Nations most relies on to tell it how dire climate change is now and will be in the future cannot accurately measure how much energy is coming in from the sun. Even more so, they are unable to tell how much is going back out.
> 
> *If the UN's finest scientists cannot calculate how much solar radiation is being trapped by greenhouse gases, who can they say with confidence that the globe is warming thanks to manmade emissions? The short answer is, they cannot.*
> 
> Therefore, they also cannot tell what adjustments to make to emissions to keep temperatures from rising more than two degrees or 1.5 degrees or a million degrees.
> 
> In addition to revealing the duplicity of some UN climate scientists, Climategate has revealed how little scientists know for sure on climate.
> 
> This, in turn, lays bare the futility of the Copenhagen talks.


Futility of Copenhagen talks laid bare


----------



## Macfury

SINC: The ninnies mouthing off at Copenhagen remind me of stories of the U.S. state legislature that wanted to round of Pi to three, so that it would make calculations easier.


----------



## MacDoc

and the heat goes on.....not good news this



> *Climate Projections Underestimate CO2 Impact*
> Released: 12/7/2009 1:50:12 PM
> 
> 
> *The climate may be 30–50 percent more sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long term than previously thought, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience yesterday.
> *
> Projections over the next hundreds of years of climate conditions, including global temperatures, may need to be adjusted to reflect this higher sensitivity.
> 
> “Climate change is affecting water supplies for cities and farms; leading to more severe droughts, hurricanes, and floods; contributing to more intense forest fires; and putting coastal communities at risk,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is on his way to the global climate change conference convening this week in Copenhagen. “This study and the ongoing work of our USGS scientists will help us continue to build more precise long-term projections and to prepare for the impacts of climate change on our world.”
> 
> A team of scientists, led by the University of Bristol and including the U.S. Geological Survey, studied global temperatures 3.3 to 3 million years ago, finding that the averages were significantly higher than expected from the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the time.
> 
> These underestimates occurred because the long-term sensitivity of the Earth system was not accurately taken into account. In these earlier periods, Earth had more time to adjust to some of the slower impacts of climate change. For example, as the climate warms and ice sheets melt, Earth will absorb more sunlight and continue to warm in the future since less ice is present to reflect the sun.
> 
> The U.S. Geological Survey provided the reconstruction of environmental conditions during this timeframe, known as the mid-Pliocene warm period. These data allowed the authors to test the Earth system’s sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
> 
> “Earth is a dynamic system and climate models need to incorporate its multiple feedbacks as well as changes on both fast and long timescales,” said Dr. Dan Lunt, who is with the University of Bristol and was the lead author of this article. “This comprehensive outlook allows us to see how sensitive the climate really is to atmospheric carbon dioxide, resulting in more accurate long-term projections.”
> 
> “This research also emphasizes the importance of examining the past and acquiring real data to understand Earth’s climate system,” said USGS scientist Harry Dowsett. “Our research on the mid-Pliocene is the most comprehensive global reconstruction for any warm period, and scientists did so by examining fossils to determine sea surface and deepwater ocean temperatures, vegetation, sea ice extent, and other environmental characteristics during that timeframe.”
> 
> *Global average temperatures during the mid-Pliocene were about 3°C (5.5°F) greater than today and within the range projected for the 21st century by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. *Therefore it may be one of the closest analogs in helping to understand Earth’s current and future conditions.


USGS Release: Climate Projections Underestimate CO2 Impact (12/7/2009 1:50:12 PM)

but do keep this up.....it's a most appropo approach for the denier crowd


----------



## eMacMan

Yep that really explains the failed hockey stick, the inability of the alarmists models to match the past, the failure to predict the current cooling trend. Explains the need of the alarmists to manipulate and destroy data to produce the results they want.

Even explains why those burning oil fields in Iraq and the eruption of Mt Penetubo back in 1991 did not have any effect on atmospheric CO2 measurements.

Give it up already! The entire reason alarmists continue to flog the GW cause is to promote Cap and trade. Cap and Trade is a very, very, very bad idea that will punish those that can least afford it while bulging the vaults of the uber wealthy. If you like Al Gore and Goldman Sachs that much just send them every thing you got and leave the rest of us out of that deadly loop.


'nough said! Time to put on a couple of more layers and shovel more snow.


----------



## Macfury

Revealed! The source of MacDoc's copious outdated charts and statistics:


----------



## FeXL

And a thousand years ago Vikings were farming Greenland.

Funny, that...


----------



## MacDoc

Yep - ever heard of NAO 
Natural mechanism for medieval warming discovered - environment - 02 April 2009 - New Scientist

It's NOT however a global driver and the MWP was NOT outside the Holocene norms of +/- 1-1.5 C.











and we're heading towards +2-+7 C - ranges not seen since the Pliocene



> *Abstract*
> 
> 
> Future warming projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has the potential to affect every person on Earth. Extreme weather events, rising sea level, and migrating ecosystems and resources may result in socioeconomic stresses. Although we can plan and prepare for what is expected, the most dangerous aspect of our changing climate is the uncertainty in climate sensitivity. To reduce the uncertainties of climate change, paleoclimatologists are focusing on a possible yet imperfect analog to a future warmer climate. *The middle part of the Pliocene epoch, approximately 3.3–3.0 million years ago, is the most recent period in Earth's history in which global warmth reached temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century, about 2°–3°C warmer globally on average than today* [_IPCC,_ 2007]. Unlike earlier warm periods such as the Late Cretaceous (approximately 100–65 million years ago), the mid-Pliocene was similar to today in terms of the positions of the continents and oceans and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, but global warmth was distributed differently.
> 
> During the mid-Pliocene, temperatures at high northern latitudes, above 70°N, were as much as 10°–20°C higher than today, but tropical temperatures were near the same. Understanding the much warmer mid-Pliocene climate, then, has the potential to unlock the secret to climate sensitivity. The past may indeed be the key to the present.
> Published 2 December 2008.


Pliocene Role in Assessing Future Climate Impacts

But I hear the temperate feels more stable when your head remains sand encased...


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> But I hear the temperate feels more stable when your head remains sand encased...


Better'n sand pounded inside bodily orifices like some of the hypocritical cherry pickers around here.

How's that trip to Africa going, anyways?


----------



## eMacMan

Uh the middle ages warming period saw the Vikings growing crops on the shores of Greenland and at considerably warmer temps than today. The Chicken Little group discounted the Middle Age Warming as it conflicted with their tree ring data. However the tree ring data also fails to match temps from 1960 forward, meaning the Middle Age Warming once more has to be considered valid.

We get a really bad ice age, it gradually warms with variations up and down, it peaks, then sooner or later we plunge back into a really bad ice age. It's called the climate cycle. The Chicken Little Group has come up with nothing that is outside of the normal variations. 

Should we be prepared to adapt. YES!

Should we send sends tankers full of cash to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Al Gore and the rest of the pirate fleet in the hopes that the current trend will reverse itself? NO!


----------



## MacDoc

> Uh the middle ages warming period saw the Vikings growing crops on the shores of Greenland and at considerably warmer temps than today.


You are incorrect...the MWP was localized and in no way can considered "considerably warmer".
It was warmer in Europe but not outside the Holocene ranges - it was the upper edge of the Holocene optimum and we are heading for well above that....even if we stopped emissions now.

You should check facts before you make claims.


You want a comparison...try the Pliocene....12 million years ago. 

•

The rest is just political spin of no relation to the first part.
That said what to do about coping mitigating once heads get out of the denier sandbox is a very difficult question as Copenhagen showed.

Schemes like cap and trade are fraught with fraud potential as are unsupervised offsets without a world body to monitor compliance.

But you have no seat at the table if you deny the reality of the risk the world faces.
You will simply pay for it and whine without meaningful contribution.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Schemes like cap and trade are fraught with fraud potential as are unsupervised offsets without a world body to monitor compliance.


Here we go again. World government and wealth transfer, the heart of the Warmist Creed.

I know, let's get the UN to replicate the good work they've done on Oil-for-Food!!



MacDoc said:


> But you have no seat at the table if you deny the reality of the risk the world faces. You will simply pay for it and whine without meaningful contribution.


That's right FeXL, you have no seat at the table to provide meaningful contribution.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Here we go again. World government and *wealth transfer*, the heart of the Warmist Creed.


You do realize that the countries of the south have for decades been transferring (net) money NORTHWARD, right? Subsidizing the rich countries?



> The history of third world debt is the history of a massive siphoning-off by international finance of the resources of the most deprived peoples. This process is designed to perpetuate itself thanks to a diabolical mechanism whereby debt replicates itself on an ever greater scale, a cycle that can be broken only by canceling the debt. According to a new Working Paper on “Effects of debt on human rights” prepared by Mr. El Hadji Guissé for current UN Sub Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2004/27), the developing countries’ debt is partly the result of the unjust transfer to them of the debts of the colonizing States! A sum of US$ 59 billion external in public debt was imposed on the newly independent States in 1960. With the additional strain of an interest rate unilaterally set at 14 per cent, this debt increased rapidly. Before they had even had time to organize their economies and get them up and running, the new debtors were already saddled with a heavy burden of debt.


----------



## eMacMan

CubaMark said:


> You do realize that the countries of the south have for decades been transferring (net) money NORTHWARD, right? Subsidizing the rich countries?


I can assure you that the intent of Carbon Credit Trading is not to transfer money from industrialized nations to non-industrialized nations. What little money that does go to these countries will be directed to their leaders off shore accounts. Almost none will actually go to help the populace. 

But before it gets that far, the traders; Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Al Gore et al will have syphoned off almost every dime. That's how the entire scam is set-up. That's why Al Gore is such a huge promoter, and that's why the scientists are pushed into manipulating, cherry picking and destroying data. That's also why they try to do the Barf Limburger bit to anyone that points out the weaknesses in their arguments. The Barf Limburger approach is universally employed by those that know their arguments cannot withstand critical review.

When someone hollers be afraid it is a very good idea to fear whatever it is that they are promoting. In this case what they are promoting is Carbon Offset Credit trading, complete with the sort of derivative side action that caused the Oct, 2008 market crash.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> You do realize that the countries of the south have for decades been transferring (net) money NORTHWARD, right? Subsidizing the rich countries?


That's not a subsidy, that's repayment of debt. You can argue about whether the conditions of the debt and repayment are fair but this is not a subsidy. You may as well say I subsidize the grocer on the corner by buying from him.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> You do realize that the countries of the south have for decades been transferring (net) money NORTHWARD, right? Subsidizing the rich countries?


Gimme a break CM.

When you take out a loan to buy a car or a house or whatever, you are expected to repay it, just as countries who take out loans must do. Subsidy? I think not.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Here we go again. World government and wealth transfer, the heart of the Warmist Creed.
> 
> I know, let's get the UN to replicate the good work they've done on Oil-for-Food!!
> 
> 
> 
> That's right FeXL, you have no seat at the table to provide meaningful contribution.


finally, we get a picture of macfury! You on the right, er, right?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> finally, we get a picture of macfury! You on the right, er, right?


Sorry, groove, I constructed the post too well for that gag to work. Next time?


----------



## adagio

Is climate science settled? I certainly think not. We've not heard the end of Climategate. Rot never stays hidden forever. We need the truth if ever such a thing is possible. 

There is so much mankind still doesn't understand about our planet and the universe. We still don't understand all it's history so how can we predict the future? Where does the human species fit in? Why are Mars and Jupiter heating up? So many questions yet a few scientists with egos bigger than the universe claim the science is settled. BS it is. 

Who are these individuals to belittle those with an opposing view. Who started calling those who questioned their brand of science, deniers, flat earthers and any other derogatory name? I see some here use the same language and I wonder if they realize how asinine they sound. Real science never uses such terms. Sounds like a religious cult to me. 

Here are a couple of good reads.

Science and skepticism

Trouble over tree rings


----------



## CubaMark

SINC said:


> Gimme a break CM. When you take out a loan to buy a car or a house or whatever, you are expected to repay it, just as countries who take out loans must do. Subsidy? I think not.


Am I correct in assuming you did not bother to read the article linked, but simply reacted to the snippet above? Are you informed on the matters of international finance, debt-manipulation, terms of trade and the long-term effects of IMF policies on the Third World? Have you heard of the latest incarnation, "vulture funds"?

You take out a mortgage to buy a home. Shortly after receiving the loan, the financial institution drastically raises the interest rate to impossible-to-repay levels. There is no government regulation to protect you, the consumer. Additionally, the financial institution's lawyers are involved in drafting the trade laws that will affect your ability to sell the products you produce on the international market. They participate in currency speculation to drive down even further the value of the money you use to make payments. The five-year mortgage arrangement has now become a permanent drag on both your expenses and ability to earn, limiting your ability to provide education and health care for your children, who therefore are unable to succeed in life and provide you with familial support in your senior years. You go the grave with this enormous burden upon you, which is passed on to your children, and grandchildren, etc.

Find me a study that says the third world debt scenario is justified... I dare you.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Find me a study that says the third world debt scenario is justified... I dare you.


Right. So they got into a bad loan deal. This may be unfortunate, but it doesn't create the scenario you've suggested:

"The developing countries are subsidizing the developed countries." 

I would certainly say that debt cancellation/relief/restructuring, specifically by the G7 in 2000 and the G8 in 2005 amounted to a subsidy to the developing nations.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Right. So they got into a bad loan deal. This may be unfortunate, but it doesn't create the scenario you've suggested:
> 
> "The developing countries are subsidizing the developed countries."
> 
> I would certainly say that debt cancellation/relief/restructuring, specifically by the G7 in 2000 and the G8 in 2005 amounted to a subsidy to the developing nations.


When a transfer of wealth, from poor to rich, or if the poor are given money back then later the money is retrieved, it is a rip off/theft, and therefore it is not a subsidy to the rich. That's just business as usual. You should know that CM.


----------



## Macfury

All transfers of wealth are NOT subsidies. It is NOT a subsidy if I pay a neighbour back his loan with interest, no matter on which terms I entered the loan deal. It IS a subsidy if he knocks 10 per cent off my payments each month or forgives part of what I agreed to pay him.


----------



## SINC

macfury said:


> right. So they got into a bad loan deal. This may be unfortunate, but it doesn't create the scenario you've suggested:
> 
> "the developing countries are subsidizing the developed countries."


+1


----------



## gordguide

Good article in the National Post today regarding some of what has been gleaned from the leaked eMails and data, the infighting and intervention, and where we (may) stand now. Regardless of your position, it's as good a summary of the leak's implications.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


>


yep.

+1


----------



## SINC

gordguide said:


> Good article in the National Post today regarding some of what has been gleaned from the leaked eMails and data, the infighting and intervention, and where we (may) stand now. Regardless of your position, it's as good a summary of the leak's implications.


Thanks gg, that is an excellent overview and certainly supports my opinion that science has a very long way to go before it can continue behaving like "chicken little".


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> You are incorrect...*the MWP was localized* and in no way can considered "considerably warmer".


(emphasis mine)

I'd like to address this:

From the Conclusions: (PDF)



> This paper presents a survey of site-specific paleoclimatic reconstructions, then
> considers whether they indicate that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age
> were observed on broad area of the globe. *We conclude that the Medieval Warm
> Period and Little Ice Age are widespread climatic anomalies*,...


(emphasis mine)

Abstract.



> *Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.*


(emphasis mine)

Article.



> *The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a global climatic anomaly* that encompassed a few centuries on either side of AD 1000, when temperatures in many parts of the world were warmer than they are currently. The degree of warmth and associated changes in precipitation, however, varied from region to region and from time to time; and, hence, the MWP was manifest differently in different parts of the planet. In this Summary we review what occurred in China.
> 
> ...
> 
> From these several studies, it is evident that for a considerable amount of time during the Medieval Warm Period, many, if not most, parts of China exhibited warmer conditions than those of modern times.


(emphasis mine)

So, we already know Greenland & western Europe were affected. We've shown that there is correlation in both China & New Zealand. That pretty much covers north, south & eastern regions. I also found articles relating the MWP to climate change in Kola Peninsula (western Russia), Siberia, and the eastern seaboard of North America from Chesapeake Bay to Mexico. However, in the interest of brevity, I will stop here. If further data is required, some can be found here.




MacDoc said:


> You should check facts before you make claims.


Yes. Yes you should.


----------



## MacDoc

Well at least we get a little science here...:clap:



> _Science_ 27 *November 2009:*
> Vol. 326. no. 5957, pp. 1256 - 1260
> DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/326/5957/1260
> *Reports*
> 
> * Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly*
> 
> * Michael E. Mann,1,* Zhihua Zhang,1 Scott Rutherford,2 Raymond S. Bradley,3 Malcolm K. Hughes,4 Drew Shindell,5 Caspar Ammann,6 Greg Faluvegi,5 Fenbiao Ni4 *
> Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. *The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation*.


http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...ly&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

all events have underlying causes....it's not some random occurrence as some seem to think.

None of the ranges go outside the Holocene optimum and none come even close to where we are heading in all too short a period

You might as well deny evolution as to deny the role GHG play on earth and right now WE are driving the climate and some dangerous feedbacks are risks.

The North has changed and will be changed for tens of thousands of years. C02 does not go away the way methane and other short lived GHG do.

Albedo changes and the flow of current from the Pacific will speed the process.
One hopes methane stays at bay.

Your compendium seems singularly focused on a point of attempting to tie the events globally for MWP as if there is some strange force at work.
I'l do some more reading but last I recall China did indeed have a warm period, but at a different time than Europe.

This hilights those time shifted anomalies



> Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, 85721 Tucson, AZ(2) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, University of Colorado, 80309 Boulder, CO, USA(3) NOAA/ERL/CDC, 325 Broadway, 80303 Boulder, CO, USA*Received: *22 September 1993 *Revised: *9 December 1993
> Abstract It has frequently been suggested that the period encompassing the ninth to the fourteenth centuries A.D. experienced a climate warmer than that prevailing around the turn of the twentieth century. This epoch has become known as the_Medieval Warm Period_, since it coincides with the Middle Ages in Europe. In this review a number of lines of evidence are considered, (including climatesensitive tree rings, documentary sources, and montane glaciers) in order to evaluate whether it is reasonable to conclude that climate in medieval times was, indeed, warmer than the climate of more recent times. Our review indicates that for some areas of the globe (for example, Scandinavia, China, the Sierra Nevada in California, the Canadian Rockies and Tasmania), temperatures, particularly in summer, appear to have been higher during some parts of this period than those that were to prevail until the most recent decades of the twentieth century. These warmer regional episodes were not strongly synchronous. Evidence from other regions (for example, the Southeast United States, southern Europe along the Mediterranean, and parts of South America) indicates that the climate during that time was little different to that of later times, or that warming, if it occurred, was recorded at a later time than has been assumed. *Taken together, the available evidence does not support a global Medieval Warm Period,* although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.The available data exhibit significant decadal to century scale variability throughout the last millennium. A comparison of 30-year averages for various climate indices places recent decades in a longer term perspective.


SpringerLink - Journal Article

and another view



> *How the Rate of Volcanism Initiated the Medieval Warm Period and Controlled Its Periods of Drought*
> 
> *WARD, Peter L.*, Teton Tectonics, PO Box 4875, Jackson, WY 83001-4875, [email protected]n 1991, 17 Megatons of SO2 erupted by Pinatubo was oxidized to form a 99% pure sulfuric acid/water aerosol layer in the lower stratosphere. This aerosol reflected and absorbed energy from the sun, cooling the earth 0.4oC for three years. During the Medieval Warm Period, most large volcanic eruptions are contemporaneous with short-term decreases in Northern Hemisphere temperature determined using high-resolution proxy data (Mann and Jones, 2003).
> *When such large eruptions occur more frequently than every few years, however, the oxidizing capacity of the atmosphere is exceeded, greenhouse gases accumulate, and the earth warms. *Periods of high rates of volcanism can be measured by sulfate deposits in layers of ice in Greenland. Some 1529 ice layers examined in the GISP2 drill hole cover the past 3500 years with the average layer representing 2.26 years. Only 27% of these ice layers contained “volcanic” sulfate and there were only 3 instances where more than 6 contiguous layers contained “volcanic” sulfate: 179-140 BC (16 layers), the onset of the Roman Climate Optimum, 818-840 AD (11 layers), the onset of the Medieval Warm Period, and 1929-1984 AD (34 layers), the onset of the modern warming period caused by anthropogenic SO2. The greatest concentration of contiguous layers with evidence of volcanism since 110 ka is 22-7 ka, the period of most rapid warming following the Last Glacial Maximum.
> *When no large volcanic eruptions occur for decades, greenhouse gases are oxidized, cooling the atmosphere* and causing drought. For example, the tree-ring reconstructed Palmer Drought Severity Index for part of Colorado (40N, 110W) (Cook and Krusic, 2004) during the Medieval Warm Period is positive when contemporaneous with volcanic eruptions in the GISP2 core and negative with lack of eruptions. The longest periods of continuous drought with no volcanism are from 941-959, 1028-1053, 1124-1148, and 1150-1164 AD.


How the Rate of Volcanism Initiated the Medieval Warm Period and Controlled Its Periods of Drought

Indicating vulcanism as the driver at the time .....both positive and negative drivers as outlined.
Now can you point to those large outbreaks of volcanism currently?? and if GHG accumulated then and created a somewhat warmer atmosphere....what possible basis can you claim the mechanism is not active currently from our human engendered increase....280 ppm to 380 ppm. The physics don't change whatever wishful thinking might be invoked.

It changes nothing about the current drivers other than bringing concern that a warm cyclical on top of a upward GHG driven trend spells bad news for many oceanic ecosystems particularly corals.
1998 was plain evidence of that.
It only takes one such excursion to kill a reef 10,000 years old.
More frequent excursions, both in SST and in hydrological shifts can be devastating in short periods....just ask the mid west governors about 100 year floods.....or England recently.

But it is refreshing to have some science.


----------



## Macfury

Nice to bring in the God of Gas, the discredited Michael Mann.

But MacDoc, you're bringing up the straw man of vulcanism, not FeXL.


----------



## MacDoc

pardon me but your undies are showing....



> Tired of alarmist global warming propaganda? Learn what science _really_ has to say about the issue. Purchase your copies of our documentaries today.


CO2 Science

and of course those fonts of scientific credibility Willie Soon ([email protected]) and Sallie - science for sale - Baliunas -pardon my laughter...

You still have to trawl the denier sites no matter how cleverly masked....

You have ONE credible paper..that in no way supports the "significantly higher than today" nonsense and of course New Zealand is in the heart of the ENSO cyclicals and the paper itself in the abstract hardly supports your premise.



> The occurrence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the Southern Hemisphere is uncertain because of the paucity of well-dated, high-resolution paleo-temperature records covering the past 1,000 years. We describe a new tree-ring reconstruction of Austral summer temperatures from the South Island of New Zealand, covering the past 1,100 years. This record is the longest yet produced for New Zealand and shows clear evidence for persistent above-average temperatures within the interval commonly assigned to the MWP.* Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space*. Regardless, the New Zealand temperature reconstruction supports the global occurrence of the MWP.


What does this tell you from the one paper with some credibility

* Comparisons with selected temperature proxies from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres confirm that the MWP was highly variable in time and space*

No magic bunnies blowing hot and cold - ocean cyclicals and some vulcanism and nothing untoward in the way of warming within the Holocene.

The Anthropocene tho !!!!??....now and coming

It makes dismal reading



> *2000–2009, THE WARMEST DECADE *
> Geneva, 8 December 2009 (WMO) – The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850, according to data sources compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 (January–October) is currently estimated at 0.44°C ± 0.11°C (0.79°F ± 0.20°F) above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.2°F. The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year. The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989). More complete data for the remainder of the year 2009 will be analysed at the beginning of 2010 to update the current assessment.


continues
<global climate statement 2009>

but do keep denying the physics - the contortions are becoming amusing.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Well at least we get a little science here...:clap:


Gee, thanks. Coming from you, I don't consider it a compliment...

I'm sorry, but any research with Mann's name on it is immediately suspect. Period.

Did Mann give the numbers for the Holocene? If so, see above and below.

Nobody, least of all the backstabbing complicit liars at CRU, knows where we're headed as far as future temps are concerned. 

And, as far as recent temps are concerned, if your assumptions have anything to do with Mann's hockey stick data then it is as suspect as the backstabbing, complicit (you get my drift...).

My "compendium" had one purpose and one purpose only: To illustrate that many world class scientists disagree with your unsupported blanket statement that "MWP was localized".

I may be convinced that vulcanism had a small part to play in all scenarios, current & MWP, but short term only. I don't believe we've had an extended period of vulcanism in the last thousand years.

If you really are interested in reading about other theories, you may want to view a series of 6 video clips starting here.

You may also consider the connection between solar radiation & global temperatures. The attached jpg indicates a correlation between surface temp & an increase in solar radiation, at least until about 2000. While I can't vouch for the hockey stick, there appears to be a connection.

Interestingly, data from 3 recent volcanoes is on the graph. They do have effect, but only for what I would call short term.

Article.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> pardon me but your undies are showing....


How's that trip to Africa going again, Maccy D?


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> How's that trip to Africa going again, Maccy D?


Oh, about like this:


----------



## groovetube

I agree. The very fact that macdoc is flying to Africa? Wipes out the entire climate change theory.

Absolutely fantastic line of thinking. Why didn't I see this myself...


----------



## Macfury

SINC: I think Maccy is going to investigate a vlcano or something, so he says it doesn't count.


----------



## eMacMan

Yep and Al Gore's electrical consumption being 20 tomes the national average doesn't count either 'cause he sells himself Carbon Credits to compensate.

However to realize a goal of 50% reduction in consumption. 39 families will have to be put out on ice floes to compensate for Gore's hypocritical excesses. If that is a bit severe, 200 families will have to reduce their consumption to 40% of the national average so that AG can continue to evangelize without compromising his lifestyle. Actually the numbers are much worse than that. He has two other homes and makes extensive use of private jets and idling limos in order to convince the faithful to give up everything they have to help stuff the Gore bunkers with cash.


----------



## adagio

eMacMan said:


> Yep and Al Gore's electrical consumption being 20 tomes the national average doesn't count either 'cause he sells himself Carbon Credits to compensate.
> 
> However to realize a goal of 50% reduction in consumption. 39 families will have to be put out on ice floes to compensate for Gore's hypocritical excesses. If that is a bit severe, 200 families will have to reduce their consumption to 40% of the national average so that AG can continue to evangelize without compromising his lifestyle. Actually the numbers are much worse than that. He has two other homes and makes extensive use of private jets and idling limos in order to convince the faithful to give up everything they have to help stuff the Gore bunkers with cash.


Just like those TV evangelists, Gore has plenty of suckers lining up to fill his pockets. He's gonna save the world from burning. yup, sure he is. AGW, the new religion.


----------



## groovetube

yea correct. There certainly aren'y any interests that would makes billions and billions and billions off of the squashing of climate change theories.


----------



## Max

This thread is a true train wreck. Alas, I can't stop rubbernecking.

Groovetube: I like that last point you made. Follow the money goes both ways.


----------



## groovetube

It starts to make more sense after at least 4 or 5.

3 or 4 posters who seem to have some real insight, and know something about it, and the rest fighting the grand google fight. 'My link/graph trumps your link/graph!' 

It's never pretty.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> 3 or 4 posters who seem to have some real insight, and know something about it, and the rest fighting the grand google fight. 'My link/graph trumps your link/graph!'


If one actually understands the graphs, then that form of debate does makes the most sense. Calling it "Google fight" would only be meaningful if the proponents didn't understand their own posts.

On the other hand If you simply want to "follow the money" then the new group (Warmists) want more money than the old group (unnamed). On that basis alone, the old group is preferable.


----------



## Max

Sez you. Got any proof they want more money than the old rascals?


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Sez you. Got any proof they want more money than the old rascals?


Because their ideas to control carbon dioxide include additional taxes on fossil fuels and/or Cap and Trade, and/or carbon credits, and/or taxes on personal motorized transportation. I wouldn't mind so much if the change in rascal regime was revenue-neutral, but the rascals in waiting have expensive tastes.

A lot of the way this legislation develops reminds me of the way in which moonshiners helped to support local legislation outlawing the sale of liquor on Sunday. Why? Because it helped business. One of the groups funding the banning of CFCs was Dow Chemical, who had a slightly more expensive replacement for CFC refrigerants ready for market. 

If you see some of the players switching teams (Shell Oil) you know that they've found a way to make extra money. They won't do it if it's revenue neutral.


----------



## Max

Interesting theory but it's all supposition.

Generally speaking, no one does anything if it's merely revenue-neutral. Big corporations have long been accustomed to receiving government largesse (via the diligent, tenacious work of highly-paid lobbyists who secure tax breaks, loopholes, business incentives and the like) to keep their profit margins high. I'm assuming that's the case now and will continue... all that changes is the name of the players.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> One of the groups funding the banning of CFCs was Dow Chemical, who had a slightly more expensive replacement for CFC refrigerants ready for market.


You say that like it's a bad thing for corporations to make money by developing technologies/products/services that are better for the environment.

While I'm as dubious as the next guy about the actual mechanisms that are put in place to reduce and mitigate the emissions of our energy production, I have no problem with corporations making money from the technologies they develop. Indeed, I'm even okay with paying more for using sustainable power. I already pay more to buy recycled paper, even though it ought to be cheaper, because I recognize that the economies of scale haven't kicked in for this product yet, and that if people don't support it, said economies of scale will never kick in.

There will certainly be a short-term cost to moving away from fossil fuel-based technologies, but the long-term gain will be worth it, and it a thermodynamic necessity, so the sooner we do it the better.

Cheers


----------



## BigDL

adagio said:


> Just like those TV evangelists, Gore has plenty of suckers lining up to fill his pockets. He's gonna save the world from burning. yup, sure he is. AGW, the new religion.





BigDL said:


> <WARNING the following is a satirical look at the Right Science and the Gospel Truth Religion denying anthropogenic global climate change and not everyone shares this sense of humour>


You gotta love the faith based system that BIG OIl/KING COAL companies have sold to willing followers. They will extract carbon from the ground, then inject carbon into the ground, carbon neutral, revenue neutral, on effects no problems for the environment.

The little guy will not have to pay, the rich will not be enriched by the process. 

Never mind if they left it in the ground it would not change the environment guaranteed, but alas the spread sheet would have no activity. Not good for the fatcats.

The Denier Religion is as always based on the Right Science/Gospel Truth, not real science, throw in a You Betcha and a . Now it's all real true can't be denied. Say No More Say No More. Please.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing for corporations to make money by developing technologies/products/services that are better for the environment.


Only Dow supported the CFC initiative because it was ready to market the replacement. Whatever happened to the environment was a a side-effect of the marketing decision. I use it only as an example to demonstrate that following the money can be a torturous path at times, just as the unlikely support for the Sunday Liquor Laws came from suppliers of illegal liquor.

Why are insurance companies supporting Obama's health care reform canard? Because the current bill will force all Americans to buy private health insurance whether they want to or not, or they will face fine or imprisonment. Merry Christmas, Americans!



max said:


> Generally speaking, no one does anything if it's merely revenue-neutral. Big corporations have long been accustomed to receiving government largesse (via the diligent, tenacious work of highly-paid lobbyists who secure tax breaks, loopholes, business incentives and the like) to keep their profit margins high. I'm assuming that's the case now and will continue... all that changes is the name of the players.


Agreed. But now they want much, much more money, and control over all endeavours, enterprises and equipment using fossil fuels. Bigger slices off a huge pie.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Only Dow supported the CFC initiative because it was ready to market the replacement. Whatever happened to the environment was a a side-effect of the marketing decision.


I agree, it's not that Dow was concerned about the environment, but, like any amoral, profit-driven entity, it did what the market allowed it to to maximize it's revenues and profit. The "side-effect" benefit to the environment may not be the reason Dow brought non-CFC refrigerants to market, but it is the point I'm trying to make.

Trying to force corporations behave ethically or in environmentally sustainable ways is a fools errand; they're too powerful and wealthy to be controlled by legislation. But they're also trivially easy to predict and manipulate: they'll do whatever is most profitable for them. So all we need to do is make "green" (low emission, low pollution, low consumption, renewable, etc.) technologies more profitable.

While I don't think "cap and trade" or "carbon markets" are necessarily the best solutions to this problem, they are approaches worth considering, and are at least looking at the problem in a sensible way. I'd love to see something better suggested, and I have no illusion that whatever system is eventually implemented won't be abused or will work ideally, but I do think we need to do something.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I agree, it's not that Dow was concerned about the environment, but, like any amoral, profit-driven entity, it did what the market allowed it to to maximize it's revenues and profit. The "side-effect" benefit to the environment may not be the reason Dow brought non-CFC refrigerants to market, but it is the point I'm trying to make.
> 
> Trying to force corporations behave ethically or in environmentally sustainable ways is a fools errand; they're too powerful and wealthy to be controlled by legislation. But they're also trivially easy to predict and manipulate: they'll do whatever is most profitable for them. So all we need to do is make "green" (low emission, low pollution, low consumption, renewable, etc.) technologies more profitable.
> 
> While I don't think "cap and trade" or "carbon markets" are necessarily the best solutions to this problem, they are approaches worth considering, and are at least looking at the problem in a sensible way. I'd love to see something better suggested, and I have no illusion that whatever system is eventually implemented won't be abused or will work ideally, but I do think we need to do something.


Bryanc this is blasphemy. Corporations only doing things that make money?

crazy talk. It's far better to polarize the issue and google graphs and be 'smart'. Then go around in circles. How many pages is this thread?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Trying to force corporations behave ethically or in environmentally sustainable ways is a fools errand; they're too powerful and wealthy to be controlled by legislation. But they're also trivially easy to predict and manipulate: they'll do whatever is most profitable for them. So all we need to do is make "green" (low emission, low pollution, low consumption, renewable, etc.) technologies more profitable.


It's not that it's a fool's errand, but the result is often a more expensive way of approaching various problems. Sulphur dioxide was licked through legislation forcing companies to install expensive scrubbers. The one company that made SO2 scrubbers supported that legislation and did a bang-up business, although the same result could have been achieved by having companies tackle the problem in a way that made the most economic sense for them.

So if I agreed that CO2 was a big problem, I would let each company decide how to reduce its own output, rather than impose an explicit structure on them. I much prefer consumers to make these choices because it requires no laws or acceptance of belief. 

I buy free-run eggs because the thought of mistreated chickens is offensive to me. If all products had a CO2 label on them, those who believed warmist theory could choose to buy those products that produced less, and would result in an overall lowering of CO2 output. Some companies would offer two grades of products, but may switch to carbon-neutral only when it made the most sense to do so. I suspect that eventually there would be little difference in price between carbon-neutral products and the rest of them.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Bryanc this is blasphemy. Corporations only doing things that make money?
> 
> crazy talk. It's far better to polarize the issue and google graphs and be 'smart'. Then go around in circles. How many pages is this thread?


bryanc and I are in agreement here.


----------



## gordguide

" ... None of the ranges go outside the Holocene optimum and none come even close to where we are heading in all too short a period. ..."

"Where we are heading" is what the whole shebang is all about. IF some people have it wrong, we're not going anywhere we haven't been already, at some point in the (relatively) recent past.

To agree that "none come close" you must also agree it's a foregone conclusion that CRU are correct (and they may well be, even if for the wrong reasons ... the odds by just guessing is 50-50) but why suppress research that doesn't agree?

Good scientists embrace contrary data; it is valuable to refine your hypothesis, not something to be swept under the rug as if it didn't exist at all. That's the work of politics and faith, which demands "belief", science demands proof.

I am struck by how you never hear it phrased as "the Theory of Global Warming"; "theory" in science means something different than it's use in the popular vernacular. In science it means it's stood up to repeatable test; i.e. it's proven itself to be robust and withstands challenges.

Sometimes, eventually a new challenge is successful at disproving a Scientific Theory, and we move on. We're not even at a good theory yet and yet Global Warming is presented as fact. I find that problematic.

It's also not particularly helpful to have fallout from Copenhagen rearing such ugly spectacles like the premier of Ontario sniping at the premier of Alberta. Eastern Canada imports 3x as much oil every day than the oil sands produce. Alberta's oil travels by pipeline, Ontario's oil arrives via tanker ship from Venezuela burning bunker fuel that releases 1800x more pollutants per liter than diesel. Pierre Trudeau killed the Alberta-Ontario pipeline 30 years ago.

That's the emissions equivalent of a line of big rigs 40 km long and two lanes wide, two car lengths separating each tractor-trailer, at the Canadian fleet average of 2 miles per liter, for every liter of bunker fuel burned getting oil to Ontario refineries. We've signed an agreement with the US and created law that will reduce that to 300x, but not before 2016, nearly a decade away.

That's classic political grandstanding, not problem solving. Pollution reduction and CO2 reduction are not mutually exclusive goals; yet pollution seems to be yesterday's crisis; CO2 is the big deal now.

Polish up your halo, place it over your head, and point fingers. Everybody's doing it. Don't worry if you're late to the game; there's 40 km of bandwagons to jump on.


----------



## MannyP Design

Lovely graph of deniers vs. scientific community: Climate Change Deniers vs The Consensus | Information Is Beautiful


----------



## gordguide

The "concensus" who agreed with Chapter 9 of the IPCC report (the only chapter that dealt with modern global warming and presents IPCC's conclusions on the future; the previous 8 are historical) consist of 55 scientists who reviewed the chapter and 53 non-scientists ... IPCC staffers ... who wrote it. Four of those 55 scientists commented favourably on the entire chapter, and three on portions of the chapter. That's 53 IPCC staffers, all non-scientists, and 7 scientists; 60 people in all; there's the "concensus".

Read more here: Numbers Racket; Lawrence Solomon 7November09


----------



## SINC

gordguide said:


> The "concensus" who agreed with Chapter 9 of the IPCC report (the only chapter that dealt with modern global warming and presents IPCC's conclusions on the future; the previous 8 are historical) consist of 55 scientists who reviewed the chapter and 53 non-scientists ... IPCC staffers ... who wrote it. Four of those 55 scientists commented favourably on the entire chapter, and three on portions of the chapter. That's 53 IPCC staffers, all non-scientists, and 7 scientists; 60 people in all; there's the "concensus".


Which is yet one more reason I don't believe a word the IPCC has to say.


----------



## groovetube

so only 7 scientists, and a bunch of apparently dummies who wrote everything, (since the scientists apparently didn't write -anything-), are the only ones to support man made climate change.

Journalism at it's finest. And a bunch of lemmings who actually believe this pap fed to them.

It just gets better doesn't it? En garde google soldiers! En garde!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Journalism at it's finest. And a bunch of lemmings who actually believe this pap fed to them.
> 
> It just gets better doesn't it? En garde google soldiers! En garde!


And I guess you believe that pap about lemmings. 

Lemmings Suicide Myth › In Depth (ABC Science)


----------



## Macfury

SINC: He will just have to Google it!


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> so only 7 scientists, and a bunch of apparently dummies who wrote everything, (since the scientists apparently didn't write -anything-), are the only ones to support man made climate change.
> 
> Journalism at it's finest. And a bunch of lemmings who actually believe this pap fed to them.
> 
> It just gets better doesn't it? En garde google soldiers! En garde!


:clap::clap:
Metaphors are lost on some people, forget about irony and satire. What was the name the eagle on the Muppets, oh yeah Sam


----------



## eMacMan

So on the one hand we have the Chicken Little group who because of rising CO2 levels predicted a very mild winter and an early return of El Nino.

OTH are the Sunspotters who pointed out the extended sunspot minimum, predicted a harsher than normal winter and a late return of El Nino.

What we have seen are record breaking cold snaps, The Chunnel shutdown by a severe cold snap, and delegates in Copenhagen retreating to the warmth of their heated limos and private jets. 

What's predicted for the future may be more important. The Chicken Little crowd expects their shattered hockey stick to magically reassemble itself and 2010-2012 to be hotter than ever. The Spotters expect a delayed and weaker sunspot maximum peaking roughly 2014 but should be somewhat cooler than the previous max which was around 2000. 

Seems to me that the weather will tell us whether or not the hockey stick crowd has got it right.


----------



## BigDL

The weather today is the atmospheric condition at a specific geographical location, at a given time, not the past, not the future, just the present. If your fortunate you can use your hockey stick today. For tomorrow the weather will surely change. I suspect, where I live, we shall have a wintery climate, that is, until roughly the third week of March. Something may spring up at that time.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> The weather today is the atmospheric condition at a specific geographical location, at a given time, not the past, not the future, just the present.


No, it is the specific condition in the past and in the future as well the present. And the accumulation of "weather" creates climate, as eMacMan says.


----------



## eMacMan

The Chicken Little Crowd are referring to the weather. They confidently predicted a very mild winter based on CO2 emissions and their shattered hockey stick. They got it wrong. 

The Sunspot Crowd predicted a fairly severe winter based on continuing abnormally low sunspot activity and so far they have been bang on.

If you want to talk about climate you can't ignore inconvenient mini ice ages or Medieval Warming Periods. You can't talk about melting polar ice caps as being a first and ignore previous openings of the NW passage. And you cannot go around cherry picking only the data that somewhat supports your hypothesis and then alter that data when your hypothesis fails.


----------



## CubaMark

Nothing like kickin' 'em when they're down...


----------



## MannyP Design

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian


----------



## MacDoc

on the other hand



> *China threatens polluters with a twist of the money tap*
> 
> by Glenn Dyer
> China’s State Council (its cabinet) has carried through with a warning made in late August to start cutting over-capacity in several industries that either pollute or have surplus capacity.
> It will do this by executive decision and by turning off the financing tap.





> y HOWARD W. FRENCH Published: November 17, 2007
> The government suspended bank loans to 12 polluting companies as part of its new ''green-credit policy,'' the newspaper China Youth Daily reported. The report did not name the companies but said they included a brewery and a power company. ''The purpose of this move is to force enterprises to pay the price for environmental violations,'' the newspaper quoted an Environmental Protection Administration official as saying.


Benefits of a command economy.



> * Associated Press * *Tags : * *Posted: Thursday , Nov 22, 2007 at 0000 hrs * * BEIJING, November 21: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China will bar companies that violate pollution rules from raising money through the stock market, a state newspaper said on Wednesday, in a new effort to end widespread defiance of environmental standards.
> The government has been stepping up environmental enforcement following three decades of rapid growth that have left China’s air and water badly polluted. It said in July it would create a blacklist of polluting companies that would be denied bank loans.
> “Enterprises found guilty of environmental violations or failing to meet pollutant discharge requirements will not be allowed to list their shares,” said Zhou Shengxian, Minister of the State Environmental Protection Agency, quoted by the China Daily.
> The ruling Communist Party has declared environmental protection a priority, spurred in part by pollution incidents in rivers and lakes that disrupted water supplies to millions of people.


now about those tar sands...


----------



## MazterCBlazter

U.S. To Capture Cow Farts To Save The Planet


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room | Mark Lynas | Environment | The Guardian


I'm  I comprehend China is a Totalitarian Capitalist state but are you saying they're warmests backing the world governing conspiracy or like all hard working deniests trying to screw everybody to earn maximum return on investment?


----------



## Macfury

China will kick our asses while we play games with harmless CO2. The cuts and regs to which MacDoc refers are for real pollutants, not carbon dioxide.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> I'm  I comprehend China is a Totalitarian Capitalist state but are you saying they're warmests backing the world governing conspiracy or like all hard working deniests trying to screw everybody to earn maximum return on investment?


Sorry I confused you so much. I guess saying nothing and simply linking an article can confuse even the most enlightened people.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> :clap::clap:
> Metaphors are lost on some people, forget about irony and satire. What was the name the eagle on the Muppets, oh yeah Sam


I think the picture of Sam, is quite, perfect. Right about now.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> Sorry I confused you so much. I guess saying nothing and simply linking an article can confuse even the most enlightened people.


Prove, most enlightened get it. Or more enlightened how's'about even enlightened. Go ahead, I dare you. Prove your point.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Prove, most enlightened get it. Or more enlightened how's'about even enlightened. Go ahead, I dare you. Prove your point.


You're doing such a bang-up job for me already. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

ah the classic well used over and over again troll response.

Everything you say, proves my point. 

You's just gots to loves forums.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> ah the classic well used over and over again troll response.
> 
> Everything you say, proves my point.
> 
> You's just gots to loves forums.


Still got nothing and using it, I see.


----------



## groovetube

no more than you Sinc, no more than you.

Except it seems, I'm well aware of it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Except it seems, I'm well aware of it.


Glad to hear you know you've got nothing.

Makes my day.


----------



## groovetube

well thank god for that.

Now go soldier on in the great google fight. There's some flanking or something to be done! Post another idiot journalism link! One full of just irrefutable facts! That's *something* right!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> well thank god for that.
> 
> Now go soldier on in the great google fight. There's some flanking or something to be done! Post another idiot journalism link! One full of just irrefutable facts! That's *something* right!


Actually, you don't understand journalism either. 

Journalists simply report what scientists tell them. And lots of that is wrong. Got it now?


----------



## groovetube

if you wink with a you betcha added, it'd make it a little more believable. But I'm sorry I ain't gonna buy that horse manure.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> if you wink with a you betcha added, it'd make it a little more believable. But I'm sorry I ain't gonna buy that horse manure.


Like I wrote, you don't understand what journalism is, do you? You might want to try reading up on it before you make statements that prove you have no clue as to what journalism is.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: There you go SINC, wasting your time providing actual information, when you could be catcalling from the sidelines.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> Actually, you don't understand journalism either.
> 
> Journalists simply report what scientists tell them. And lots of that is wrong. Got it now?


I've seen that happen so many times. I've seen the sort of shenanigans scientists pull and get away with, the attitude of superiority, entitlement, and general arrogance and holier than thou-ness. When I was a young boy I used to dream of becoming a scientist/engineer and being part of pushing the frontiers of knowledge. As a young man, after seeing first hand how they operate disgusted me enough to stop pursuing becoming a scientist and look elsewhere for a career.

There are some good people in scientific professions, too many bad eggs in positions of authority. 

We have all the technology we need and at this point in the human species development. What is more important at this point in time is better social systems, and a way to make the people better in their actions and thoughts. Knowledge in technology will increase, but the knowledge we have should be readily available to all that want to and are capable of learning it. Human species maturity and thought processes continue to fall further and further behind our technical achievements.

Only after the human race as a whole gets it's act together should scientific development and research go back to being a high priority. Unfortunately that is not the way things are done. 

Do we not have great inventions from people like Tesla that are not being used today?


----------



## groovetube

oh YES indeedy! We all know the journalists only report what the scientists tell them!

And factual information too! And we should of course believe everything mr journalist tells us!

My, how gullible, can you get.

You just can't make this stuff up!

Oh post more mr journalist links sinc.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

groovetube said:


> oh YES indeedy! We all know the journalists only report what the scientists tell them!
> 
> And factual information too! And we should of course believe everything mr journalist tells us!
> 
> My, how gullible, can you get.
> 
> You just can't make this stuff up!
> 
> Oh post more mr journalist links sinc.


Don't believe anything people tell you or what you read or see on TV etc.

Believe less than half of what you see and experience first hand.

Lies and coverups and assorted BS are all the usual human condition.
The world runs on BS and misinformation.

A locked door will keep an honest man from stealing.

Maybe some day a scientist can genetically engineer honesty and integrity into the human race as the rule rather than the exception.

Current human mindset seems to be form a genetic disposition towards being a slave.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Glad to hear you know you've got nothing.
> 
> Makes my day.


When it comes to nothing, some folks can really handle nothing.



SINC said:


> Actually, you don't understand journalism either.
> 
> Journalists simply report what scientists tell them. And lots of that is wrong. Got it now?


Journalists give scientists equal opportunity a chance to air their side. Unfortunately journalists give junk science a credibility it dosen't deserve. Then the public soon believe a controversy exists when there is really not even a debate going on. Faux News without Rupert Murdock, if you will.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Journalists give scientists equal opportunity a chance to air their side. .


Sorry, doesn't wok that way. Since when is the news an "equal opportunity" game?


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Sorry, doesn't wok that way. Since when is the news an "equal opportunity" game?


clearly you haven't read 101 ways to *wok* your dog.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> clearly you haven't read 101 ways to *wok* your dog.


Is that the new cookbook from an unnamed Asian country?


----------



## Dr.G.

Many Americans are now using solar heat to cook their 4th of July hot dogs.


----------



## Macfury

Dr. G: I'm licking my lips already! I imagine one could easily chew through the bones of a young pup withput excessive cooking!!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Dr. G: I'm licking my lips already! I imagine one could easily chew through the bones of a young pup withput excessive cooking!!


And there are Kosher franks as well. 

We have a solar dish that draws the heat from the sun and cooks hot dogs and hamburgers to a safe temperature ............. all without electricity. As well, we raise our own free-range doxies.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Journalists simply report what scientists tell them. And lots of that is wrong.


This is *so* true, but perhaps not in the way you meant. Anyone who's had the frustrating experience of trying to communicate anything remotely technical to a "science reporter" (i.e. someone who passed grade nine science, and is therefore the most scientifically literate person working for the paper), and then read the ensuing story in the paper the next day will know just how far removed what is reported is from what the scientists have said.

If you want to know anything about what scientists have learned about any given issue, you need to read the scientific literature. Even sources like "New Scientist" and "Scientific American" are often over-simplified to the point of being wrong, but they're a lot better than anything you'll read in the popular media. Secondary sources, like review articles in scholarly journals will generally have the facts right, but may still be generalizing and/or discussing only some of the data. In order to make informed criticisms of scientific research, you really have to read the primary literature, which, sadly, can be fairly opaque to people outside the field. Hence my oft-stated opinion that the opinions of people without the requisite technical expertise aren't really particularly relevant.

It's not that everyone shouldn't be entitled to have their own opinions on these important issues, it's just that, in science, not all opinions are created equal. I'll take the considered opinions of experts in the field over any number of opposing opinions from laypeople on scientific issues.

Cheers


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> snip... I'll take the considered opinions of experts in the field over any number of opposing opinions from laypeople on scientific issues.
> 
> Cheers


:clap::clap:
bingo.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I'll take the considered opinions of experts in the field over any number of opposing opinions from laypeople on scientific issues.


And _I _won't rest with simply accepting such opinions on their face value based on areas of expertise. And if I begin to suspect that such opinions are being delivered based on falsified data, cherry-picked data or personal agendas, I will be completely confident in discounting them.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> And if I begin to suspect that such opinions are being delivered based on falsified data, cherry-picked data or personal agendas, I will be completely confident in discounting them.


Careful that you don't mistake faith in what you wish to believe for reasonable skepticism. But otherwise, it seems we're in agreement.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Careful that you don't mistake faith in what you wish to believe for reasonable skepticism.



No, I believe all sorts of things I wish weren't true.


----------



## SINC

There are thousands of things uncovered by journalists each and every year. Some of them can be scientific scams. Were it not for journalists, you would be left in the dark much of the time. And who knows how much larceny by government and science would go on without scrutiny. The media does a service to the public to keep things honest.


----------



## BigDL

Grant it the media is capable of doing a lot of investigation. Sadly the media, especially local outlets, just regurgitate press releases/kits and carries the tales of the spin doctors without any critical analysis. The captains of industry like this situation just fine.


----------



## adagio

BigDL said:


> Grant it the media is capable of doing a lot of investigation. Sadly the media, especially local outlets, just regurgitate press releases/kits and carries the tales of the spin doctors without any critical analysis. *The captains of industry like this situation just fine*.


So does Al Gore


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> There are thousands of things uncovered by journalists each and every year. Some of them can be scientific scams.


Scientific scams are generally uncovered by scientists. That's part of the scientific process. Any and all significant findings are tested and re-tested by hostile, skeptical critics who want it to be wrong (and their pet theory to be right). Proving someone else's work false is the best way for a young scientist to launch their career. This tends to make for some rather socially awkward situations, but it's great for ensuring that significant falsehoods don't persist in the scientific consensus for long.

Apart from situations where findings are released to journalists before being peer-reviewed (e.g. "cold fusion") I can't think of any scientific scams that have been uncovered by journalists before the whistle was blown by skeptical scientists. There may be a few examples of this, but the converse situation, where scientists find the failings (mostly honest), or outright frauds within the community, are the vast majority.

Investigative journalism (a rare thing these days) is of enormous value in uncovering the malfeasance of the rich and powerful within our society, but it's ill-suited to rooting out the errors of science because so much esoteric knowledge is required to understand the process. Fortunately, the whole culture of science is focused on finding these sorts of errors.

Cheers


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Scientific scams are generally uncovered by scientists. That's part of the scientific process. Any and all significant findings are tested and re-tested by hostile, skeptical critics who want it to be wrong (and their pet theory to be right). Proving someone else's work false is the best way for a young scientist to launch their career. This tends to make for some rather socially awkward situations, but it's great for ensuring that significant falsehoods don't persist in the scientific consensus for long.
> 
> Apart from situations where findings are released to journalists before being peer-reviewed (e.g. "cold fusion") I can't think of any scientific scams that have been uncovered by journalists before the whistle was blown by skeptical scientists. There may be a few examples of this, but the converse situation, where scientists find the failings (mostly honest), or outright frauds within the community, are the vast majority.
> 
> Investigative journalism (a rare thing these days) is of enormous value in uncovering the malfeasance of the rich and powerful within our society, but it's ill-suited to rooting out the errors of science because so much esoteric knowledge is required to understand the process. Fortunately, the whole culture of science is focused on finding these sorts of errors.
> 
> Cheers


Yeah, right, we know.

Scientists are just soooooooooooooo much smarter than us peons. 

In my finest Doug and Bob McKenzie voice:

"Take a hike, eh!"


----------



## MazterCBlazter

bryanc said:


> Scientific scams are generally uncovered by scientists. That's part of the scientific process. Any and all significant findings are tested and re-tested by hostile, skeptical critics who want it to be wrong (and their pet theory to be right). Proving someone else's work false is the best way for a young scientist to launch their career. This tends to make for some rather socially awkward situations, but it's great for ensuring that significant falsehoods don't persist in the scientific consensus for long.
> 
> Apart from situations where findings are released to journalists before being peer-reviewed (e.g. "cold fusion") I can't think of any scientific scams that have been uncovered by journalists before the whistle was blown by skeptical scientists. There may be a few examples of this, but the converse situation, where scientists find the failings (mostly honest), or outright frauds within the community, are the vast majority.
> 
> Investigative journalism (a rare thing these days) is of enormous value in uncovering the malfeasance of the rich and powerful within our society, but it's ill-suited to rooting out the errors of science because so much esoteric knowledge is required to understand the process. Fortunately, the whole culture of science is focused on finding these sorts of errors.
> 
> Cheers














SINC said:


> Yeah, right, we know.
> 
> Scientists are just soooooooooooooo much smarter than us peons.
> 
> In my finest Doug and Bob McKenzie voice:
> 
> "Take a hike, eh!"


+1


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Yeah, right, we know.
> 
> Scientists are just soooooooooooooo much smarter than us peons.
> 
> In my finest Doug and Bob McKenzie voice:
> 
> "Take a hike, eh!"


ha ha ha.

This post made me laugh pretty good. Personally I think the "Scientists are just soooooooooooooo much smarter than us peons. " should really be said in the best sarcastic Homer Simpson voice. 

At least the thread can offer -some- entertainment. Well this 'peon', will have some more eggnog.


----------



## gordguide

SINC pretty much has it right ... there are basically two kinds of journalism, straight reporting and investigative journalism. 99% of it is straight reporting ... you tell the scribe something, he is obligated to report exactly what was said, no further work required or performed as far as ascertaining facts goes.

The general public seems to be under the impression that most journalists are (or supposed to be) investigative journalists. Those are the guys who break stories, hunt down leads, find the truth and get it out.

Newspapers and TV don't like to pay for much of that stuff, (it's very expensive, and it drives advertisers away, often enough) almost no radio news ever does, and it's generally not done much, period.

Most of the time, the "facts" as reported are just what they were told to write by the subject of an interview. That's why, as anyone who has ever been around or involved with an event that ends up on the news can tell you, they get it at least partially wrong.

They just report what they were told by whomever they talked to, and most of the time, the people they talk to have an agenda, a political position, or something to hide.

Of course, if you're a CRU Climate Scientist, you just write the news yourself, and avoid the middleman, the misunderstood journalist, entirely.


----------



## gordguide

" ... Anyone who's had the frustrating experience of trying to communicate anything remotely technical to a "science reporter" (i.e. someone who passed grade nine science, and is therefore the most scientifically literate person working for the paper ..."

The way modern journalism works, you go to Journalism School. In the old days you had to have some kind of nose for news, an instinctive ability to smell a rat, and a good education in the classics. Plus you could write.

A lot of journalists came from a field they actually worked in, quite possibly a science discipline. Most had to develop their own film, print their own news photos, which takes a bit of chemistry knowledge, and a bit of manual dexterity, etc.

In Journalism School, since there is almost no time to actually gain a basic arts & science education (you spend two years on nothing but Journalism specialties) what they do is send everyone to an abbreviated version of an education. Instead of a full Economics class you take a half-class in Economics.

Economics ... done.

Now about that Political Science ... yep, you guessed it, a half class in PoliSci.
You do have to take one full science class with a lab, but that's it. You also have to take a full class in a language other than English. You need a full class in English. You need a full class in History.

Since in a 4-year Journalism Program there is only 2 years of "normal" classes, that leaves 6 half classes, not one in the same discipline (it's discouraged), and you're done the "college education" part.

Almost the full course load that a normal college student takes is half-classes on everything they can cram into two years. It's no exaggeration to say that someone with a 3-year Arts degree they barely passed has a better college education than a Honors Grad in a 4-year Journalism Program; it's an accurate description.

That's why they have no clue about anything moderately complex, whether it's math, science, or even fiction. They took classes most colleges reserve for the ag students.

By the way, the major Journalism School in Canada is at Carleton. Outstanding reputation, that school. 

If they're kinda short, not bad looking, and have a huge head for their body, they go to TV. If they're not good looking, but have a decent voice, they go to radio. If they have some outside interest, as a result of "having a life", they might turn that into a job working for, perhaps, a motorcycle magazine. If they're adventurous, they travel and write or report at hotspots. If they have a nose for news and can take care of themselves, they go to small-town papers where they are expected to multi-task.

For the most part, city news is written by people that can't do any of the above, and are passive enough not to p*** off the advertisers.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Apart from situations where findings are released to journalists before being peer-reviewed (e.g. "cold fusion") I can't think of any scientific scams that have been uncovered by journalists before the whistle was blown by skeptical scientists. There may be a few examples of this, but the converse situation, where scientists find the failings (mostly honest), or outright frauds within the community, are the vast majority.


And then we get this:



> All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.


Read more: Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia?s climate doctor - FP Comment 
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.

Looks to me like your "trusted peers" are a bunch of slime balls who fudged the whole AGW mess they've created.

Trust a scientist?

No friggin' way, thanks anyway.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> Looks to me like your "trusted peers" are a bunch of slime balls who fudged the whole AGW mess they've created.
> 
> Trust a scientist?
> 
> No friggin' way, thanks anyway.


Businessmen, politicians, scientists are all human, and inherently dishonest.

The scientific hierarchy does more to screw up and skew data according to the highly bigoted opinion of the "old boys club" than reveal things for what they really are. 

Slime balls pretty much hits it right on the head. 

I am glad that I dropped my boyhood dream of becoming a scientist to pursue more honest endeavours.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> And then we get this:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia?s climate doctor - FP Comment
> The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
> 
> Looks to me like your "trusted peers" are a bunch of slime balls who fudged the whole AGW mess they've created.
> 
> Trust a scientist?
> 
> No friggin' way, thanks anyway.


any mention of what the articles barred were? Were they harassing articles? Were they peer reviewed? What?

Getting half the story and presenting numbers dismissively seems to be the Financial Post's best suit it appears.

Great for those googling for a headline that supports their position though...


----------



## Macfury

The weak man's position: "I don't beieve it--they must have googled it."


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The weak man's position: "I don't beieve it--they must have googled it."


are you high on xmas booze?

Tell me where I said "I don't believe it". I am in no position to pronounce the story as a fabrication, anymore than Sinc can announce it all as fact. Something that seems completely out of your reach macfury, in your desire to be right.

I merely asked for the rest of the story.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> I merely asked for the rest of the story.


Ask & ye shall receive. This about covers the last 30 years or so...

“ClimateGate: 30 years in the making”



> You have to see this to believe it. Look up close and admire the detail while you despair at how long science has been going off the rails. To better appreciate the past and what was exposed by the CRU emails, the Timeline chart consolidates and chronologically organizes the information uncovered and published about the CRU emails by many researchers along with some related contextual events. That the chart exists at all is yet another example of how skilled experts are flocking in to the skeptics’ position and dedicating hours of time pro bono because they are passionately motivated to fight against those who try to deceive us.


----------



## groovetube

ok, brilliant. ask a question, and get handed a massive pdf that covers everything but what I asked for. Or if it's in there, I have to wade through piles of information.

I realize you're truly excited by this climategate thing, but reread what I asked... k? thx. 

edit: wait. Before a flurry of pdfs and more unasked info comes flying, I can do my own digging.


----------



## adagio

groove, try to wade through that pdf. It's a real eye opener and it consolidates a great deal of info I had dug up elsewhere.

2010 could see some very interesting developments regarding so called AGW. 

BTW, William Connelly has been removed from his administrator's position at Wiki.


----------



## groovetube

2010 will be an interesting year, I am more than interested in seeing where the controversies go.

Some are convinced by mere headlines and googled links. I'm more interested in further information.


----------



## FeXL

groovetube said:


> ok, brilliant. ask a question, and get handed a massive pdf that covers everything but what I asked for. Or if it's in there, I have to wade through piles of information.
> 
> I realize you're truly excited by this climategate thing, but reread what I asked... k? thx.
> 
> edit: wait. Before a flurry of pdfs and more unasked info comes flying, I can do my own digging.


Sorry, thought that's what you were asking.

I'm not really excited about climategate. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sitting here rubbing my hands together. Frankly, if 10% of what is being bandied about is true, it's a kick to the groin of every honest, hard working scientist out there.

Again, I just want to know that whatever conclusions are formed, they were deduced by good, solid science. The foundation of AGW is starting to appear so full of holes by comparison swiss cheese looks solid...


----------



## MacDoc

Confirmation bias..my my 

Care to demonstrate who is in the process of winning the next Nobel in over turning AGW and GHG theory with an observable mechanism that also eliminates fossil C02 as the primary driver...

Hint - it won't be A Watts.


----------



## eMacMan

Actually to me the bigger issue is the Medieval Warming Period. Three hundred years well documented with conditions much warmer than even the 1998-2000 span. Pretty much world wide yet the Chicken Little Crowd seems to think it was limited to the coast of Greenland and carefully selected the only 12 trees on the planet that would support this hypothesis.

Back in the late 1800s there was much scientific debate as to why Mercuries Transits were consistently miscalculated. Scientists took more careful measurements, did less rounding, took into account the pull of more distant planets, but still Mercuries transit could not be predicted with the accuracy that the instruments of the day would allow. Fortunately the scientists of that day were more enlightened than the Chicken Little Crowd. They maintained their records and did not fudge times to make it appear that Newton's Laws were infallible. Thus when Einstein put forth his theory of relativity it was easy for scientists to confirm from historical data that the new theory did account for the discrepancies in Mercuries orbit exactly. 

That is why it is completely unacceptable to cherry pick and alter data to make it support a current theory. You never know how this could damage future research. 

When Michael Mann shattered his hockey stick, the puck did not just miss the bulls eye. It missed the rings, the target, the door, the side of the barn, and the hill behind the barn.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Confirmation bias..my my
> 
> Care to demonstrate who is in the process of winning the next Nobel in over turning AGW and GHG theory with an observable mechanism that also eliminates fossil C02 as the primary driver...


MacDoc, as if the awarding of the Nobel Prize is confirmation of scientific theory. That's got to be the most embarrassing leap of logic you've made this month. Your house of cards is falling down around your ears--and you've got a seat at the table where the biggest chunks of debris are falling. Get over it


----------



## eMacMan

Given the individuals that have won/bought the Nobel Peace Prize. I would hardly call winning the NP affirmation of sound scientific method no matter what the category. 

I think we need to remember that the Global Warming Theory is being pursued by scientists that are being paid to deliver the results Al Gore wants. The reason is obvious; AG if he succeeds in getting his carbon trading scam implemented worldwide will be richer than Bill Gates, while most of us who are unable to cough up an extra $6000++++/year/family will be starving and freezing in the dark.

Again if Al Gore really believes in the CO2 theory of warming why no changes in his personal lifestyle?


----------



## gordguide

" ... Getting half the story and presenting numbers dismissively seems to be the Financial Post's best suit it appears. ..."

The Financial Post is publishing a series of articles by Lawrence Solomon, who is an investigative journalist, prominent environmentalist, and author, not a FP/NP news bureau staffer. That's why they appear under the (prominently displayed) "Opinion" Masthead.

It's important to use the tools available to you when evaluating where a story comes from. You should try it.

The National Post/Financial Post does not make a secret of it's conservative editorial policy, just as the Globe & Mail does not make a secret of it's liberal editorial policy. However, both papers publish guest articles by non-staffers that offer views across the political spectrum.

I find the NP & FP do a somewhat better job of publishing opinion from those outside or conflicting with it's editorial policy than the Globe, and I say this as someone who does not generally agree with either ~ Post's broad political views, but none the less, articles appearing in the Opinion section of either paper are not representative of publication's philosophy.

That is a time-honoured tradition of what are considered the world's "good" newspapers, compared to those whose only value is as a source of a news wire service summary when a local bus goes off a cliff, and are a great deal of what makes any paper worth reading.

If this is news to anyone, they need to pay more attention to what they are reading.

" ...
Lawrence Solomon
Lawrence Solomon, whose column appears every Wednesday in Financial Post, is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), which popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s, became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life. An advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute divisions. He has been a columnist for The Globe and Mail, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning The Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of several books.
..."

Edit: Corrected source to Financial Post, not National Post; they are different editions by the same publisher.


----------



## SINC

gordguide said:


> It's important to use the tools available to you when evaluating where a story comes from. You should try it.


Yep, some people can't even get their own facts straight when dissing others.


----------



## Vandave

eMacMan said:


> Again if Al Gore really believes in the CO2 theory of warming why no changes in his personal lifestyle?


+1. I wonder about that as well.


----------



## groovetube

gordguide said:


> " ... Getting half the story and presenting numbers dismissively seems to be the Financial Post's best suit it appears. ..."
> 
> The Financial Post is publishing a series of articles by Lawrence Solomon, who is an investigative journalist, prominent environmentalist, and author, not a FP/NP news bureau staffer. That's why they appear under the (prominently displayed) "Opinion" Masthead.
> 
> It's important to use the tools available to you when evaluating where a story comes from. You should try it.
> 
> The National Post/Financial Post does not make a secret of it's conservative editorial policy, just as the Globe & Mail does not make a secret of it's liberal editorial policy. However, both papers publish guest articles by non-staffers that offer views across the political spectrum.
> 
> I find the NP & FP do a somewhat better job of publishing opinion from those outside or conflicting with it's editorial policy than the Globe, and I say this as someone who does not generally agree with either ~ Post's broad political views, but none the less, articles appearing in the Opinion section of either paper are not representative of publication's philosophy.
> 
> That is a time-honoured tradition of what are considered the world's "good" newspapers, compared to those whose only value is as a source of a news wire service summary when a local bus goes off a cliff, and are a great deal of what makes any paper worth reading.
> 
> If this is news to anyone, they need to pay more attention to what they are reading.
> 
> " ...
> Lawrence Solomon
> Lawrence Solomon, whose column appears every Wednesday in Financial Post, is one of Canada's leading environmentalists. His book, The Conserver Solution (Doubleday), which popularized the Conserver Society concept in the late 1970s, became the manual for those interested in incorporating environmental factors into economic life. An advisor to President Jimmy Carter's Task Force on the Global Environment (the Global 2000 Report) in the late 1970's, he has since been at the forefront of movements to reform foreign aid, stop nuclear power expansion and toll roads. Mr. Solomon is a founder and managing director of Energy Probe Research Foundation and the executive director of its Urban Renaissance Institute and Consumer Policy Institute divisions. He has been a columnist for The Globe and Mail, a contributor to the Wall Street Journal, the editor and publisher of the award-winning The Next City magazine, and the author or co-author of several books.
> ..."
> 
> Edit: Corrected source to Financial Post, not National Post; they are different editions by the same publisher.


Oh I do try it. Thanks for your suggestion, presumptuous as it was...

I was talking about Sinc, whose usual trick is to find an article or picture that presents part of the story, and on the basis of that article, declares a conclusion.

If there was merit to the opinions in the article, we wouldn't know since I think more info is needed before declaring such an opinion, which Sinc doesn't seem to find necessary. Then, lapdog macfury is usually close at hand, wagging his tail barking excitedly.

It seems a few here thought that by posting an article, a pdf, that somehow an hour later I'd shout eureka! You're absolutely right!

Just because some like pretty pictures and pap as their basis for a conclusion, doesn't mean everyone is fine with that. It'll be some time, reading and watching things as they unfold before I'd declare anything as, a hoax.


----------



## groovetube

edit:

what's the point. My link is smarter than you!!

stupidity...


----------



## MacDoc

and some go to the climate scientists.directly...and even they recognize the science is difficult to get across at times....



> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: C02 feed back versus forcing and reversible sensitivity
> Date: December 25, 2009 8:22:15 PM GMT-05:00
> To: [email protected]
> On FridayDec 25, 2009, at Dec/25/098:22 PM, Spencer Weart wrote:
> 
> Good point, it is indeed surprisingly hard for people to grasp just what is going on. I would start by making sure that they understand that the level of CO2 is crucial to setting a planet's temperature, using as examples Mars (no atmosphere, very cold) and Venus (a huge amount of CO2, surface a furnace). Then add that CO2 and temperature are a pair, each influencing the other--ocean evaporation or uptake of CO2 is indeed a good example of the several forces that work this. Then note the ice ages as an outstanding example of the feedback with temp. and CO2 rising and falling and rising and falling, pushing each other. I don't know any link that puts all this in short form; my own website is distinguished by its very lengthy discussions! But there are a few paragraphs on the essentials at
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> I hope this will help at least a little. If you do discover someplace on the Web that gives explanations of these things that are neither too short (like most) or too long (like mine), let me know. Thanks for the beautiful photo. Best wishes for the New Year!
> 
> Spencer
> 
> =======================
> Spencer Weart
> Center for History of Physics
> American Institute of Physics
> College Park, MD 20740 USA
> (301) 209-3165 FAX -0882
> See Center for History of Physics - American Institute of Physics
> ========================


in reply to this note



> MacDoc <[email protected]> 12/25/09 1:42:11 PM >>>
> 
> Dr. Weart
> I'm having a heck of time getting even some that are supportive of AGW
> to understand that there are times when C02 is feedback and can act in
> a cooling manner - not just warming - when a cooling ocean takes up
> C02 from the atmosphere for instance. That it is only now with AGHG
> and during basalt intrusion into carboniferous rocks where it becomes
> a primary positive driver.
> 
> That climate sensitivity works in both directions as noted here....and I think it's a "given" in science papers discussing sensitivity that it would work in both directions
> 
> Gavin Schmidt covers it here
> RealClimate: 650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations
> and you do as well in your C02 /GHG history but somehow it does not seem to "take" for some that it works in both directions..


Right *NOW*,,,,*fossil C02 release is the primary driver *along with land use. 
In most other cases it is a feedback that amplifies change.....in either direction.

When you find some boots on the ground scientists doing climate research who deny the reality of AGW...please be sure to let us know....


----------



## eMacMan

Mars no significant atmosphere and a lot further from the sun than Earth is much colder than earth. Venus much closer to the sun is very hot. 

Only a MacDoc could possibly try to make a connection to CO2. It's the sun, dude, pure and simple. If it was CO2, Michael Mann wouldn't have to mess around fudging data and cherry picking trees and would even be able to explain the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warming.

Something I see happening here is pretty much along the lines of: "If you are a conservative you have to oppose Health Care." In this case; "If you are an environmentalist you have to buy into the Al Gore-CO2 hypothesis." Thing is: If Al Gore and Michael Mann don't believe in it enough to change lifestyles or even to allow data stand or fall on its own merits, why should any one, environmentalist or not, allow themselves get sucked into sending Al Gore money that would be better spent heating their homes or feeding their families?


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan: Weart is a physicist who has written a book about the hisotry of reserch into global warming. He's not a climate scientist. Weart refuses to deal with the Climategate scandal on the grounds that he can't quote material that has been illegally obtained. Right...

Just MacDoc blowing off steam.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> eMacMan: Weart is a physicist who has written a book about the hisotry of reserch into global warming. He's not a climate scientist. Weart refuses to deal with the Climategate scandal on the grounds that he can't quote material that has been illegally obtained. Right...
> 
> Just MacDoc blowing off steam.


Ah but still great for a good laugh.:lmao::lmao::lmao: God my side still hurts.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

The ice on Kilimanjaro could vanish in 13 to 24 years


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


> The ice on Kilimanjaro could vanish in 13 to 24 years


As Bjorn Lomborg has stated on numerous occasions:



> Climate activists claim the receding ice is evidence of the need for developed countries to reduce carbon output. Actually, the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro have been receding since 1890, according to research by G. Kaser, et al., published in the International Journal of Climatology (2004). They note that when Ernest Hemingway published "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in 1936, the mountain had already lost more than half its surface ice area in the previous 56 years. This is more than it has lost in the 70 years since.
> 
> According to this study, and another published in Geophysical Research Letters (2006) by N.J. Kullen, et al., the reason the ice is disappearing is not warming temperatures, but a shift around 1880 toward drier climates. What we see today is a hangover from that climactic shift.


----------



## Vandave

Climatologist said:


> Then note the ice ages as an outstanding example of the feedback with temp. and CO2 rising and falling and rising and falling, pushing each other.


Where is the evidence of this?


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> Where is the evidence of this?


It appeared in the column: "Ask Dr. Weart" and so it is automatically true.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It appeared in the column: "Ask Dr. Weart" and so it is automatically true.


oh my. I couldn't have asked for a better chuckle...
now you're getting it macfury. Unfortunately for you, it works both ways. 

Remember that when prancing around sinc's post that do exactly, the same thing.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oh my. I couldn't have asked for a better chuckle...


It was the little picture of the bald guy, right?




groovetube;912519now you're getting it macfury. Unfortunately for you said:


> Was I supporting the information on one of SINC's posts based only on the source?


----------



## Vandave

Macfury said:


> It appeared in the column: "Ask Dr. Weart" and so it is automatically true.


I was hoping that MacDoc would ask the good doctor for some evidence of his claim. 

It has been well established that CO2 lags temperature increases / decreases by hundreds of years, which obviously suggests that something other than CO2 has driven our climate in the past.

It's a pretty big claim to suggest that CO2 and temperature have a positive feedback cycle with each other. What is the proof of this?


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> It's a pretty big claim to suggest that CO2 and temperature have a positive feedback cycle with each other. What is the proof of this?


I was waiting for it myself. The faith-based argument isn't cutting it with me.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It was the little picture of the bald guy, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was I supporting the information on one of SINC's posts based only on the source?


I guess you were sleep posting. But you have since the beginning of this thread. 

Unless you want to now apply your logic to Sinc's post. In which case then, sorry, I was wrong.


----------



## eMacMan

vandave said:


> i was hoping that macdoc would ask the good doctor for some evidence of his claim.
> ....
> It's a pretty big claim to suggest that co2 and temperature have a positive feedback cycle with each other. What is the proof of this?





macfury said:


> i was waiting for it myself. The faith-based argument isn't cutting it with me.


+2

EDIT: Actually that is the entire core of the argument. Have faith be very afraid, our scientists predict manmade CO2 emissions will cause the sky to fall if you don't send lots of money to Al Gore. Problem is that diverting $billion$ to AG won't change the CO2 emissions in the slightest. Also the current 6-7 year flat/cooling trend has clearly shattered the hockey stick which is at the heart of the warming hysteria.


----------



## BigDL

Riddle me this FLATearthMAN how did scientists starting in the third quarter of the last century correctly predict warming to the point of melting polar regions and significant melting of glaciers globally? 

Vast majority of the scientists in the field of climatology warned us it would happen. They got the time frame wrong I will agree. Those scientists IMO were too conservative. The melting was faster than predicted. The predictions were for 50 to 75 years into the future not the 25 to 30 years.

How do deniers deal with reality? Or do deniers just spin?


----------



## MannyP Design

Boy it must suck to have nothing better to do on the holidays than to sling insults over the internet. LOL

Anyway....

BigDL, have you not noticed that the scientists have been quoted in the news as being "baffled" over the reducing rate of melting ice the last couple of years? While the melting was considerable in 2006, it has already slowed a great deal--approx. half the rate (or more, depending on whose data you look at).

It's slightly better than that past 20 year average--that's what the scientists are telling the public for this year. No spinning required.


----------



## Macfury

MannyP: If we wait long enough, every prediction the scientists make will come true, at least briefly...


----------



## SINC

*UN spreading global warming scare*

BY A. ROBERT TIMMS, EDMONTON JOURNAL DECEMBER 27, 2009



> The science behind the theory that CO2 is driving so-called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a sham. It cannot be scientifically proven.
> 
> Let us pretend that the UN's central estimate of equilibrium "global warming" caused by CO2, allowing for all temperature feedbacks, is correct. In that case, temperature change, in Celsius degrees, is equal to 4.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.
> 
> First, check that this equation is correct by working out how much warming would occur if we doubled CO2 concentration. The warming would be 4.7 ln 2 = 3.26 Celsius degrees, exactly the central estimate given by the UN's climate panel in its 2007 assessment report.
> 
> For the past 10 years, according to the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, global atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen at just two parts per million by volume per year, reaching 388 ppmv this year.
> 
> Now, let us assume that we do nothing at all about cutting CO2 emissions for 25 years. Let us also assume that CO2 concentration continues to rise at 2 ppmv/year. Then the warming after 25 years would be 4.7 ln [(388 + 50) / 388] = 0.6 C.
> 
> Is a warming of little more than half a Celsius degree a problem? No. So, despite all the environmental groups telling us we must act at once or we are doomed, using the UN's own formula we can see that even if we wait 25 years before taking any action to cut CO2 emissions we will do the planet no harm at all.
> 
> Therefore, it is sensible to wait at least 10 years, not wasting any money on this nonsense in the meantime. Then we can see whether or not "global warming" is going to be a real problem. In the last 10 years, there was no "global warming" at all. None. Global mean surface temperature in 2009 is the same as it was in 1999.


More here.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> *UN spreading global warming scare*
> 
> BY A. ROBERT TIMMS, EDMONTON JOURNAL DECEMBER 27, 2009


No wonder "Dr. Weart" is having a tough time selling his snake oil.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> No wonder "Dr. Weart" is having a tough time selling his snake oil.


Hmmm seems to me that Snake Oil was advertising as having been "Proven efficacious in 'most every case".

What the Chicken Little Crowd are pedaling smells more like a badly maintained septic tank.

In any event questioning such scare science is crucial. Money should be spent improving our environment not just shipped off to an Al Gore trading operation.

Big example that comes to mind are fluorescent tubes. The local Wally World has roughly 5000 of these running 16+ hours a day. Forgetting the 3000+ KWH they consume each day, that is probably 2500 fluorescent tubes in the local land fill every year. Each of those tubes leeching Mercury into the surrounding soil and eventually into the ground water. That also means 100s of ballasts in that store, each containing lead and other poisons that will also wind up poisoning the local environment. Of course we could recycle these by say shipping them to China or India and poison the poorest of the poor who are employed recovering these "precious" resources. To my mind a better plan is to reduce lighting requirements, insist on efficient reflectors so that even fewer bulbs are required and to pursue research to come up with efficient lighting that does not poison the environment. In the meantime we need to come up with a safe way to recover Mercury and other poisons and it needs to be sooner rather than later. This is where money should be spent. Money should not be spent supporting Al Gore's opulent lifestyle.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

eMacMan said:


> Hmmm seems to me that Snake Oil was advertising as having been "Proven efficacious in 'most every case".
> 
> What the Chicken Little Crowd are pedaling smells more like a badly maintained septic tank.
> 
> In any event questioning such scare science is crucial. Money should be spent improving our environment not just shipped off to an Al Gore trading operation.
> 
> Big example that comes to mind are fluorescent tubes. The local Wally World has roughly 5000 of these running 16+ hours a day. Forgetting the 3000+ KWH they consume each day, that is probably 2500 fluorescent tubes in the local land fill every year. Each of those tubes leeching Mercury into the surrounding soil and eventually into the ground water. That also means 100s of ballasts in that store, each containing lead and other poisons that will also wind up poisoning the local environment. Of course we could recycle these by say shipping them to China or India and poison the poorest of the poor who are employed recovering these "precious" resources. To my mind a better plan is to reduce lighting requirements, insist on efficient reflectors so that even fewer bulbs are required and to pursue research to come up with efficient lighting that does not poison the environment. In the meantime we need to come up with a safe way to recover Mercury and other poisons and it needs to be sooner rather than later. This is where money should be spent. Money should not be spent supporting Al Gore's opulent lifestyle.


Your light bulb comments, things like reflectors make sense. The new low voltage bulbs are just too toxic. 

Another thing that regular light bulbs produce, heat. 

Hopefully the world will produce more clean energy via windfarms and solar panels. Any toxic materials in solar panels?


----------



## eMacMan

MazterCBlazter said:


> Another thing that regular light bulbs produce, heat.


Yep this may be bad in say California or Australia. In Canada it means that there is zero wasted energy when using regular old light bulbs for at least nine months of the year. The other three months have sufficient daylight to allow lights to be completely doused during this period (aka late spring and summer). Believe me a regular bulb turned off uses less energy than any CFB that is turned on.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Yep this may be bad in say California or Australia. In Canada it means that there is zero wasted energy when using regular old light bulbs for at least nine months of the year. The other three months have sufficient daylight to allow lights to be completely doused during this period (aka late spring and summer). Believe me a regular bulb turned off uses less energy than any CFB that is turned on.


 Damn I just blew over $1400 for a new stove. If I only knew a child's easy bake is soooooo much more efficient than elements in ovens. Where was Consumer's Report on the efficiency of the easy bake oven.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Damn I just blew over $1400 for a new stove. If I only knew a child's easy bake is soooooo much more efficient than elements in ovens. Where was Consumer's Report on the efficiency of the easy bake oven.


You'll have to explain that one. The light bulb releases all energy that is not expressed as light into the home as heat. Nobody compared the efficiency of a light bulb (designed primarily to produce light) to the efficiency of the elements of an electric stove (designed primarily to produce heat). What are you trying to say here>


----------



## groovetube

oh DL you dun gone and confused them. They're all looking at each other with question marks on their faces now.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> You'll have to explain that one. The light bulb releases all energy that is not expressed as light into the home as heat. Nobody compared the efficiency of a light bulb (designed primarily to produce light) to the efficiency of the elements of an electric stove (designed primarily to produce heat). What are you trying to say here>


A incandescent, CFL or Halogen lamp all produce heat with the electricity used. Seems a less efficient way to heat a home with incandescent lights or with an electric oven for that matter.

The incandescent lamp is an inefficient way to produce light and heat.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> A incandescent, CFL or Halogen lamp all produce heat with the electricity used. Seems a less efficient way to heat a home with incandescent lights or with an electric oven for that matter.
> 
> The incandescent lamp is an inefficient way to produce light and heat.



Incandescents may be an efficient way to produce light AND heat, provided you can use the heat. As eMacMan suggests, you would have to study the bigger picture of benefits and problems to see which is most suitable--and not rely on simple environmental appeal in the absence of hard numbers.

I'm always amazed that dryers spew warm air out of the house in winter and refrigerators produce heat in the summer that isn't otherwise exhausted on days requiring air conditioning. That looks like some low-hanging fruit in terms of energy capture.


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> A incandescent, CFL or Halogen lamp all produce heat with the electricity used. Seems a less efficient way to heat a home with incandescent lights or with an electric oven for that matter.
> 
> The incandescent lamp is an inefficient way to produce light and heat.


Yep 20% energy converted to light and 80% to heat, 0% waste and 0% poisons. 100% converted 100% used, only a shill for the Mercury pollution brigade could possibly call that inefficient. 

Plus of course there is a full & smooth colour spectrum with no gaps, no flickering, no 60 cycle on-off, no radio interference and no headaches. Again only a shill for the Mercury Pollution brigade would view this as inferior to a CFB. 

As I said earlier in California or Australia you can make an argument for CFBs (if you have a safe method to keep the Mercury out of the landfills). In Canada where the heat is fully utilized such arguments border on babbling as you have so cleverly illustrated.


----------



## groovetube

so in other words, I should encourage my kids to use the easy bake oven in winter, so we can use the heat. Provided, we can use the heat that is.

This might make a bit more sense with a banjo playing though.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> Yep 20% energy converted to light and 80% to heat, 0% waste and 0% poisons. 100% converted 100% used, only a shill for the Mercury pollution brigade could possibly call that inefficient.
> 
> Plus of course there is a full & smooth colour spectrum with no gaps, no flickering, no 60 cycle on-off, no radio interference and no headaches. Again only a shill for the Mercury Pollution brigade would view this as inferior to a CFB.
> 
> As I said earlier in California or Australia you can make an argument for CFBs (if you have a safe method to keep the Mercury out of the landfills). In Canada where the heat is fully utilized such arguments border on babbling as you have so cleverly illustrated.


Now let's be fair. Light and heat your house with 13 watt, heck let's go crazy and heat and illuminate with a 15 watt incandescent bulb. That should keep you comfy cozy freezing in the dark. :yikes:


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> so in other words, I should encourage my kids to use the easy bake oven in winte...


Sure, if you like to eat lots of tiny cakes.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Sure, if you like to eat lots of tiny cakes.


mind. Blown.

Some days it boggles the mind the level of sheer brain power just in this little thread.

I do like cake though.


----------



## KC4

*Instead of cakes - Let's all just eat our pets....*

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

Oh no - even a G-fish has a carbon footprint of 2 cell phones...


----------



## Vandave

I encourage everybody to read these two articles written for the National Post. 

Terence Corcoran: Climategate Part 1 - A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism - FP Comment

Terence Corcoran: Climategate Part 2 ? A 2,000-page epic of science and skepticism - Full Comment

A couple of interesting things pulled from the Climategate emails:

1. The IPCC seemed intent on hiding the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age by using cherry picked data. 

2. Climatologists did not predict, nor do they currently know why we have been cooling for the last ten years. For example one of the lead authors of the 100-year climate forecasting exercise says there’s something wrong with the models — or the data. That's exactly what I have been saying for months and months. 

Clearly if we cannot agree upon what temperatures were 500 years ago, we are unable to model the climate. 

The debate is far from settled. We have a long way to go in understanding our climate to the point that we can predict it moving forward. Further, it strikes me as wishful thinking if we believe that we can control the climate by managing just one variable (carbon) of the dozens that affect our climate.


----------



## groovetube

KC4 said:


> Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend
> 
> Oh no - even a G-fish has a carbon footprint of 2 cell phones...




just when you thought it couldn't get more ridiculous, it, does.

There's a fantastic ad campaign for the oil companies here. At this point, it wouldn't even be a spoof.


----------



## eMacMan

*BullsEye*


----------



## MazterCBlazter




----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter said:


>


Soon, the entire sign will be revealed as the water recede.


----------



## groovetube

oh relax, it's just a photo we have no idea where it's from or even really why there is a flood.

Man the blood pressure here is something!

WHAT? Global WARMING??? GAHHH!!! no!!!!

It can't be!

A pic from google.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> oh relax, it's just a photo we have no idea where it's from or even really why there is a flood.
> 
> Man the blood pressure here is something!
> 
> WHAT? Global WARMING??? GAHHH!!! no!!!!
> 
> It can't be!
> 
> A pic from google.


Exactly. Relax. Blaster and I are just joking around.


----------



## MannyP Design

Let's ring in the new year with a whole new fad.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Relax. Blaster and I are just joking around.


ah the old I know you are but what am I response.

snazzy.


----------



## MacDoc

*AGW deniers - please explain*

To those in denial regarding C02 emissions and climate change risks....

I happened to be watching PBS tonight 
- there was an ad 
- it was about algae as a biofuel
- it said it would help with the "greenhouse problem"
- the advertisement was by Exxon..

Could you explain to us how that fits into your mindset??

Why would Exxon ( of course they knew this back in 1995 ) acknowledge there is a "greenhouse problem"?? 
In public

So I did bit more looking....



> Wednesday, July 15th 2009 - 12:55 am UTC
> *Exxon-Mobil partners with biotech company to develop fuels from algae*
> 
> The world’s largest publicly traded oil company Exxon Mobil said Tuesday it will make its first major investment in greenhouse gas reducing bio-fuels in a 600 million US dollars partnership with biotech company Synthetic Genomics Inc. to develop fuels from algae. The US corporation will be joining other oil giants (Shell and BP) that have been investing in bio-fuels.
> 
> Funds will be used to identify algae strains and growth development to produce abundant fuels at low cost.
> 
> "The world faces a significant challenge to supply the energy required for economic development and improved standards of living* while managing greenhouse gas emissions and the risks of climate change," said Emil Jacobs, vice president of research and development at Exxon Mobil Research and Engineering Co.*
> "It's going to take integrated solutions and the development of all commercially viable energy sources, improved energy efficiency and* effective steps to curb emissions*. It is also going to include the development of new technology."


continues...
Exxon-Mobil partners with biotech company to develop fuels from algae — MercoPress

and Exxon is hardly alone 



> *BP and Princeton renew partnership to tackle climate problem*
> Posted Oct 16, 2008
> By Kitta MacPherson
> 
> Energy company BP has committed to a five-year renewal of a joint research partnership with Princeton University that identifies ways of *tackling the world's climate problem.* It will support Princeton to at least its current level of funding for the years 2011 to 2015.
> 
> The grant reflects the success of the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI), which has had a significant impact on the climate change debate, according to Princeton faculty and company officials. Launched in 2000, the project has produced new practical approaches to managing* the carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming.*
> 
> BP's original 10-year-commitment initially funded the program at $1.5 million a year and later increased it to more than $2 million a year. CMI is aimed at supporting fundamental scientific, technological and environmental research that would lead to safe,* effective and affordable solutions to climate change*.
> 
> 
> 
> BP and Princeton renew partnership to tackle climate problem ?*Princeton Engineering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was present when Jorma Ollila, *who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell *and Nokia, spoke to delegates attending the IPI World Congress in Helsinki in early June 2009. In this post, I present my "jots" from Orilla's prepared statement. I was struck by Ollila's unequivocal support for meaningful action at the policy level. Ollila delivered a concise statement that reduced a complicated issue down to several key points. I thought his statement worth thinking about.
> 
> I live-blogged the entire panel discussion (see here) which included a lively question and answer session. The other panelists included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara; Ali Sayigh of WREN, and moderator Curtis Brainard of Columbia University.
> 
> _ Jorma Ollila: I will address the question as to whether it is possible to decarbonize in a viable way.
> 
> I will assume technological innovations can be successful. Let's assume that is the case. I'm clearly not wanting to minimize the vast challenges that lie ahead. In fact, the more daunting challenge is to manage how we produce energy and allow a raise in living standards.
> 
> *Developed economies have used up the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2;* now developing countries are entering a phase where their need for energy is becoming intensive.
> 
> Let's acknowledge three truths:
> 
> 1. The demand for energy will continue to surge.
> 2. Energy supply will struggle to keep pace.
> * 3. There will be increasing climate stress based on the current consumption pattern*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JOT GREEN: Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila on climate change
Click to expand...

Now are you about to add Exxon to us deluded sods with crooked scientists lying about climate changes....?

Or perhaps the reality is these companies are finally acknowledging what the climate science community and their own scientists have been telling them for 15 years.

_It's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible through the emission from fossil fuels._

Now what's your problem in doing the same.
...acknowledge the reality of AGW, 
recognize the risk it presents,
realize it will be difficult situation to deal with,
start helping to deal with it...


----------



## groovetube

perhaps if more people focused on effective solutions that would address both the climate change problem, and pollution in general that the same fossil fuel use creates, there would be less need for the Gore solutions of making money and the insane backing and forthing of all these insane links and hockey sticks and pictures of polar bears and graph after graph of figure that mean very little to the average impressionable joe with a beer in his hand not to forget the hackers extracting emails so everyone can draw their own conclusions and scream to holy freaking high heaven.

Man. It's time for an evening scotch at least that doesn't cause something bad.


----------



## SINC

MacDoc said:


> Now are you about to add Exxon to us deluded sods with crooked scientists lying about climate changes....?
> 
> Or perhaps the reality is these companies are finally acknowledging what the climate science community and their own scientists have been telling them for 15 years.


Add? For what? It is painfully obvious they are there to make money. Follow the money tells the tale every time.

They can see that too many of us won't fall for carbon trading and Goring schemes, so they are trying to put a green face on a more palatable scheme. Too bad it is only in their minds.

As I posted earlier, using the IPCC's own formula, the earth will only warm 0.6 degrees in the next 25 years.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Add? For what? It is painfully obvious they are there to make money. Follow the money tells the tale every time.
> 
> They can see that too many of us won't fall for carbon trading and Goring schemes, so they are trying to put a green face on a more palatable scheme. Too bad it is only in their minds.


+ 1

Exxon would say that angels flew over their refineries if they thought it would increase the price of fuel. This has nothing to do with belief, or admissions--everything to do with marketing.

MacDoc, for a guy who has been around, you can be frightfully naïve.


----------



## SINC

I repeat:



> Let us pretend that the UN's central estimate of equilibrium "global warming" caused by CO2, allowing for all temperature feedbacks, is correct. In that case, temperature change, in Celsius degrees, is equal to 4.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration.
> 
> First, check that this equation is correct by working out how much warming would occur if we doubled CO2 concentration. The warming would be 4.7 ln 2 = 3.26 Celsius degrees, exactly the central estimate given by the UN's climate panel in its 2007 assessment report.
> 
> For the past 10 years, according to the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, global atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen at just two parts per million by volume per year, reaching 388 ppmv this year.
> 
> Now, let us assume that we do nothing at all about cutting CO2 emissions for 25 years. Let us also assume that CO2 concentration continues to rise at 2 ppmv/year. Then the warming after 25 years would be 4.7 ln [(388 + 50) / 388] = 0.6 C.
> 
> Is a warming of little more than half a Celsius degree a problem? No. So, despite all the environmental groups telling us we must act at once or we are doomed, using the UN's own formula we can see that even if we wait 25 years before taking any action to cut CO2 emissions we will do the planet no harm at all.


----------



## SINC

Here is a look at gt's contributions to the discussion in the last 20 pages. Like I posted earlier, when ya got nothin', ya stick with it. 



groovetube said:


> OH MY GOD!!!!! in November the ice growing average was higher so that means all climate change theories are wrong! (don't mind the melting caps mind you).
> 
> You betcha! as DL would say.
> 
> sorry no other way to address this true spot of intelligence.





groovetube said:


> right!
> 
> Here comes the ice age people!
> 
> macfury will say hocus pocus! Ala Kazzam!!
> 
> And it will be... so!





groovetube said:


> no, but he does have a phd in zoology and understands very well the impact of a changing climate on the oceans and the animal population.
> 
> So I might listen to an opinion or two on his part, over a pile googling loud mouths on a forum.





groovetube said:


> The ice queen.
> 
> fantastic.





groovetube said:


> balanced look G, well said.





groovetube said:


> what's the point Manny? My google link TRUMPS your google link!
> 
> Do really think that's an intelligent game? I enjoy this thread for two reasons. The stupidity shown by those who think they know what they're talking about, some fun in mocking there, and mainly, there are a few posters who seems to have a good background, and actually do offer good insights and information, beyond some graph they googled that apparently proves their point. As if, that is really offering -anything-, of substance...





groovetube said:


> yes Manny. Slinging feces is always better...





groovetube said:


> finally, we get a picture of macfury! You on the right, er, right?





groovetube said:


> I agree. The very fact that macdoc is flying to Africa? Wipes out the entire climate change theory.
> 
> Absolutely fantastic line of thinking. Why didn't I see this myself...





groovetube said:


> yea correct. There certainly aren'y any interests that would makes billions and billions and billions off of the squashing of climate change theories.





groovetube said:


> It starts to make more sense after at least 4 or 5.
> 
> 3 or 4 posters who seem to have some real insight, and know something about it, and the rest fighting the grand google fight. 'My link/graph trumps your link/graph!'
> 
> It's never pretty.





groovetube said:


> Bryanc this is blasphemy. Corporations only doing things that make money?
> 
> crazy talk. It's far better to polarize the issue and google graphs and be 'smart'. Then go around in circles. How many pages is this thread?





groovetube said:


> so only 7 scientists, and a bunch of apparently dummies who wrote everything, (since the scientists apparently didn't write -anything-), are the only ones to support man made climate change.
> 
> Journalism at it's finest. And a bunch of lemmings who actually believe this pap fed to them.
> 
> It just gets better doesn't it? En garde google soldiers! En garde!





groovetube said:


> I think the picture of Sam, is quite, perfect. Right about now.





groovetube said:


> ah the classic well used over and over again troll response.
> 
> Everything you say, proves my point.
> 
> You's just gots to loves forums.





groovetube said:


> no more than you Sinc, no more than you.
> 
> Except it seems, I'm well aware of it.





groovetube said:


> well thank god for that.
> 
> Now go soldier on in the great google fight. There's some flanking or something to be done! Post another idiot journalism link! One full of just irrefutable facts! That's *something* right!





groovetube said:


> if you wink with a you betcha added, it'd make it a little more believable. But I'm sorry I ain't gonna buy that horse manure.





groovetube said:


> oh YES indeedy! We all know the journalists only report what the scientists tell them!
> 
> And factual information too! And we should of course believe everything mr journalist tells us!
> 
> My, how gullible, can you get.
> 
> You just can't make this stuff up!
> 
> Oh post more mr journalist links sinc.





groovetube said:


> clearly you haven't read 101 ways to *wok* your dog.





groovetube said:


> :clap::clap:
> bingo.





groovetube said:


> ha ha ha.
> 
> This post made me laugh pretty good. Personally I think the "Scientists are just soooooooooooooo much smarter than us peons. " should really be said in the best sarcastic Homer Simpson voice.
> 
> At least the thread can offer -some- entertainment. Well this 'peon', will have some more eggnog.





groovetube said:


> any mention of what the articles barred were? Were they harassing articles? Were they peer reviewed? What?
> 
> Getting half the story and presenting numbers dismissively seems to be the Financial Post's best suit it appears.
> 
> Great for those googling for a headline that supports their position though...





groovetube said:


> are you high on xmas booze?
> 
> Tell me where I said "I don't believe it". I am in no position to pronounce the story as a fabrication, anymore than Sinc can announce it all as fact. Something that seems completely out of your reach macfury, in your desire to be right.
> 
> I merely asked for the rest of the story.





groovetube said:


> ok, brilliant. ask a question, and get handed a massive pdf that covers everything but what I asked for. Or if it's in there, I have to wade through piles of information.
> 
> I realize you're truly excited by this climategate thing, but reread what I asked... k? thx.
> 
> edit: wait. Before a flurry of pdfs and more unasked info comes flying, I can do my own digging.





groovetube said:


> 2010 will be an interesting year, I am more than interested in seeing where the controversies go.
> 
> Some are convinced by mere headlines and googled links. I'm more interested in further information.





groovetube said:


> Oh I do try it. Thanks for your suggestion, presumptuous as it was...
> 
> I was talking about Sinc, whose usual trick is to find an article or picture that presents part of the story, and on the basis of that article, declares a conclusion.
> 
> If there was merit to the opinions in the article, we wouldn't know since I think more info is needed before declaring such an opinion, which Sinc doesn't seem to find necessary. Then, lapdog macfury is usually close at hand, wagging his tail barking excitedly.
> 
> It seems a few here thought that by posting an article, a pdf, that somehow an hour later I'd shout eureka! You're absolutely right!
> 
> Just because some like pretty pictures and pap as their basis for a conclusion, doesn't mean everyone is fine with that. It'll be some time, reading and watching things as they unfold before I'd declare anything as, a hoax.





groovetube said:


> edit:
> 
> what's the point. My link is smarter than you!!
> 
> stupidity...





groovetube said:


> oh my. I couldn't have asked for a better chuckle...
> now you're getting it macfury. Unfortunately for you, it works both ways.
> 
> Remember that when prancing around sinc's post that do exactly, the same thing.





groovetube said:


> I guess you were sleep posting. But you have since the beginning of this thread.
> 
> Unless you want to now apply your logic to Sinc's post. In which case then, sorry, I was wrong.





groovetube said:


> oh DL you dun gone and confused them. They're all looking at each other with question marks on their faces now.





groovetube said:


> so in other words, I should encourage my kids to use the easy bake oven in winter, so we can use the heat. Provided, we can use the heat that is.
> 
> This might make a bit more sense with a banjo playing though.





groovetube said:


> mind. Blown.
> 
> Some days it boggles the mind the level of sheer brain power just in this little thread.
> 
> I do like cake though.





groovetube said:


> just when you thought it couldn't get more ridiculous, it, does.
> 
> There's a fantastic ad campaign for the oil companies here. At this point, it wouldn't even be a spoof.





groovetube said:


> oh relax, it's just a photo we have no idea where it's from or even really why there is a flood.
> 
> Man the blood pressure here is something!
> 
> WHAT? Global WARMING??? GAHHH!!! no!!!!
> 
> It can't be!
> 
> A pic from google.





groovetube said:


> ah the old I know you are but what am I response.
> 
> snazzy.





groovetube said:


> perhaps if more people focused on effective solutions that would address both the climate change problem, and pollution in general that the same fossil fuel use creates, there would be less need for the Gore solutions of making money and the insane backing and forthing of all these insane links and hockey sticks and pictures of polar bears and graph after graph of figure that mean very little to the average impressionable joe with a beer in his hand not to forget the hackers extracting emails so everyone can draw their own conclusions and scream to holy freaking high heaven.
> 
> Man. It's time for an evening scotch at least that doesn't cause something bad.


----------



## eMacMan

Actually here is the sum total of GTs contribution to this thread:


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Here is a look at gt's contributions to the discussion in the last 20 pages. Like I posted earlier, when ya got nothin', ya stick with it.


boy it really bugs you, that I simply reached the point where mocking your googled links as fact, made sense doesn't it!

Maybe now you get it? I betting not.

I guess I don't much time on my hands, but I highly doubt compiling yours (or macfurys for that matter...) collection of "OH LOOK AT WHAT I GOOGLED TODAY!!!! IT'S FACT!!!!! REALLY IT IS!!!!! is going to amount to much either. Because that's all it is. And if you actually think that contributes more, I laugh my arse off...


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Actually here is the sum total of GTs contribution to this thread:


mockery is all the googled posts as fact deserves. Sorry if that irks you.


----------



## FeXL

MacDoc said:


> Why would Exxon ( of course they knew this back in 1995 ) acknowledge there is a "greenhouse problem"??
> 
> ...
> 
> Now are you about to add Exxon to us deluded sods with crooked scientists lying about climate changes....?
> 
> Or perhaps the reality is these companies are finally acknowledging what the climate science community and their own scientists have been telling them for 15 years.


Oh, horse sh!t.

What Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell & the rest of the oil companies (most big business, for that matter) don't do for profit they do for political & appearances sake. Do you really expect them to be the only ones standing on the other side of the fence, branded a nice, comfortable, cabal of capitalist, anti-environment, denialist ogres?

The oil companies jumped ship as soon as it was politically expedient. They didn't want to be singled out as the bad guys, period.

As Macfury noted, it's how you market yourself.


----------



## BigDL

For ten hours this thread sat fallow, then an explosion of rancour. The deniergate crowd must win, have the last word, or it’s not a happy world.

I agree with gt that mocking, irony and satire are needed in this thread. 

People can puff up their chest and say I’m right, it doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t make it wrong.

If you put it out there expect someone to take their shot also.


----------



## bryanc

I totally agree with you guys that Exxon and the other BigOil companies are not developing biofules out of the goodness of their hearts, but it shows one thing very clearly.

These corporations see a shift away from fossil fuel as inevitable (only a blind fool could think otherwise, the only question has been "when" and it it appears that they're thinking "soon") and they want to be in position to capitalize on that global economic paradigm shift. Hell, if I were a shareholder I'd be suing them if they didn't. This is the obvious necessary move.

The good news is that photosynthetically derived carbon-neutral fuels are becoming available. Regardless of their motivation, these companies are doing the Right Thing(tm) and should be rewarded with profits for doing so.

Growing biofuels, if done intelligently, will be far less damaging to the environment, and will shift the carbon cycle back towards a sustainable equilibrium. The problem, of course, is that current biofuel technologies are not very efficient. Fortunately, the biochemists and other scientists working on this problem are making rapid progress.

I doubt the emergence of biofuels will be a panacea, but in conjunction with sensible reductions in consumption, adoption of other technologies, shifts towards buying locally made products, etc. it may be enough to buy us the time we need to get our population growth under control.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Regardless of their motivation, these companies are doing the Right Thing(tm) and should be rewarded with profits for doing so.


They are doing the expedient thing, which may not necessarily be the right thing, and they should be rewarded with profits only if people want to buy their algae fuel.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I agree with gt that mocking, irony and satire are needed in this thread.


Well, if it was needed, gt received it!


----------



## groovetube

the difference macfury, is I can take it. I'm laughing at it. I'm laughing, because SInc spent what was obviously a fair amount of time, to compile and analyze, to come up with the conclusion, of what I have been saying right from the beginning.

Mocking those who google headlines or select facts to backup their position, and scream to all who will listen, that IT IS FACT!

Bah ha ha ha ha. Right. 

There are a few posters here, and I mean few, who seem to know the subject well, and offer great information in their own words. A nice change from, Well Tim Ball here says yer all wrong! Or Climategate! Climategate! Climategate! Climategate! Pretty Ball!

So yea. I received, er, a nice chuckle this am.


----------



## MacDoc

I don't think they got the note from Exxon et al.....

*Memo to loyal climate change deniers.*

..denying AGW is no longer the party line - do try and keep up

_Sincerely_
The fossil fuel industry


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> I don't think they got the note from Exxon et al.....
> 
> *Memo to loyal climate change deniers.*
> 
> ..denying AGW is no longer the party line - do try and keep up
> 
> _Sincerely_
> The fossil fuel industry


MacDoc, your naivete is almost sweet.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, your naivete is almost sweet.


Give the man a break. He has to completely deplete his bank account to buy absolution for his Carbon sins, due to that upcoming Africa Trip.

Meanwhile the Great Gore is shoveling those penance fees straight into the vault as he sings: "My God How The Money Rolls In."beejacon


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> He has to completely deplete his bank account to buy absolution for his Carbon sins, due to that upcoming Africa Trip.


You vowed never to speak of the Africa trip!!!


----------



## eMacMan

^^OOPS!^^ Still all true believers must pay penance to the Great Carbonator for their carbon sins.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> You vowed never to speak of the Africa trip!!!


What do you have against people giving up their money to buy a good or service. Say you aren't some kind of totalitarian capitalists are you?


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> For ten hours this thread sat fallow, then an explosion of rancour. The deniergate crowd must win, have the last word, or it’s not a happy world.
> 
> I agree with gt that mocking, irony and satire are needed in this thread.
> 
> People can puff up their chest and say I’m right, it doesn’t make it so and it doesn’t make it wrong.
> 
> If you put it out there expect someone to take their shot also.


thx DL. It seems a tough crowd here, pretty bent on being right. And dare to throw it back to them, and then they start threads to all have a whine fest about someone who dared throw it back in their laps. Holy hannah what whiners.

Send a box of Klennexs, stat...


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> What do you have against people giving up their money to buy a good or service. Say you aren't some kind of totalitarian capitalists are you?


I say fly all you want...it's MaccyD who is hiding from CO2.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> ^^OOPS!^^ Still all true believers must pay penance to the Great Carbonator for their carbon sins.


as opposed to paying penance to the electrical generation and incandescent bulb home heating producers cartel.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> thx DL. It seems a tough crowd here, pretty bent on being right. And dare to throw it back to them, and then they start threads to all have a whine fest about someone who dared throw it back in their laps. Holy hannah what whiners.
> 
> Send a box of Klennexs, stat...


were you referring to the political bent of contributors?


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> were you referring to the political bent of contributors?


holy no far be it from ME!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Man, this thread has become quite a joke and shows quite clearly how discussion and debate fails on the internet. As Max said a bit earlier, "it's a train wreck, but I can't help rubbernecking".

All the petty personal sniping does get rather tiresome though. Maybe some extra moderation of that in this thread might not be a bad idea. I guess everyone will just say "But, but he started it."

I've got some guy who lives on my island who won't stop emailing me with his "global warming is a hoax" opinion links of the day. He's included my email address in some big list he's sending around because we once discussed the issue. He won't take "agree to disagree" as an answer.

To all those global warming skeptics who keep making the charge that AGW adherents are religious fanatics, I see that there's no shortage of that kind of thing on either side of the issue. It would be good if we could keep the tone here a little more fact-based without all the snipes and histrionics.


----------



## MannyP Design

> It would be good if we could keep the tone here a little more fact-based without all the snipes and histrionics


GA: You know, I've tried. But that is asking for an awful lot from _some_ people. :lmao:

~

Came across this article today for those interested: No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds


----------



## SINC

MannyP Design said:


> GA: You know, I've tried. But that is asking for an awful lot from _some_ people. :lmao:
> 
> ~
> 
> Came across this article today for those interested: No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds


Interesting indeed:



> *In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.*


Yet another reason to question the wild rush to curb AGW when this kind of information becomes available.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Fascinating article. Thanks, MannyP Design.

As further reading for you all, I include this.

Complicated stuff.


----------



## eMacMan

A couple of things that I came across. CO2 seemingly lets almost all radiation through, the exception being a narrow band within the infra-red at 4.7 Angstroms. In other words not only is it a trace gas in the atmosphere but very inefficient as greenhouse gas.

The Gore-shippers love to quote that 70 Million tons of man-made CO2 number. However 24,000 times that amount of water vapour enters and leaves the atmosphere daily. 

The entire premise of GW hysteria is that CO2 warms things sufficiently to allow more water vapour to remain in the atmosphere which warms things further, but clearly this is self limiting. More WV = Warmer Atmosphere = More clouds = More solar radiation reflected back in to space = Cooling = Less WV in the atmosphere. 

However we have just had the big test. The Mann Hockey stick was predicting warmer and warmer winters. Instead each of the past 4 winters has been cooler than the last. This year not only have the winter months been brutally cold but many of us saw little or no summer. 

Long story short climate does change. Just 500 years ago things were much colder. 1000 years ago they were much warmer and these are relatively minor swings of the climatic pendulum. There are a lot of factors controlling the climate. Solar radiation is not a constant, neither is volcanic activity. We are just beginning to discover that some of the ocean temperature swings may be caused by varying volcanic activity deep below the surface. To claim that CO2 is the single factor that controls climate serves only one possible purpose, to enrich those that would force carbon credit trading on a world populace that can ill afford the additional expense.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

emacman, an impressive account of the complexity of climate science!

Well done! Good Googling! (Perhaps you should explain what an Angstrom is.)

At last we understand.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

emacman, your post was not a good account of the complexities of climate science.

It was, however, a truly masterful example of the old ehMac Denier Two-Step**.

Step one - make some sort of mention of one or two carefully selected 'things' from the climate science debate. You have, here, _come across a couple_!

Step two - introduce some Googled bits and bobs, making inaccurate statements along the way. Your concluding remark in paragraph one is a classic - "_In other words not only is it a trace gas in the atmosphere but very inefficient as greenhouse gas._" Can you define 'inefficient' for us? The very fact that it _is_ a trace gas highlights its potency as a greenhouse gas. Its effect is out of all proportion to its concentration in the atmosphere. Thanks be to the Intelligent Designer for that precious (and very well researched) 4.7 Angstroms! More than that and we'd be cooked, eh? Or maybe we'd all be chilled? Ask around.

Step three - start on the attack with mention of 'Gore', 'GW hysteria' or something similarly robust and bullish. In addition, you make a rash statement to the effect that _the entire premise of GW hysteria is that CO2 warms things sufficiently to allow more water vapour to remain in the atmosphere which warms things further_. Really? The _entire_ premise? If only things were that simple.

Step four - introduce the counter proposal that things are getting cooler because winters haven't been as 'warm' as predicted. That depends on where you live! Rubbish the Mann Hockey Stick along the way for good measure.

Step five - round it all of with the notion that the entire world population is being conned by the Evil Carbon Credit Lords.

I think the real logic driving your post is the above set of steps, but in the reverse order - given the ECCL and their fiendish plan, the rest of the steps follow, ending up with that bit of 'science'.

** Edit: Here, I have taken licence with some very loose wording. Steps 1 to 4 can be considered as steps 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d respectively. Step 5, the coup de grâce, can be considered as Step 2.


----------



## MacDoc

Pretty good precise of the denier handbook :clap:....now abandoned by fossil fuel interests...kept as keepsakes by the dogmatic. 

Quite a history - I'm sure there will be anew cause celeb to sow confusion over....



> *A Well-Documented Strategy*
> 
> August 17, 2009 at 11:18 am
> Exhibit A:“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote an anti-smoking agenda…….after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on clinical research, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about smoking causing disease than we did decades ago……….if even a small part of the time and money spent trying to link smoking to cancer were spent instead on studying the other causes of cancer, millions of lives could be saved.”​Exhibit B:“The claim that human activities cause climate change has not been scientifically proven……….it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of climate science to attempt to assign each temperature change to an exclusive single cause………..the use of results from flawed computer models to frighten people by attributing catastrophic future change to current human activities may be misleading and is highly regrettable……..that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………..despite millions of dollars spent by the government on climate modeling and research, many questions about the relationship between human activities and global temperature change remain unanswered……….indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with anthropogenic global warming may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”​Now read the originals.
> Exhibit A“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavourable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape…….any number of things can influence earth’s temperature. The list includes volcanic eruptions, variations in the amount of energy received from the sun, El Niños, and La Niñas – all of which are natural………we understand public anxiety about climate change, but are concerned that many of these much publicized predictions are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote shrill global warming alarmism………after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate modeling, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about global warming prediction than we did decades ago………..if even a small part of the money spent trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions were spent instead on fighting hunger or disease in Third World countries, millions of lives could be saved.”
> -from the various articles on the Heartland Institute’s global warming page​Exhibit B“The claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer has not been scientifically proven………..it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of cancer causation to attempt to assign each cancer to an exclusive single cause…………the use of results from flawed population studies to frighten people by attributing large numbers of death yearly to smoking may be misleading and is most regrettable……….that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………despite millions of dollars spent by the government on smoking and health-related research, many questions about the relationship between smoking and disease remain unanswered…………indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with smoking may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”
> -from Smoking and Health: 1964-1979: The Continuing Controversy, published in 1979 by the Tobacco Institute​If I hadn’t told you which set of quotes was unchanged, and which I had replaced words like “smoking” and “cancer” with “human activities” and “climate change”, or vice versa, would you even have known the difference?


A Well-Documented Strategy ClimateSight



> Excellent work!* Not a big surprise given that climate deniers Singer, Seitz, and Milloy were all tobacco lobbyists in previous incarnations. *
> For those who are not aware that the climate Denier and tobacco Denier are some of the same organizations and people, never mind identical tactics … an introduction:
> “Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming”
> ANP INVESTIGATION: How to Spin Global Warming | American News Project
> “A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke”
> Kevin Grandia | A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke
> Tobacco, part 1: “What cigarette do you smoke, Doctor?”
> Tobacco, part 1: “What cigarette do you smoke, Doctor?” lightbucket
> Tobacco, part 2: “A Frank Statement”
> Tobacco, part 2: “A Frank Statement” lightbucket
> I wonder if they used to work for Philip Morris…
> I wonder if they used to work for Philip Morris… - Claudia Deutsch - The Bottom Line - True/Slant
> Read this before your start your global warming “research”…
> Read this before your start your global warming “research”… Yet Another Atheist Blog


fine fellow travellers our local deniers keep....


----------



## Macfury

Alright Snapple: what have you got to say about the canard above suggesing that if two diverse interests represent a position similarly, then they must both be liars. Show us how do they teach Logic 101 in County Fife...


----------



## BigDL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> emacman, your post was not a good account of the complexities of climate science.
> 
> 
> Step two - introduce some Googled bits and bobs, making inaccurate statements along the way. Your concluding remark in paragraph one is a classic - "_In other words not only is it a trace gas in the atmosphere but very inefficient as greenhouse gas._" Can you define 'inefficient' for us? The very fact that it _is_ a trace gas highlights its potency as a greenhouse gas. Its effect is out of all proportion to its concentration in the atmosphere. Thanks be to the Intelligent Designer for that precious (and very well researched) 4.7 Angstroms! More than that and we'd be cooked, eh? Or maybe we'd all be chilled? Ask around.


Hey SQ to be fair to emm CO2 is no Methane now is it. CO2 doesn't stink and perhaps it should be encouraged just for that single quality.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Hey! Macfury, you old scoundrel!

Happy New Year to you as well.

What on Earth are you on about?


----------



## Vandave

Continuing on the smoking analogy.... why does Al Gore smoke '100 packs a day' if he believes 'smoking' is bad for him?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Hey! Macfury, you old scoundrel!
> 
> Happy New Year to you as well.
> 
> What on Earth are you on about?



First footin' ya! At least virtually. Where's the Black Bun?

I was referring to MacDoc's post comparing smoking and AGW.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Ask Al Gore, Vandave.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> First footin' ya! At least virtually. Where's the Black Bun?


I'd steer clear of Black Bun if I were you. Being North American, and therefore without the abrasive intestinal tracts with which we are blessed here, you'd need to go to a doctor to have it picked out of your ar*e.


Macfury said:


> I was referring to MacDoc's post comparing smoking and AGW.


Damn! I thought you were referring to my impertinent use of the feint and jab tactic with my two contiguous and apparently contradictory posts.

As for:



> Alright Snapple: what have you got to say about the canard above suggesing that if two diverse interests represent a position similarly, then they must both be liars.


Are you sure that is the implication? It rather suggests to me that the rent-a-mob lobbying and sowing of disinformation depicted is a transferrable 'skill'. Well paid too, I'll bet.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

BigDL said:


> Hey SQ to be fair to emm CO2 is no Methane now is it. CO2 doesn't stink and perhaps it should be encouraged just for that single quality.


CO2 good. CH4 bad.

That could be the new battle cry! Until CH4 really shows what it's made of vis-à-vis radiative forcing, that is.


----------



## Vandave

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Ask Al Gore, Vandave.


I am asking the believers. 

The messiah doesn't follow his own sermon. Does that not cause a crisis of faith?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Are you sure that is the implication? It rather suggests to me that the rent-a-mob lobbying and sowing of disinformation depicted is a transferrable 'skill'. Well paid too, I'll bet.


Exactly. Campaigns are campaigns, I could probably find similarities between some campaigns of a nasty totalitarian leader and that of the AGW movement--but what's the point, since this sheds no light on the actual issue at hand, only the lobbyists.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Vandave said:


> I am asking the believers.
> 
> The messiah doesn't follow his own sermon. Does that not cause a crisis of faith?


Hey! You! Believers!

Answer the man!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Exactly. Campaigns are campaigns, I could probably find similarities between some campaigns of a nasty totalitarian leader and that of the AGW movement--but what's the point, since this sheds no light on the actual issue at hand, only the lobbyists.


Why, I do believe you nearly trod in a Godwin there, M.

What exactly is the AGW 'movement', by the way? Are you intending to confuse and conflate the science with the machinations of our political and corporate masters ... again ... by any chance? The Old ehMac Denier Two-Step?


----------



## Vandave

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Hey! You! Believers!
> 
> Answer the man!


It's a serious question and nobody has taken me up on it despite my asking it in various forms. There is a lot of hypocrisy from those who are trying to save us from ourselves. Do as I say, not as I do... I find that troubling. On the religious theme... I guess if you pay your pennants (errr... carbon credits), then your sins don't count and you can basically buy your way to heaven. Sigh...


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> It's a serious question and nobody has taken me up on it despite my asking it in various forms. There is a lot of hypocrisy from those who are trying to save us from ourselves. Do as I say, not as I do... I find that troubling. On the religious theme... I guess if you pay your pennants (errr... carbon credits), then your sins don't count and you can basically buy your way to heaven. Sigh...


That is where I have trouble with carbon credits. I assume you meant "penance", but that is exactly what large companies will do in terms of paying for these carbon credits, passing on the cost to consumers, and then the speculation for these credits will be worse than sub-prime mortgage packages.


----------



## Vandave

Dr.G. said:


> That is where I have trouble with carbon credits. I assume you meant "penance", but that is exactly what large companies will do in terms of paying for these carbon credits, passing on the cost to consumers, and then the speculation for these credits will be worse than sub-prime mortgage packages.


No, I meant those little flags you win in baseball.  Whoops. Yes, penance... I suspected a mistake but was too lazy to google it. 

It's not so much that as people not making lifestyle changes. Al Gore galavants around on his private jet and lives in a huge mansion. The delegates at Copenhagen drove around in huge limos. There is some serious hypocrisy here and not many people on the 'believer' side are willing to call these people out. 

I question the science behind global warming, but I try to be as environmentally friendly as I can. I certainly feel like I am doing more than somebody like Al Gore when it comes to personal sacrifices. But I guess it has always been that way through history... fill in your own religious analogy here....


----------



## eMacMan

Vandave said:


> ...but I try to be as environmentally friendly as I can. I certainly feel like I am doing more than somebody like Al Gore when it comes to personal sacrifices.


+1 

Despite using some supplemental electric heating, electric hot water and an electric heat tape to protect a portion of my water supply line; I manage to keep my electrical consumption to about 1/35th of Al Gore's Mansion. Furthermore I do that without having a single Mercury bearing bulb in my home. I keep my Natural Gas Consumption to about 1/4 of the regional average, and drive a car that is an absolute miser compared to the typical Urban Assault Vehicle driven by the Gore Gangsters. 

Long story short. If you want me to believe the science, publish the science, not just the results, reveal the data not just the manipulated numbers. If Al Gore wants me to buy into the cause at rates I cannot afford, he should show me he believes it himself. He cannot prove his belief by using private jets and limos. He can only prove it by living the lifestyle he proposes to shove down our throats.


----------



## Vandave

eMacMan said:


> and drive a car that is an absolute miser compared to the typical Urban Assault Vehicle driven by the Gore Gangsters.


I drive one of those, but hardly put any mileage on it. I need the size for various reasons. But, I also don't have to commute because I can walk the ten feet between my house and my home office.


----------



## eMacMan

Vandave said:


> I drive one of those, but hardly put any mileage on it. I need the size for various reasons. But, I also don't have to commute because I can walk the ten feet between my house and my home office.


We have a number of seniors in our area that drive 70s and 80s gas hogs. Thing is they drive at most 2500 Kms a year so their actual energy consumption is no worse than mine. In cases like that the energy consumed in manufacturing a new car would exceed any savings they would obtain. Sort of like replacing the attic light bulbs with CFBs. If it isn't being used it isn't wasting any energy and no energy can be saved by replacing it.

Still my original point stands. Al Gore is an Evangelist. His cause is carbon credit trading. He hopes to make $100$ of $Billions$ by pursuing his cause and I have to assume that his personal lifestyle is a clear reflection of his own belief in the science behind his cause.

I was dragged to a Billy Graham rally way back in my youth. The gentleman who was collecting for the cause was wearing a watch that was far beyond my own means and I contributed accordingly.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> If Al Gore wants me to buy into the cause at rates I cannot afford, he should show me he believes it himself. He cannot prove his belief by using private jets and limos. He can only prove it by living the lifestyle he proposes to shove down our throats.


In many cases, the people pushing for these expensive ideas have already amassed enough wealth to be immune to the effects of what they're proposing. In the U.S. recently, the most obvious example is the unwillingness of either Congress or the Senate to submit to their own health care proposals--they steadfastly refuse to give up their gold-plated plans.


----------



## BigDL

*re.AlGoreugh!phobia*

Interesting the Al Gore legion is concocted in the RIGHT minded individual.

I started to pay attention to the warnings of global warming/climate change starting in the third quarter of the last century. I heard of Tipper Gore (Tipper Gore v Frank Zappa) long before I ever heard of Al Gore.

I have had a air source heat pump since 1983, to conserve energy, to conserve money. I have, almost exclusively, driven 4 cylinder even diesel and 6 cylinder vehicles as large as a full size pick up. 

Am I green or am I cheap? Maybe a little of column “a” maybe a little of column “b”. 

Do you think one has to mindlessly follow a leader because this is your life experience? 

And BTW no one from deniergate camp has addressed “How did them climate scientists in the 70's get that reality of polar melting and glacier receding so dead on anyways?”


----------



## eMacMan

BigDL said:


> And BTW no one from deniergate camp has addressed “How did them climate scientists in the 70's get that reality of polar melting and glacier receding so dead on anyways?”


A really safe guess as polar melting has been directly if sporadically observed since the beginning of the 20th Century. The NW passage was successfully navigated several times in the first half of the 20th Century. Polar ice floes are called that because they are always changing. 

Glaciers are never static, they advance or recede. If you cherry pick your glaciers it is easy to say the glaciers are receding. Still the Greenland glaciers are not retreating and the polar melting has become polar ice growth over the past 3 years.

Beyond that things have been gradually getting warmer since the 1500s and if we assume this will go on until temps are about equivalent to the peak of the Middle Ages Warming Period then it is very likely this current warming trend will continue for at least another century. The alternative is of course plunging into another ice age which I personally find a lot scarier than the spectre of global warming. 

What is at issue here is not whether or not climate changes. It does so by definition. The important question is: "Will sending money to Al Gore change anything?" The answer is clearly: "Yes, it will make life even more difficult for those that can least afford the expense."


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> A really safe guess as polar melting has been directly if sporadically observed since the beginning of the 20th Century. The NW passage was successfully navigated several times in the first half of the 20th Century. Polar ice floes are called that because they are always changing.


Isn't choosing a term like floes cherry picking language?



eMacMan said:


> Glaciers are never static, they advance or recede. If you cherry pick your glaciers it is easy to say the glaciers are receding. Still the Greenland glaciers are not retreating and the polar melting has become polar ice growth over the past 3 years.


So how many glaciers have melted, in your estimation?



eMacMan said:


> Beyond that things have been gradually getting warmer since the 1500s and if we assume this will go on until temps are about equivalent to the peak of the Middle Ages Warming Period then it is very likely this current warming trend will continue for at least another century. The alternative is of course plunging into another ice age which I personally find a lot scarier than the spectre of global warming.


Why do you insist that the only alternative is an ice age?



eMacMan said:


> What is at issue here is not whether or not climate changes. It does so by definition. The important question is: "Will sending money to Al Gore change anything?" The answer is clearly: "Yes, it will make life even more difficult for those that can least afford the expense."


Why are you fighting to have money transferred to Al Gore? Why are you not fighting to have, say airlines charge more for flights, to have the Air Transportation Industry more viable?


----------



## SINC

No matter which side of the debate you are on, following the money will lead you to the AGW goal, a carbon trading market to make billionaires out of Gore and his ilk.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> No matter which side of the debate you are on, following the money will lead you to the AGW goal, a carbon trading market to make billionaires out of Gore and his ilk.


What of the deniergate money from carbon trading to make billionaires out of Big Oil, King Coal?


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> What of the deniergate money from carbon trading to make billionaires out of Big Oil, King Coal?


Uh, they've already made their money.

What I want to prevent is another commodity market being established in carbon trading to screw the little people of the world through rising prices on an invisible product.


----------



## adagio

SINC said:


> Uh, they've already made their money.
> 
> What I want to prevent is another commodity market being established in carbon trading to screw the little people of the world through rising prices on an invisible product.


Carbon credit fraud is real and happening in Europe. Read this website. This isn't a "deniers" site. It is real and I find it scary. I cannot fathom why any Canadian would want to get involved with this scam whether you believe in AGW or not. The world economy already has a difficult time policing the markets. The thought of dozens of "Madoffs" with their hands on carbon credit derivatives is frightening. The melt down we have just gone through is nothing in comparison to the potential disaster we are setting ourselves up for. And for what? All this does squat for the "problem". In the meantime folks like Gore are laughing their arses off all the way to the bank at YOUR expense. If you think this carbon trading thing is good for climate change then write your own cheque and send it to Gore directly. I don't want Canada involved in any way and I want my tax money to remain in Canada, not shipped offshore to prop up Gore's or Mugabe's lifestyle. If there is money to be spent then lets put it to good work within our own borders.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Uh, they've already made their money.
> 
> What I want to prevent is another commodity market being established in carbon trading to screw the little people of the world through rising prices on an invisible product.


This is my concern as well. While I feel that global warming is real, and we shall ALL pay the price with our overall world climate changing drastically, and not for the better, I can foresee carbon credits being speculated upon like sub-prime mortgages.


----------



## eMacMan

adagio said:


> Carbon credit fraud is real and happening in Europe. Read this website. This isn't a "deniers" site. It is real and I find it scary. I cannot fathom why any Canadian would want to get involved with this scam whether you believe in AGW or not. The world economy already has a difficult time policing the markets. The thought of dozens of "Madoffs" with their hands on carbon credit derivatives is frightening. The melt down we have just gone through is nothing in comparison to the potential disaster we are setting ourselves up for. And for what? All this does squat for the "problem". In the meantime folks like Gore are laughing their arses off all the way to the bank at YOUR expense. If you think this carbon trading thing is good for climate change then write your own cheque and send it to Gore directly. I don't want Canada involved in any way and I want my tax money to remain in Canada, not shipped offshore to prop up Gore's or Mugabe's lifestyle. If there is money to be spent then lets put it to good work within our own borders.


Thank you for making the point Sinc and I have been failing so miserably to get across. For the life of me I cannot understand why even the most fervent of believers thinks that sending money to the Great Gore will reduce Carbon Emissions.


----------



## SINC

^

+1


----------



## adagio

Came across this interesting article. AGW debunked

If you're interested in some "light" reading, here's the German physicists' paper.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


----------



## SINC

Yep the BS pile called AGW is stinking more every day. Watch the "warmers" try to wiggle out of this one.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: Didn't you know that it's already been settled? And now you can't get a seat at the table!!


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Thank you for making the point Sinc and I have been failing so miserably to get across. For the life of me I cannot understand why even the most fervent of believers thinks that sending money to the Great Gore will reduce Carbon Emissions.


you assume, quite incorrectly, for some unknown reason, that "believers", think that sending "money to Gore" will reduce Carbon Emissions. Not all do.

That would be just as brainless, as thinking every person who doesn't believe the global warming theory, are all, on the payroll of Exxon.


----------



## MacDoc

How foolish that they aren't, no other possible reason than getting paid to perpetuate nonsense..

Even that spigot is tapped out...the fossil interests figure there is more to be made in cap and trade scams.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

A devastating salvo, adagio, for which you must be congratulated.

The killer punch, delivered at the start, was of course the use of an article from 'Climategate' - as good a read as The Onion any day. Here's Climategate on Climategate:

"_The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, *and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.*_"

Some very fine and bloody froth on their fangs there, I see. Yep, for your daily dose of right-wing hysteria visit Climategate - the _only_ show in town. 

But you wittily provide 'evidence' of a more profound nature to help us along.



adagio said:


> If you're interested in some "light" reading, here's the German physicists' paper.
> 
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf


Hey, Adagio, did _you_ read the German physicists' paper? :lmao:
Are _you_ interested in it (as some "light" reading of course. :lmao: )?

This is the funniest tactic. Scrounge around the internet, only looking at bits and bobs that shore up your more and more desperate position, then challenge someone to read 'it' and possibly(?) comment on 'it', not having read 'it' yourself - the German physicists' paper that is. Or perhaps you have?

If indeed you have, I ask that you kindly explain the actual physics in it, in simple language for us. I'm sure Sinc would appreciate it. He was bang off the mark again, with particularly sensitive and acute remarks involving the use of 'BS', and the word 'stinking', having skimmed the import of your post, and perhaps a quick gander at the Climategate article. Oh, and a little bonding-wink as well. Devastating stuff.
Then old Macfury quickly pitched in with a word of encouragemant for Sinc, and a funny picture for him as well.  

I would offer a link for some enlightening reading also, but I tried it once, and got only one paltry response ... from Macfury, who read the title and choked on its first word, 'Sustainable', for which, it appeared, the entire work was damned. A little effort in the form of further reading would have provided him with some interesting material to add to the 'debate'.

This _is_ the funniest of threads, and I constantly find myself thanking FexL for fathering it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Gulp, yikes, grin, wink etc., etc.

What on earth are the Chinese up to now?


----------



## adagio

You are right to question the source of my link. Have you gone digging to find out more about the #1 site for AGW believers or do you simply accept everything written there is correct and anything else suspect? I've often seen some folks refer to RealClimate as the gospel truth. That website is as suspicious as any on the internet yet you accept it unquestioningly. 

Truth about RealClimate

My point is you should get information from many sources and treat them equally. Anyone trying to claim scientific AGW consensus is fooling themselves and spreading a big lie. 

No, I didn't read all the physicists report nor would I understand it if I did. Sorry some missed the point of my post. I should have put a winkie. This paper is just one of many that have been written on the subject. There are thousands out there that agree or disagree. That is the REAL nature of science. This climate science is FAR from settled.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

adagio said:


> ... Have you gone digging to find out more about the #1 site for AGW believers or do you simply accept everything written there is correct and anything else suspect? I've often seen some folks refer to RealClimate as the gospel truth. That website is as suspicious as any on the internet yet you accept it unquestioningly.


The logic of your first paragraph is all over the place, adagio.
The last sentence, in particular, is quite ridiculous. You state, with breathtaking arrogance, that I accept 'a website' unquestioningly. It's all the more bizarre, to me, since I hadn't been aware of that site's existence, let alone its #1 status, until I read your post.

The link to Popular Technology.net was interesting. Apart from the poor syntax, poor grammar and wildly inaccurate statements, its opening paragraph gives a whiff of the desperation and wild-eyed ignorance that combine to discredit much of the deniersphere. It looks like an anti-Gore site dressed up as a serious response to science. It's a pity, because there could be a good debate on the go, but what we have instead is a miasma of ill-educated drivel, poorly presented. There is a lot of anger fueling all of this, and impotence behind that anger, which should be directed against the Evil Carbon Credit Lords rather than being directed against science in a Total-War fashion.

I tend to prefer reading well presented material that can be checked to some extent. I'll read anything that comes my way, but don't expect me to buy into drivel. Oh, and _I_ will be the arbiter of what _I_ consider to be 'well presented', and _I_ will decide if _I_ accept what _I_ read as reasonable and worth consideration.

How much reading have you done on the RealClimate.org site? The little reading I have done, since you so thoughtfully provided me with a link, shows that there is balance to be found in the contents of RealClimate.org. I urge you to read on. Far from reading 'unquestioningly', I read with interest.



adagio said:


> This paper is just one of many that have been written on the subject. There are thousands out there that agree or disagree. That is the REAL nature of science. This climate science is FAR from settled.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## groovetube

Snapple Quaffer said:


> A devastating salvo, adagio, for which you must be congratulated.
> 
> The killer punch, delivered at the start, was of course the use of an article from 'Climategate' - as good a read as The Onion any day. Here's Climategate on Climategate:
> 
> "_The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, and other information and news to help you in your battle against the Religion of Settled Science to dispute their views on Anthropogenic Global Warming, *and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal.*_"
> 
> Some very fine and bloody froth on their fangs there, I see. Yep, for your daily dose of right-wing hysteria visit Climategate - the _only_ show in town.
> 
> But you wittily provide 'evidence' of a more profound nature to help us along.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Adagio, did _you_ read the German physicists' paper? :lmao:
> Are _you_ interested in it (as some "light" reading of course. :lmao: )?
> 
> This is the funniest tactic. Scrounge around the internet, only looking at bits and bobs that shore up your more and more desperate position, then challenge someone to read 'it' and possibly(?) comment on 'it', not having read 'it' yourself - the German physicists' paper that is. Or perhaps you have?
> 
> If indeed you have, I ask that you kindly explain the actual physics in it, in simple language for us. I'm sure Sinc would appreciate it. He was bang off the mark again, with particularly sensitive and acute remarks involving the use of 'BS', and the word 'stinking', having skimmed the import of your post, and perhaps a quick gander at the Climategate article. Oh, and a little bonding-wink as well. Devastating stuff.
> Then old Macfury quickly pitched in with a word of encouragemant for Sinc, and a funny picture for him as well.
> 
> I would offer a link for some enlightening reading also, but I tried it once, and got only one paltry response ... from Macfury, who read the title and choked on its first word, 'Sustainable', for which, it appeared, the entire work was damned. A little effort in the form of further reading would have provided him with some interesting material to add to the 'debate'.
> 
> This _is_ the funniest of threads, and I constantly find myself thanking FexL for fathering it.


:clap:



> Scrounge around the internet, only looking at bits and bobs that shore up your more and more desperate position,


:lmao::lmao:



> then challenge someone to read 'it' and possibly(?) comment on 'it', not having read 'it' yourself - the German physicists' paper that is. Or perhaps you have?


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

The google soldiers, have dug in!


----------



## SINC

Still got nothin' and still using it I see gt.

The heat wave continues.

As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather?


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> :clap:
> 
> 
> :lmao::lmao:
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> The google soldiers, have dug in!


Fap, fap, fap, fap.

At least you have rhythm. :lmao:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> The heat wave continues.
> 
> As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather?


Yes. It's winter weather - in the winter!


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yes. It's winter weather - in the winter!


And much colder winters than we've had in many years, thereby cooling the average temperature of the earth. No warming for 10 years now.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Still got nothin' and still using it I see gt.
> 
> The heat wave continues.
> 
> As Britain told to expect snow for 'next 10 days', how is the rest of the world is coping with this Arctic weather?


at least I'm not stupid enough to go google links and pass the headlines and extracted lines as conclusive fact. I openly admit my ignorance on a lot of this subject, and have a keen interest in the very few here who have something real to say. I have yet to one thing from you beyond a hunted headline though you like to jump up and down like you do, and relish in the got nothing routine. Pure blowhard nonsense.

Guess what Sinc, I never said I had something, unlike you. That's where the difference lies.

So what, have you got beyond that? Lot's more?

Let's hear it, beyond your googled links.

And mannyP, I wouldn't have expected, any less from you. Got anything beyond googled links? Go google some more about some ice growing.

Come on google soldiers! Wear your uniforms with pride.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> And much colder winters than we've had in many years, thereby cooling the average temperature of the earth. No warming for 10 years now.


There we have it folks! The winter is COLDER! So that automatically means there is no global warming!

Close the damn thread because this, is fantastic, conclusive news!!!!


You just can't make this stuff up can you.

Over and out.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> at least I'm not stupid enough to go google links and pass the headlines and extracted lines as conclusive fact.


Implying that others are stupid in your most recent post makes you somehow superior does it?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Implying that others are stupid in your most recent post makes you somehow superior does it?


I donno sinc. Do you know of others that do this?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> There we have it folks! The winter is COLDER! So that automatically means there is no global warming!


Now you're getting it. There's been no warming in the past 10 years.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I donno sinc. Do you know of others that do this?


No, you said you're not "stupid" enough. Dumb wasn't mentioned, but the sentence implied those who use Google are stupid.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> No, you said you're not "stupid" enough. Dumb wasn't mentioned, but the sentence implied those who use Google are stupid.


ohhhhh Sinc. Now the banjos are starting to play.

How you came to that conclusion from my post, is a real head scratcher.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> How you came to that conclusion from my post, is a real head scratcher.





groovetube said:


> at least I'm not stupid enough to go google links and pass the headlines and extracted lines as conclusive fact.


Easy enough to understand for everyone but you. Your statement implies that anyone who uses Google links is stupid. You mean you can't understand the concept?


----------



## eMacMan

*Al Gore puts his best face forward*

As close as AG is likely to get to being an "Honest" politician.


----------



## Dr.G.

SINC said:


> Now you're getting it. There's been no warming in the past 10 years.


I thought that it was an accepted fact that 11 of the past 12 years were among the warmest since 1850. The dispute seems to be that we cannot agree as to the specific cause of this rising temperature. However, I really can't see how this reality can be disputed. 

I am not for carbon credits, nor want to see the use of all cars banned by next Friday. As well, I can appreciate the various points of views re what needs to be done to try and stop this warming trend and its effects upon the whole world. Still, the earth IS warming, whatever the cause and something does need to be done.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Curioser and curioser ... 

in particular:

"_In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C._"


... someone should let Goose Bay know it's getting colder and to get with the programme! :lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

Dr.G. said:


> I thought that it was an accepted fact that 11 of the past 12 years were among the warmest since 1850. The dispute seems to be that we cannot agree as to the specific cause of this rising temperature. However, I really can't see how this reality can be disputed.
> 
> I am not for carbon credits, nor want to see the use of all cars banned by next Friday. As well, I can appreciate the various points of views re what needs to be done to try and stop this warming trend and its effects upon the whole world. Still, the earth IS warming, whatever the cause and something does need to be done.


Actually we don't know. The Global Warming crowd deliberately selected and even modified data to force it to support their theory. They had no choice as randomly selected data points generally paint a different picture.

Certainly around here things were pretty much static from 1998 to 2003 and have been cooling since then. In Holland they are again skating on canals this winter. 

But the big problem is the very concept that climate is or should be static. It is either warming or cooling it is never static. 

Further the Global warming crowds claims that the science is complete, is complete and total hogwash. I heard one climatologist describe climate science as a giant jigsaw and we are still looking for the corner pieces. With the science really in its infancy (reliable temperatures often date back less than 50 years), attempting to meddle could cause far more damage than we believe possible. 

OTH Carbon trading is not intended to have any impact on carbon emissions. It is intended to divert our hard earned capital into the pockets of scum who would starve to death if their only other option was: "Learning to cook and fry." 

I continually point out the Al Gore hypocrisy for one reason. I really believe his only interest in GW is increasing his personal wealth via Carbon Credit Trading and his lifestyle does nothing to change that impression.


----------



## Dr.G.

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Curioser and curioser ...
> 
> in particular:
> 
> "_In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C._"
> 
> 
> ... someone should let Goose Bay know it's getting colder and to get with the programme! :lmao:


Snowmobilers in Labrador have been complaining for the past 7-10 years. The snow is coming later to Labrador, and there is off and on rain throughout the season, making it difficult for going out on a snowmobile. My neighbor is from Labrador, and he likes to vacation back home with his snowmobile, but can't because of the conditions. The same holds true for parts of the Island of Newfoundland.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> There we have it folks! The winter is COLDER! So that automatically means there is no global warming!
> 
> Close the damn thread because this, is fantastic, conclusive news!!!!
> 
> 
> You just can't make this stuff up can you.
> 
> Over and out.


But wait the storm surge destruction in Maritime Canada as result of winter storms is a novel event for the area. This kind destruction is a new experience to many communities, it used to be rare now is becoming common place. Maaaybeee it’s not just about temperature.... but other factors as well :yikes:

telegraphjournal.com - Sea level rising faster, says report author | Adam Huras - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada

timestranscript.com - Storm tears sheds to shreds | BY ALAN COCHRANE - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada

Don't ya hate it when reality keeps on intruding on denialgate?


----------



## Dr.G.

eMacMan said:


> Actually we don't know. The Global Warming crowd deliberately selected and even modified data to force it to support their theory. They had no choice as randomly selected data points generally paint a different picture.
> 
> Certainly around here things were pretty much static from 1998 to 2003 and have been cooling since then. In Holland they are again skating on canals this winter.
> 
> But the big problem is the very concept that climate is or should be static. It is either warming or cooling it is never static.
> 
> Further the Global warming crowds claims that the science is complete, is complete and total hogwash. I heard one climatologist describe climate science as a giant jigsaw and we are still looking for the corner pieces. With the science really in its infancy (reliable temperatures often date back less than 50 years), attempting to meddle could cause far more damage than we believe possible.
> 
> OTH Carbon trading is not intended to have any impact on carbon emissions. It is intended to divert our hard earned capital into the pockets of scum who would starve to death if their only other option was: "Learning to cook and fry."
> 
> I continually point out the Al Gore hypocrisy for one reason. I really believe his only interest in GW is increasing his personal wealth via Carbon Credit Trading and his lifestyle does nothing to change that impression.


I guess we are listening to a different "Global warming crowds". I happen to believe organizations like Environment Canada, the National Weather Service and NOAA in the US, and the World Meteorological Organization in the UN. Flame me if you will, but those are my beliefs.

However, I do agree with your point that "Carbon trading is not intended to have any impact on carbon emissions." Sad, but all too true, especially when they start being bought and sold by speculators.


----------



## Dr.G.

BigDL said:


> But wait the storm surge destruction in Maritime Canada as result of winter storms is a novel event for the area. This kind destruction is a new experience to many communities, it used to be rare now is becoming common place. Maaaybeee it’s not just about temperature.... but other factors as well :yikes:
> 
> telegraphjournal.com - Sea level rising faster, says report author | Adam Huras - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
> 
> timestranscript.com - Storm tears sheds to shreds | BY ALAN COCHRANE - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
> 
> Don't ya hate it when reality keeps on intruding on denialgate?


I think you make an important ponit, BigDL, with your contention that events that were rare in the past pertaining to weather events are becoming more common place. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Which ocean rise measurements are correct, and how can Canada show a substantial rise while the rest of the world reports a rise of a few millimetres?

There is no real study quoted in the Telegraph piece, but the National Snow and Ice Data Centre reports this:



> Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 millimeters per year. Satellite altimetry observations, available since the early 1990s, provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage and indicate that since 1993 sea level has been rising at a rate of about 3 millimeters per year. Climate models based on the current rate of increase in greenhouse gases, however, indicate that sea level may rise at about 4 millimeters per year reaching 0.22 to 0.44 meters above 1990 levels by the period 2090-2099 (IPCC 2007).


SOTC: Sea Level

So why the discrepancy?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> Certainly around here things were pretty much static from 1998 to 2003 and have been cooling since then. In Holland they are again skating on canals this winter.


See what happens when that big ole AO gets its feet under the table. Heard of it, have you? Read from the link in my previous post ... if you dare. 



eMacMan said:


> But the big problem is the very concept that climate is or should be static. It is either warming or cooling it is never static.


Who claims that the climate is 'static'? :lmao:



eMacMan said:


> Further the Global warming crowds claims that the science is complete, is complete and total hogwash.


Actually, emacman, that entire sentence is hogwash. Who makes up the 'crowds' that claim that? Show us where there are claims that the science is complete. Science is _never_ complete. :lmao: 



eMacMan said:


> OTH Carbon trading is not intended to have any impact on carbon emissions. It is intended to divert our hard earned capital into the pockets of scum who would starve to death if their only other option was: "Learning to cook and fry."
> 
> I continually point out the Al Gore hypocrisy for one reason. I really believe his only interest in GW is increasing his personal wealth via Carbon Credit Trading and his lifestyle does nothing to change that impression.


And a nice little coda to round off with mention of scum, carbon credit and Gore.

A tour de farce for which you should be congratulated. The perfect ehMac Denier Two Step ... mangle some pseudo-scientific drivel and somehow connect _that_ to Gore and his machinations.


----------



## MacGuiver

BigDL said:


> But wait the storm surge destruction in Maritime Canada as result of winter storms is a novel event for the area. This kind destruction is a new experience to many communities, it used to be rare now is becoming common place. Maaaybeee it’s not just about temperature.... but other factors as well :yikes:
> 
> telegraphjournal.com - Sea level rising faster, says report author | Adam Huras - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
> 
> timestranscript.com - Storm tears sheds to shreds | BY ALAN COCHRANE - Breaking News, New Brunswick, Canada
> 
> Don't ya hate it when reality keeps on intruding on denialgate?


Speaking of denial. This reporter seems to be in denial that the size of the storm surge is determined by the strength of the winds pushing it.


----------



## BigDL

MacGuiver said:


> Speaking of denial. This reporter seems to be in denial that the size of the storm surge is determined by the strength of the winds pushing it.


It's likely not much of an issue anyway because the storm surge did not happen on Lake Ontario or any other Great Lake for that matter.


----------



## MannyP Design

Dr.G. said:


> I think you make an important ponit, BigDL, with your contention that events that were rare in the past pertaining to weather events are becoming more common place. Paix, mon ami.


I recall quite a few storms in the maritimes. This is neither new, nor rare. I recall giant snowfall when I lived in Moncton in the late 70s during Xmas that had my parents and uncles shoveling my grandparent's driveway every couple of hours well into the wee hours of the morning to make sure they weren't completely snowed in. The mounds of snow were well over their heads.

This, and many other storms, can be easily verified, but Groovetube doesn't condone the use of links in discussion so I'll refrain.


----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> I recall quite a few storms in the maritimes. This is neither new, nor rare. I recall giant snowfall when I lived in Moncton in the late 70s during Xmas that had my parents and uncles shoveling my grandparent's driveway every couple of hours well into the wee hours of the morning to make sure they weren't completely snowed in. The mounds of snow were well over their heads.
> 
> This, and many other storms, can be easily verified, but Groovetube doesn't condone the use of links in discussion so I'll refrain.


True, but the severity is getting worse. Moncton this year is far snowier than St.John's and is slowly catching up to our record of being the snowiest Canadian city. 

From what I understand, speaking with various profs here at Memorial, and from my neighbor, who has a Ph.D. in meteorology and a Ph.D. in geology, the trends are up when you look back 30 years or so. Thus, more severe weather, warmer summers, colder winters, sudden non-existent springs and summers, more hurricanes, tornadoes, more snow/rain in some areas, less snow and less rain in other areas. It is as if the balance of the global climate is out of the normal trends. 

We can argue as to the cause, and argue as to the ways to try and prevent this disequilibrium from causing worldwide disaster, but I think that the physical evidence is right in front of us, be it in the arctic here in Canada, the droughts worldwide, the flooding worldwide, etc, etc.

We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> I recall quite a few storms in the maritimes. This is neither new, nor rare. I recall giant snowfall when I lived in Moncton in the late 70s during Xmas that had my parents and uncles shoveling my grandparent's driveway every couple of hours well into the wee hours of the morning to make sure they weren't completely snowed in. The mounds of snow were well over their heads.
> 
> This, and many other storms, can be easily verified, but Groovetube doesn't condone the use of links in discussion so I'll refrain.


Likely the Xmas eve storm, but your reference is to snow. When I moved here nearly 30 years ago this storm would have been all snow, I should up to ears in snow today but I am not. Alas the storm is more like the storms of my youth in Halifax, where the storms come with at least three types of precipitation. Not all snow like Moncton should expect.

The point missed is the destruction caused by storm surge, something rarely mentioned or considered, in past winter storms. The point is sea level rise. Ture the coast is sinking 
as well as sea level rise. I have added a link to this picture.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> I recall quite a few storms in the maritimes. This is neither new, nor rare. I recall giant snowfall when I lived in Moncton in the late 70s during Xmas that had my parents and uncles shoveling my grandparent's driveway every couple of hours well into the wee hours of the morning to make sure they weren't completely snowed in. The mounds of snow were well over their heads.
> 
> This, and many other storms, can be easily verified, but Groovetube doesn't condone the use of links in discussion so I'll refrain.


right. I forgot that I said anyone who simply uses google is stupid.

Damn, it's those banjos again....


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> right. I forgot that I said anyone who simply uses google is stupid.
> 
> Damn, it's those banjos again....


I'd quote some of your earlier posts, but I know it'd be useless. Instead, I decided to read jokes about drummers.


----------



## groovetube

Quote what?


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> Quote what?


gt don’t be upset with folks from the deniergate camp there’re deeply into denial and they can’t help it really. 

When it come to financial matters, deniers are those folks, that believe; if wasn’t for debt, they’d be heavily into poverty.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> It's likely not much of an issue anyway because the storm surge did not happen on Lake Ontario or any other Great Lake for that matter.


If Moncton isn't on a Great Lake, then how can it be in Canada?


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> If Moncton isn't on a Great Lake, then how can it be in Canada?


St. John's is not bordering any of the five Great Lakes and last I heard, we were still in Canada.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> St. John's is not bordering any of the five Great Lakes and last I heard, we were still in Canada.


This is just a story told to the people on the East Coast to placate them while we pump oil out of the Grand Banks.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> If Moncton isn't on a Great Lake, then how can it be in Canada?


Because some party crashers got our leaders in attendance all drunked up.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> This is just a story told to the people on the East Coast to placate them while we pump oil out of the Grand Banks.


I see ............... first you take our fish from the Grand Banks ......... and now the oil. Luckily, we get some royalties, since, as a have province (finally), we send money which goes to help the folks in ON. It's our way of saying thanks. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

Dr.G. said:


> I see ............... first you take our fish from the Grand Banks ......... and now the oil. Luckily, we get some royalties, since, as a have province (finally), we send money which goes to help the folks in ON.


Since we ate all the fish and are now taking the oil, it's only fair that you pay us for it.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> gt don’t be upset with folks from the deniergate camp there’re deeply into denial and they can’t help it really.
> 
> When it come to financial matters, deniers are those folks, that believe; if wasn’t for debt, they’d be heavily into poverty.


I was going to come up with something witty, but why would I bother if you're not even going to try? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> I was going to come up with something witty, but why would I bother if you're not even going to try? :lmao:


Don't provoke him or it's back to the Eric Idle schtick...


----------



## BigDL

.....always something to look forward to....


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Don't provoke him or it's back to the Eric Idle schtick...


Does Eric Idle do his shtick in Yiddish???


----------



## Vandave

Eric Idle is very cold at this moment...


----------



## eMacMan

Seeing that chilling image of the British Isles brings up this thought:

I understand that Britain's chief meteorologist got a 25% raise for predicting Britain would have one of the warmest winters on record. Now gets bigger bucks than PM. He probably needs it to pay for the heated bunker, I am guessing a mere kevlar vest would not feel like adequate protection at the moment.

Man that black water looks cold.


----------



## Dr.G.

Vandave said:


> Eric Idle is very cold at this moment...


I guess his shtick is stuck.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> I understand that Britain's chief meteorologist got a 25% raise for predicting Britain would have one of the warmest winters on record. Now gets bigger bucks than PM. He probably needs it to pay for the heated bunker, I am guessing a mere kevlar vest would not feel like adequate protection at the moment.:


:lmao:

Your 'understanding' is, as usual, based on hard facts no doubt.

The last sentence is an expression of sympathy for John Hirst in his darkest hour?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

UK freezing! Snowman goes somewhere warmer


----------



## eMacMan

Excellent BBC interview with John Hirst:
BBC News - Chief defends Met Office record


----------



## eMacMan

Snapple Quaffer said:


> :lmao:
> 
> The last sentence is an expression of sympathy for John Hirst in his darkest hour?


I have neither sympathy, empathy nor antipathy for John Hirst. I was thinking the average taxpaying Brit might be just a bit PO'd about the entire fiasco. I did notice that JH chose to isolate himself during the BBC interview.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Agreed. A good interview.

Andrew Neil is seen here doing what he always does, namely putting the questions to the interviewee that ordinary people would like to have answered. These questions must be brought out into the open, and where else better than the BBC?

I wonder if Andrew Neil also earns more than the Prime Minister? All of this talk of salaries is a red herring designed to inflame the inflammable of course. Even if the Head of the Met Office earned less than the Prime Minister, the tone of the interview would likely have been the same. Nothing like whipping up the peasantry in their hour of crisis. The story is all.

Here's part of Andrew Neil's blog for any that are interested.


----------



## SINC

*Yep, global warming continues:*



> The latest blast of winter was expected to severely disrupt public transit in many parts of Germany, where the amount of snowfall reached 30 centimetres Friday night. Dozens of flights from the country's largest airport in Frankfurt have been cancelled.
> 
> *Britain, already deep in its longest cold spell in nearly 30 years, recorded its chilliest night yet this season, –22.3 C in the Scottish Highlands village of Altnaharra.*
> 
> Southwest England, which includes London, was expected to receive 18 centimetres of snow Saturday.
> 
> Train companies, including the cross-Channel Eurostar, said they would be running reduced service.
> 
> Road salt is being rationed throughout the United Kingdom. Officials say there's not enough for secondary roads and sidewalks. Poland, too, has seen shortages of salt for use on streets.
> 
> The German government has asked people to stockpile enough food, water and medicine to last through the next four days.
> 
> Southern Spain, France unusually cold.
> 
> Some 30 centimetres of snow fell on Arles and Avignon in southern France on Friday, according to the regional traffic centre, and snowdrifts piled higher than a metre.
> 
> Much of Spain was also shivering. A nature park in the normally temperate Murcia region in the southeast turned on heaters at a pen housing three giraffes more accustomed to savannah-like climes.
> 
> In the Catalonia region centred on Barcelona, snowy conditions prevented 72 schools from reopening after the Christmas vacation, providing an extra day off for more than 16,000 children.
> 
> Heavy rains caused flooding across central and southern Italy. Northern Italy was blanketed by snow, while Venice faced the "acqua alta" phenomenon — exceptionally high tides which often flood most of the lagoon city in winter.
> 
> *In Sweden, temperatures dropped to –38.7 C. Norway is facing its lowest temperatures in more than two decades. The mercury dropped Friday to –42C at Roros airport, in central Norway — the coldest temperature measured in mainland Norway since 1987*.


CBC News - World - Europe hit with more blizzards, bitter cold


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> CBC News - World - Europe hit with more blizzards, bitter cold


When the sea levels rise in the spring, they'll really be sorry!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

From the CBC story:
"_Southwest England, which includes London, was expected to receive 18 centimetres of snow Saturday._"

A minor point, but I'd put London in the south-east rather than the south-west.

Not to worry, the anti-AGW/warmist/carbon-credit scum/Gore snow will know where to fall.


----------



## eMacMan

*How good is the science?*

Found this Weather Canada prediction from last September. 

FWIW the Farmers Almanac Tea leaves are predicting colder than normal right through May for Western Canada.



> *El Nino to deliver forgiving Canadian winter: Expert*
> 
> By Bradley Bouzane, Canwest News ServiceSeptember 2, 2009
> 
> Winter — still a couple of months away — is likely the furthest thing from most people's minds, but Canada's weather guru says the odds are in Canada's favour this year for those who hate to bundle up.
> 
> 
> Despite the Farmer's Almanac calling for a harsh, frigid winter for much of the United States, Dave Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, said another El Nino weather event will give Canadians a better chance to enjoy a milder 2009-10 winter.
> 
> 
> "(The Farmer's Almanac) looks at moon phases and tea leaves and all that stuff; we put a little bit of science into it," Phillips said Wednesday. "We're not necessarily a lot more accurate than they are, but we think there are things you can look at to give you a clue of how the winter will be. "Unlike the Farmer's Almanac — if they're calling for a more brutal, old fashioned winter — our models are suggesting it might not be that way."


----------



## SINC

The Farmer's almanac has been embarrassing Environment Canada for many years now with their accuracy. See recent posts in the "How's the Weather" thread.


----------



## Macfury

I wouls remind Snapple Quaffer of the following quote regarding the machinations of the Greenhouse Gas Regime:



> "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - (William Pitt, 1783)


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

A little cryptic there, Macfury. Do we have a new beast to slay - the GGR? 

I suppose that quote could be used any way you wish though. Have fun.


----------



## eMacMan

Another thing to consider when talking about man's impact on the climate. We throw a lot of crap into the atmosphere mostly particulates. Everything from straight carbon particles courtesy of diesel engines to fly ash and sulpher particulates from burning coal. Now to be fair nature tosses about 10 times as many of these guys up there as well (forest fires, volcanos, dust storms and so on).

The effect of these is to reduce the size of water droplets which form in the atmosphere the smaller drops reflect more solar radiation leading to something called global dimming. This was discovered and verified when scientists started comparing evaporation rates in the 70s and 80s to those earlier in the century. The Gore gang assumed logically that evaporation rates would have increased thus proving their brittle climate hypothesis. Instead they had dropped at every station studied drops varied from 8% to 20%. At this point the Gore Gang lost interest but real scientists continued the study and determined the reason for the reduction in evaporation rates.

An aside here they also discovered that temperature changes and wind have some impact on evaporation rates but the biggest factor is directly related to solar intensity. This discovery alone scuttles the major claim of the CO2 hysteria group. Thus the hypothesis that higher temps lead to more atmospheric water vapour lead to more CO2 being released... just ain't true.

In other words that other 5h!t we are putting into the atmosphere more than offsets any damage caused by CO2.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> The Farmer's almanac has been embarrassing Environment Canada for many years now with their accuracy. See recent posts in the "How's the Weather" thread.


+1

Trust the Farmers Almanac before our weather service.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> Thus the hypothesis that higher temps lead to more atmospheric water vapour lead to more CO2 being released... just ain't true.


_Where_ did you find this startling conclusion, emacman?



eMacMan said:


> In other words that other 5h!t we are putting into the atmosphere more than offsets any damage caused by CO2.


An amazing result!

Btw, most of the hysteria I have seen comes from the denier tendency - witness the language used, the anger displayed, and the reckless assertions culled from al those good 'ole boy denier sites.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MazterCBlazter said:


> Trust the Farmers Almanac before our weather service.


Yep. Reminds me that my granny used a bit of seaweed outside her door to gauge the weather. Never failed her.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> I was thinking the average taxpaying Brit might be just a bit PO'd about the entire fiasco.


Wishful thinking? (John Hirst > Met Office > Had/CRU > AGW > carbon credits > Gore ... to be read in the reverse order.) It's always a ball*up here when we have any weather out of the ordinary, be it hot summers, wet autumns or cold winters. It's all part of the British thing - whatever that is.




eMacMan said:


> I did notice that JH chose to isolate himself during the BBC interview.


He a bad man.


----------



## BigDL

MazterCBlazter said:


> +1
> 
> Trust the Farmers Almanac before our weather service.


I was looking for a widget to put on my Mac to tell me the Farmer's Almanac daily weather, temperature and conditions. Did you find one for your Mac that use to guide you daily? All I can find is one hooked to AccuWeather etc.


----------



## adagio

This quote from David Phillips is laughable.

"(The Farmer's Almanac) looks at moon phases and tea leaves and all that stuff; we put a little bit of science into it," Phillips said Wednesday. "We're not necessarily a lot more accurate than they are, but we think there are things you can look at to give you a clue of how the winter will be. ["Unlike the Farmer's Almanac — if they're calling for a more brutal, old fashioned winter — *our models* are suggesting it might not be that way."

There we go with "models" again. I have zero faith in computer models. They are only as good as the data inputted. Hope they didn't get their data from CRU.


----------



## groovetube

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yep. Reminds me that my granny used a bit of seaweed outside her door to gauge the weather. Never failed her.


we used to tell the girls if they jumped up and down really fast after, they wouldn't get pregnant. It worked! Well most of the time!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

adagio said:


> There we go with "models" again. I have zero faith in computer models. They are only as good as the data inputted. Hope they didn't get their data from CRU.


I'll bet you'd be all over them like the proverbial rash if they coughed up the results that suited you though, eh?


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yep. Reminds me that my granny used a bit of seaweed outside her door to gauge the weather. Never failed her.





BigDL said:


> I was looking for a widget to put on my Mac to tell me the Farmer's Almanac daily weather, temperature and conditions. Did you find one for your Mac that use to guide you daily? All I can find is one hooked to AccuWeather etc.


I guess when you don't have valid arguments to show that the CAF is an invalid source, one turns to ridicule as your valid argument.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> I guess when you don't have valid arguments to show that the CAF is an invalid source


You're dead right, Sinc. I don't have valid arguments, because I'm not disputing that the CAF _is_ a valid source.



SINC said:


> ... one turns to ridicule as your valid argument.


Er ... are you suggesting my granny was ridiculous?

I _try_ to follow the good example you set, and not descend to ridicule - ridicule isn't something you would stoop to is it?
(Notice that I didn't comment on the bad English in your post, so as to avoid giving offence.)


----------



## SINC

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming



> There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem -- 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.
> 
> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
> 
> Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.


Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming - Pew Research Center


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Excellent piece, even if 3 months old.

What can it mean? "That there is no such thing as global warming", says the denier.

In the same article:

_Despite the growing public skepticism about global warming, the survey finds more support than opposition for a policy to set limits on carbon emissions. Half of Americans favor setting limits on carbon emissions and making companies pay for their emissions, even if this may lead to higher energy prices; 39% oppose imposing limits on carbon emissions under these circumstances._

... immediately followed by:

_This issue has not registered widely with the public. Just 14% say they have heard a lot about the so-called "cap and trade" policy that would set carbon dioxide emissions limits; another 30% say they have heard a little about the policy, while a majority (55%) has heard nothing at all._

Clearly, we have a well informed public here. I'm sure the respondents in the poll have read widely on the topic of climate science or have been kept up to date with developments by the various organs of the very responsible media in the US.


----------



## groovetube

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Excellent piece, even if 3 months old.


HA ha ha ha ha ha. :lmao::lmao::lmao: make that lmFao...

Oh god! google my saviour! Give me a headline, a pretty picture... SOMETHING to make me smart.


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Excellent piece, even if 3 months old.
> 
> What can it mean? "That there is no such thing as global warming", says the denier.


No, it suggests that public confidence in global warming being any real threat is deteriorating.

Glad to see you still have nothing and continue to use it gt.


----------



## Macfury

SINC: you're going to have to post "the collected work" again soon.


----------



## groovetube

the collected works of googled headlines and pretty pictures?

What a contribution.

Sorry Sinc, you haven't got a damn thing either.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> the collected works of googled headlines and pretty pictures?
> 
> What a contribution.
> 
> Sorry Sinc, you haven't got a damn thing either.


Oh I dunno gt. I at least had a link to a valid story with real stats that people just aren't buying the scam any longer. 

Seems to me that is much better than playing the role of an audience heckler like some here.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Oh I dunno gt. I at least had a link to a valid story with real stats that people just aren't buying the scam any longer.
> 
> Seems to me that is much better than playing the role of an audience heckler like some here.


So, if I go google headlines that say global warming is real, and people like me, will I be smart? This is better?

priceless.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> So, if I go google headlines that say global warming is real, and people like me, will I be smart? This is better?
> 
> priceless.


What's really "priceless" is your apparent inability to post anything constructive and your fixation on Google.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> What's really "priceless" is your apparent inability to post anything constructive and your fixation on Google.


-my-... fixation, on google?

My dear boy, everything you say, is from google. I'm merely pointing it out.

I'm not an expert in this field, and look forward to insightful posts by a very few here. I don't try to pass myself off as someone who knows a lot about this, nor use something like google to pump up my profile, unlike any of the google brains here.


----------



## SINC

The funniest part of it all gt, is that I didn't use Google to find the link. I found it as part of my daily regimen of reading news sources as I have done for years. You might want to try it sometime. One can turn up lots of information without Google.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> The funniest part of it all gt, is that I didn't use Google to find the link. I found it as part of my daily regimen of reading news sources as I have done for years. You might want to try it sometime. One can turn up lots of information without Google.


man,. This is some fantastic stuff.

Mind. Blown.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> The funniest part of it all gt, is that I didn't use Google to find the link. I found it as part of my daily regimen of reading news sources as I have done for years. You might want to try it sometime. One can turn up lots of information without Google.


Sinc, please educate me as how to access these forms of information. I know you were an experienced newspaperman and know how to get this sort of info. I don't, but want to know how. Please PM me if necessary.


----------



## SINC

MazterCBlazter said:


> Sinc, please educate me as how to access these forms of information. I know you were an experienced newspaperman and know how to get this sort of info. I don't, but want to know how. Please PM me if necessary.


No need for a PM MCB, there are a hundred different ways to do so, but you might want to start by bookmarking this page and go from there:

Newspapers.com

I then build a series of bookmarks for publications I find this way that interest me.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> No, it suggests that public confidence in global warming being any real threat is deteriorating.


 ... which is quite different to global warming itself being less of a threat.


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> ... which is quite different to global warming itself being less of a threat.


Agreed, they are indeed two different things.

If the pro global warming crowd is experiencing a decline in concern by the masses, it leads me to believe that several things are happening; either their educational campaign is a miserable failure, or people have decided that they no longer buy the position that global warming is any real threat, nor can it be controlled by mankind.


----------



## eMacMan

SINC said:


> Agreed, they are indeed two different things.
> 
> If the pro global warming crowd is experiencing a decline in concern by the masses, it leads me to believe that several things are happening; either their educational campaign is a miserable failure, or people have decided that they no longer buy the position that global warming is any real threat, nor can it be controlled by mankind.


Could also be a realization that in a global recession many people can not afford the extravagance of Carbon Taxes or Carbon Credit Trading. In Northern climates such idiocy could lead to a sizable portion of the population having to choose between starving to death or freezing to death.


----------



## groovetube

interesting concept. If we say it ain't so, it disappears.

Hmm. That has possibilities.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC: you're going to have to post "the collected work" again soon.


OK MF, but it's probably nothing:



groovetube said:


> :clap:
> 
> 
> :lmao::lmao:
> 
> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
> 
> The google soldiers, have dug in!





groovetube said:


> at least I'm not stupid enough to go google links and pass the headlines and extracted lines as conclusive fact. I openly admit my ignorance on a lot of this subject, and have a keen interest in the very few here who have something real to say. I have yet to one thing from you beyond a hunted headline though you like to jump up and down like you do, and relish in the got nothing routine. Pure blowhard nonsense.
> 
> Guess what Sinc, I never said I had something, unlike you. That's where the difference lies.
> 
> So what, have you got beyond that? Lot's more?
> 
> Let's hear it, beyond your googled links.
> 
> And mannyP, I wouldn't have expected, any less from you. Got anything beyond googled links? Go google some more about some ice growing.
> 
> Come on google soldiers! Wear your uniforms with pride.





groovetube said:


> There we have it folks! The winter is COLDER! So that automatically means there is no global warming!
> 
> Close the damn thread because this, is fantastic, conclusive news!!!!
> 
> 
> You just can't make this stuff up can you.
> 
> Over and out.





groovetube said:


> I donno sinc. Do you know of others that do this?





groovetube said:


> ohhhhh Sinc. Now the banjos are starting to play.
> 
> How you came to that conclusion from my post, is a real head scratcher.





groovetube said:


> right. I forgot that I said anyone who simply uses google is stupid.
> 
> Damn, it's those banjos again....





groovetube said:


> Quote what?





groovetube said:


> we used to tell the girls if they jumped up and down really fast after, they wouldn't get pregnant. It worked! Well most of the time!





groovetube said:


> HA ha ha ha ha ha. :lmao::lmao::lmao: make that lmFao...
> 
> Oh god! google my saviour! Give me a headline, a pretty picture... SOMETHING to make me smart.





groovetube said:


> the collected works of googled headlines and pretty pictures?
> 
> What a contribution.
> 
> Sorry Sinc, you haven't got a damn thing either.





groovetube said:


> So, if I go google headlines that say global warming is real, and people like me, will I be smart? This is better?
> 
> priceless.





groovetube said:


> -my-... fixation, on google?
> 
> My dear boy, everything you say, is from google. I'm merely pointing it out.
> 
> I'm not an expert in this field, and look forward to insightful posts by a very few here. I don't try to pass myself off as someone who knows a lot about this, nor use something like google to pump up my profile, unlike any of the google brains here.





groovetube said:


> man,. This is some fantastic stuff.
> 
> Mind. Blown.





groovetube said:


> interesting concept. If we say it ain't so, it disappears.
> 
> Hmm. That has possibilities.


----------



## groovetube

you know, if I upset you that much, you can be whiney like screecher and put me on ignore.

Or if you're happy to waste your time on me, far be it from me!


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> you know, if I upset you that much, you can be whiney like screecher and put me on ignore.
> 
> Or if you're happy to waste your time on me, far be it from me!


Perhaps if you give up the whacky tobbacky for Lent, your posts might start to make sense.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Perhaps if you give up the whacky tobbacky for Lent, your posts might start to make sense.


that wouldn't be any fun.


----------



## BigDL

I wonder if the inability to post with anything credible in the following thread 
"A Shocking Insult To Democracy": Harper Prorogues Parliament,
has some of the Right People a little testy today. You think it would be easy it just another form of denial.


----------



## SINC

Yep, yet another single minded Liberal view. :yawn:


----------



## groovetube

you can add that to the list of profound, contributions I guess.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Yep, yet another single minded Liberal view. :yawn:


As opposed to another single minded Denier view? ":yawn:"


----------



## FeXL

Analysis of the data.



> Because the Hadley Center has released the final temperatures in Central England for 2009, I decided to calculate a few things. Although I have also played with the monthly data, this text will be purely about the 1659-2009 annual data. It's 351 years in total.


...



> Conclusions
> 
> The Central England data show nothing unusual about the evolution of current temperatures. And because there is really nothing special about Central England, it's reasonable to expect that no place in the world is experiencing anything unusual in the modern era, in comparison with other epochs since 1659.


Observations on the analysis.



> Summary: Unprecedented warming did not occur in central England during the first decade of the 21st century, nor during the last decade of the 20th century. As the CET dataset is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and since global temperature trends follow a similar pattern to Northern Hemisphere temps, then the same conclusion about recent warming can potentially be inferred globally. Based on the CET dataset, the global warming scare has been totally blown out of proportion by those who can benefit from the fear.


----------



## adagio

Very interesting. Thanks FeXL


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Yeah, great, FeXL.

Here's something else interesting.

Now try and read all of it before you offer an opinion.


----------



## FeXL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yeah, great, FeXL.
> 
> Here's something else interesting.
> 
> Now try and read all of it before you offer an opinion.


So, I read it. Slowly. Twice.

Seems like a solid conclusion.

Now what?

PS Why the sarcasm?


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Quaffer has me a little perplexed as well. That little article goes over some well-covered ground and has little to do with humans causing so-called global warming.


----------



## eMacMan

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Yeah, great, FeXL.
> 
> Here's something else interesting.
> 
> Now try and read all of it before you offer an opinion.


I know that CO2 makes up less than 4/100th of 1% of the earths atmosphere. I believe the concentration of methane is somewhat lower so I am not sure what if any impact an additional 7% would/could actually have on global temperatures.

Beyond that it is a given that overall global temperatures have been increasing for the last 12000 years, with some up and down variations. Obviously various atmospheric gases will be absorbed or released as temperatures vary. 

The important points are; 
Climate is not static
There is zero evidence that CO2 is a primary driver of climate change
Carbon Taxes will not reduce CO2 out put.
Carbon Credit Trading will not reduce CO2 output
Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credit Trading *will* hit those that can least afford it the hardest.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

FeXL said:


> PS Why the sarcasm?


No sarcasm intended. I have found that people _seem_ to scan material they instinctively don't 'like', because it conflicts with their chosen view, and nevertheless offer a riposte of some sort. It was more of a plea - but no sarcasm.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> FeXL: Quaffer has me a little perplexed as well. That little article goes over some well-covered ground and has little to do with humans causing so-called global warming.


And FexL's articles don't also go over some well-covered ground?

GW leading to increases in methane concentrations in the atmosphere is a 'big' thing, not a 'small' thing. There's a lot of methane locked up in the geosphere, as well as the biosphere. CH4 is much more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

This, as with climate change, is a predicted effect of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Of course, if refuse to accept any of this, I can see why you should be perplexed.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

eMacMan said:


> I believe the concentration of methane is somewhat lower so I am not sure what if any impact an additional 7% would/could actually have on global temperatures.


If you're not sure, why don't you try and find out? The phrase "I am not sure" is an admission of ignorance, isn't it? CH4 is much more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. You don't need as much of it as CO2 to get the same effect. More methane will be released as temperatures increase - that, broadly, is the logic behind the article.



eMacMan said:


> Beyond that it is a given that overall global temperatures have been increasing for the last 12000 years, with some up and down variations. Obviously various atmospheric gases will be absorbed or released as temperatures vary.


Yes, we're in an interglacial episode, where temperatures will have, by definition, increased.



eMacMan said:


> There is zero evidence that CO2 is a primary driver of climate change
> Carbon Taxes will not reduce CO2 out put.
> Carbon Credit Trading will not reduce CO2 output
> Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credit Trading *will* hit those that can least afford it the hardest.


I think it is the reverse of this logic that drives the denier tendency.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> GW leading to increases in methane concentrations in the atmosphere is a 'big' thing, not a 'small' thing. There's a lot of methane locked up in the geosphere, as well as the biosphere. CH4 is much more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.


This is a well-understood mechanism that has always been at pay in the world and is no cause for greater alarm. Those canny Scottish researchers are collecting money for re-stating the obvious.


----------



## MannyP Design

Snapple Quaffer said:


> No sarcasm intended. I have found that people _seem_ to scan material they instinctively don't 'like', because it conflicts with their chosen view, and nevertheless offer a riposte of some sort. It was more of a plea - but no sarcasm.


Boy you got that right. But something tells me you were referring to one particular group. :heybaby:

But, hey, in other news: scientists moved the doomsday clock back a minute! That's great isn't it?

_This end-of-the-world clock, set up in 1947, is meant to convey how close we are to the end of the world via catastrophe caused by nuclear weapons or *climate change*, among other factors._​
I can't help but feel like I'm getting mixed messages here. 

_These unprecedented steps are *signs of a growing political will to tackle* the two gravest threats to civilization - the terror of nuclear weapons and *runaway climate change*."_​
Oh, this is just like Obama getting the Nobel: Pat on back first, efforts to later. So how do we propose to tackle this runaway cold weather? beejacon


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> This is a well-understood mechanism that has always been at pay in the world and is no cause for greater alarm. Those canny Scottish researchers are collecting money for re-stating the obvious.


Macfury ... really! How can you? :lmao:

I suppose if you're preaching to the choir you can get away with anything, eh?



Macfury said:


> ... that has always been at pay in the world ...


 ... and we must remember that the human race has only been in existence, let alone in its ascendancy, for the briefest sliver of geological time. So at _all times_ during which these well-understood mechanisms were having their way, what was the range of global climates, pray? If you can answer that question, perhaps you could also give us a clue as to whether the human race would have been able to maintain any sort of 'civilisation' throughout said range of climates? Progressing to the next step, can you say with authority that _any_ future increase in concentrations of methane in the atmosphere will be (quote) "no cause for greater alarm"? If your answer to the last question is "yes", then you would no doubt be able to explain, for the sake of the scientific community at large, the reason why.



Macfury said:


> Those canny Scottish researchers are collecting money for re-stating the obvious.


OTOH, if they had 'found' that there was no increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere to worry about, the money would have been well spent?


----------



## SINC

Snapple Quaffer said:


> (Notice that I didn't comment on the bad English in your post, so as to avoid giving offence.)





Snapple Quaffer said:


> And FexL's articles don't also go over some well-covered ground?





Snapple Quaffer said:


> Of course, if refuse to accept any of this, I can see why you should be perplexed.


Nor did I.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

SINC said:


> Nor did I.


A worthy, well thought out and well-considered reply. I applaud your efforts and the contribution you have made to this thread with your post.


----------



## FeXL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> No sarcasm intended. I have found that people _seem_ to scan material they instinctively don't 'like', because it conflicts with their chosen view, and nevertheless offer a riposte of some sort. It was more of a plea - but no sarcasm.


I suppose I could open up a whole new can of worms here by asking you exactly what you think it is that I don't 'like' but, the point is moot: hate to disappoint but I haven't picked a side.

If the material I've noted on this thread carries a particular slant, it's because I find it very interesting that the whole concept of global warming seems to have been consumed with religious fervor like Jonestown poison with anyone disagreeing labeled a heretic, summarily dismissed & given the bum's rush. That sets off warning bells all over the place for me & immediately warrants suspicion, no matter what the subject nor who is preaching. If I'm remotely interested in the topic, the shriller the cry the deeper I'll dig. 

Unlike some, I'm very interested in learning as much about this topic as possible, from all angles. Unlike some, I believe that we've barely scratched the surface of global warming and, in particular, what part AGW plays.

Like some, I believe the whole carbon credit thing is a crock engineered to line the pockets of few at the expense of many whilst accomplishing nothing in the realm of GHG reduction. Similarly, I'm not interested in participating in any form of payback system which could literally bankrupt the first world without finding out if the money will be well spent or if what's happening around us is just Ma Nature and no cash injection of any size will affect the outcome.

Like most, I believe it can't be a bad thing to reduce one's environmental footprint in any way possible, not only as a consumer but also at a commercial & industrial level.

The above being said, I'm willing to sit down & listen to an even, informed, rational argument either way any day.

Bring 'em.


----------



## CubaMark

*Major Antarctic glacier is 'past its tipping point'*





> A major Antarctic glacier has passed its tipping point, according to a new modelling study. After losing increasing amounts of ice over the past decades, it is poised to collapse in a catastrophe that could raise global sea levels by 24 centimetres.
> 
> Pine Island glacier (PIG) is one of many at the fringes of the West Antarctic ice sheet. In 2004, satellite observations showed that it had started to thin, and that ice was flowing into the Amundsen Sea 25 per cent faster than it had 30 years before.
> 
> Now, the first study to model changes in the ice sheet in three dimensions shows that PIG has probably passed a critical "tipping point" and is irreversibly on track to lose 50 per cent of its ice in as little as 100 years, significantly raising global sea levels.
> 
> The team that carried out the study admits their model can represent only a simplified version of the physics that govern changes in glaciers, but say that if anything, the model is optimistic and PIG will disappear faster than it projects.


(New Scientist)


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

FeXL said:


> I suppose I could open up a whole new can of worms here by asking you exactly what you think it is that I don't 'like' but, the point is moot: hate to disappoint but I haven't picked a side.


I hadn't actually aimed the 'don't like' at you. (I can see now, why you have queried me about this.) The fact that you haven't picked a side neither pleases nor disappoints me.

You seem to have a calm and balanced view of the whole 'debate'. I also see the carbon credit thing as a balls up waiting to happen. I do not dismiss, out of hand, the mainstream science that points towards global warming. The basic science is not new. I tend to accept that with so many scientific organisations in agreement that there is global warming, it would be imprudent to go wholesale against the notion.

I get great amusement and general entertainment from the postings and comments of some of my fellow ehMaccers in this thread. There is a lot of heat generated, poorly articulated drivel and bad science spouted. Bums rushes seem to be meted out with vigour from both sides - and each side has developed, in parts, their own forms of religious mania.

I cannot but mock the whole train of logic that goes from hatred and/or mistrust of Gore and the carbon credit proposals down to damnation of the science that warns of global warming. Because Gore is bad, the science must be bad. So let's be clever and turn it around and start by just saying the science is bad, then Gore won't have a leg to stand on. That's the sum of it in essence.

Interestingly, to me, Gore hardly ever gets a mention over here, although we know who he is/was and we know about his 'Inconvenient Truth'. He seems to be a latecomer to the whole global warming issue. Must be a North American thing.


----------



## CubaMark

*Arctic researchers frozen out of gov't funding*





> Canadian researchers are being left out in the cold by the Ottawa bureaucracy that is grounding critically important Arctic expeditions, says a top polar scientist.
> 
> "Many northern researchers simply can't afford to get where they need to go," says earth scientist John England, at the University of Alberta, who is urging the Harper government to intervene.
> 
> In a pointed report in the high-profile British journal Nature on Thursday, England deplores the lack of support for researchers charting the transformation underway in Canada's North, one of the most rapidly changing places on Earth.
> 
> "The capacity to support researchers in remote field sites has plummeted, making it difficult for Canadian researchers to continue crucial monitoring of the fast-changing Arctic environment, from receding glaciers to disappearing polar-bear habitat," he reports.
> 
> "Worse," says England, "the restricted logistical funds aren't distributed in partnership with money from the main granting body — the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)."


(CanWest / Canada.com)


----------



## FeXL

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I tend to accept that with so many scientific organisations in agreement that there is global warming, it would be imprudent to go wholesale against the notion.


If you take a look at the chart in the article I linked to that started off this most recent discussion and read the associated text (you probably already have), you'll note the almost linear rise in temps for the last 351 years.

Don't have any problems with that data. As the author notes, since the last ice age we've pretty much been in a period of global warming. Glaciers are receding. Icecaps are shrinking. Agreed.

What gets my underwear in a wad is when hockey stick Mann (or whoever) thumps the pulpit with his fist and starts preaching fire & brimstone, blaming human activity for global warming when, in fact, the earth's surface has been warming for hundreds, thousands of years. There are complete cities now underwater that once were thriving metropolises on the shores of seas & oceans. Is AGW the source of those disasters? Or is it simply part of the big cycle that we all are immersed in? (no pun intended)

My question (the key question, I believe) is how much warming is mankind responsible for? 1%? 10%? 50%?

Guess what: if it's 1%, then there is absolutely nothing we can do. Period. We can eliminate mankind completely and still only remove 1% of the equation. Pointless (with all the codicils about lowering one's environmental footprint intact). 10%? Then I would say mankind can affect change. Small change, nonetheless, but perhaps worth it. Let's look at it. 50%? Even more important to address the problem with all due speed. More? Butter us, 'cause we're toast.

My gut feeling is that Ma Nature plays a far greater role in all of this than mankind does. I don't know the proportions. And, so far, I haven't seen anything anywhere from anybody who can answer that question.


----------



## bryanc

FeXL said:


> My question (the key question, I believe) is how much warming is mankind responsible for? 1%? 10%? 50%?
> 
> Guess what: if it's 1%, then there is absolutely nothing we can do. Period. We can eliminate mankind completely and still only remove 1% of the equation. Pointless (with all the codicils about lowering one's environmental footprint intact). 10%? Then I would say mankind can affect change. Small change, nonetheless, but perhaps worth it. Let's look at it. 50%? Even more important to address the problem with all due speed. More? Butter us, 'cause we're toast.
> 
> My gut feeling is that Ma Nature plays a far greater role in all of this than mankind does. I don't know the proportions. And, so far, I haven't seen anything anywhere from anybody who can answer that question.


This is an eminently sensible position for someone who is not an expert in the field, and it should be the jobs of the scientists (not the politicians or economists) to determine the answer to the first part.

But given that there is currently clearly some doubt, and that science never provides certainty anyway, how should the rational person decide what to do when there will always be some doubt?

The key to answering this is in your parenthetic statement about lowering your environmental footprint. It may be that our contribution is too low or too high for changes we make to affect any difference, but if we're in the middle, the changes we make could save us (or at least, reduce the costs we have to pay). If it turns out we can't make any difference, then so be it... at least we tried. And if it turns out we can make a difference, having made a concerted effort to reduce our environmental impact will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've made a difference but didn't because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain we can't make any difference, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.

Cheers


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> If it turns out we can't make any difference, then so be it... at least we tried. And if it turns out we can make a difference, having made a concerted effort to reduce our environmental impact will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've made a difference but didn't because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain we can't make any difference, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.


If it turns out there is a God, and if it turns out we can make a difference, to please him, it will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've become Christians because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain there is no God, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

FeXL said:


> My gut feeling is that Ma Nature plays a far greater role in all of this than mankind does. I don't know the proportions. And, so far, I haven't seen anything anywhere from anybody who can answer that question.


I can see that things get you riled.

For an interesting read, I can offer this book. It's a free download as a pdf, or you can read any or all chapters online. It's not an easy read, but then the topic isn't exactly an easy one either.

Part of the problem is that the science can be so technically difficult as to provoke two main reactions in the layman, namely impatience and/or anger. Another problem is the drivel that's printed in the papers and aired on TV. If you've got to sell papers or get ratings, you have to shriek attention grabbing headlines and/or dumb down the content. People can also get angry if they feel that either they or their wallets are being threatened. Little wonder that there is so much argy-bargy over this whole subject.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> This is an eminently sensible position for someone who is not an expert in the field, and it should be the jobs of the scientists (not the politicians or economists) to determine the answer to the first part.
> 
> But given that there is currently clearly some doubt, and that science never provides certainty anyway, how should the rational person decide what to do when there will always be some doubt?
> 
> The key to answering this is in your parenthetic statement about lowering your environmental footprint. It may be that our contribution is too low or too high for changes we make to affect any difference, but if we're in the middle, the changes we make could save us (or at least, reduce the costs we have to pay). If it turns out we can't make any difference, then so be it... at least we tried. And if it turns out we can make a difference, having made a concerted effort to reduce our environmental impact will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've made a difference but didn't because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain we can't make any difference, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.
> 
> Cheers


I agree with your thoughts. If we want make a difference as a society let's put our infrastructure money away from highways, airlines and towards rails and waterways.



Macfury said:


> If it turns out there is a God, and if it turns out we can make a difference, to please him, it will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've become Christians because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain there is no God, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.


What a silly notion. 

If I have a belief of everlasting salvation because of belief in Christ (fine) and I am wrong what am I out?

If you have no belief in Christ and all that flows from that belief (fine) and you are wrong what are you out?


That's bryanc's point with global warming. 

Muddying waters.


----------



## Macfury

I'm not muddying any waters at all. It's an apt analogy.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> If it turns out there is a God, and if it turns out we can make a difference, to please him, it will obviously be of great value. In contrast, if it turns out we could've become Christians because we weren't certain that the effort would be worthwhile, that would be the ultimate stupidity. The bottom line is that unless we're certain there is no God, precaution argues that we should be trying everything we can because it can't hurt us and it could help a lot.


Your take on Pascal's Wager would be appropriate if there was only one god to try to suck up to, and if feigning supplication could fool such a god. But in the context, it's simply a nice illustration of my point. Since we have no reason to think that nature cares _why_ we take a given course of action, or that there are multiple, mutually exclusive ways of reducing our environmental impact, it is entirely sensible for us to take whatever action we can to reduce our environmental impact, wether this action be motivated by pure self interest or the most lofty form of altruism.

This is what I don't get about the strenuous objections people raise against evidence that human activity may be altering the climate in significant ways. Who cares if there's yet another reason we need to reduce our consumption and try to mitigate the damage we are doing to the environment. There's already ample evidence that we're doing bad things to the environment, and there's mounting evidence that it's worse than we thought. Arguing about wether it's really as bad as the climate scientists are suggesting or just really bad based on all the other evidence is beside the point.

It's bad. We should try to make it less bad. We can start by reducing our consumption of fossil fuels because that consumption causes among the worst of the problems, and we have technologies that make it unnecessary.

The only catch is that a few really really rich people will find themselves without a huge source of income and political power if we switch (and a somewhat less rich population will gain power and income), so the current elite are doing everything in their power to prevent us from considering this obvious and inevitably necessary course of action.... 

*Look! Shiny Ball! Over there!*


----------



## FeXL

bryanc said:


> The key to answering this is in your parenthetic statement about lowering your environmental footprint. It may be that our contribution is too low or too high for changes we make to affect any difference, but if we're in the middle, the changes we make could save us (or at least, reduce the costs we have to pay).


gordguide has posted a couple of salient observations regarding this: 



> Eastern Canada imports 3x as much oil every day than the oil sands produce. Alberta's oil travels by pipeline, Ontario's oil arrives via tanker ship from Venezuela burning bunker fuel that releases 1800x more pollutants per liter than diesel. Pierre Trudeau killed the Alberta-Ontario pipeline 30 years ago.
> 
> That's the emissions equivalent of a line of big rigs 40 km long and two lanes wide, two car lengths separating each tractor-trailer, at the Canadian fleet average of 2 miles per liter, for every liter of bunker fuel burned getting oil to Ontario refineries.


This should be a huge eye-opener to anyone with enough brainpower to melt the snow off their forehead. I was stunned to learn that. There has to be a better way. Period. Suddenly, Alberta's oilsands don't look so ugly. Don't get me wrong, there's much work that needs be done there, but...



> A single RAM stick costs more to produce, greenhouse gas-wise, than a laptop uses if powered for three years nonstop. How long does the average consumer keep his laptop?
> 
> Somewhere near 80% of a modern electronic device's energy and greenhouse footprint is in production alone. Then it is replaced in three years. The actual energy it consumes in use is meaningless, relatively ... you would have to use your smartphone for 20 years to equal it's production cost in energy terms.


The second is an example of not jumping on every new technology that comes out of the gate. I'm sure the numbers are comparable whether speaking of a new car or a refrigerator. How many of us purchase a new car every year. Every other year? A good used one instead of new? How many of us have to have the latest & greatest iPhone with every new incarnation? How many of us bought a used home and put money into upgrading insulation, etc., instead of constructing new?

Pertaining to the second point, we purchased a few CFL bulbs nearly 12 years ago (when they were in the neighborhood of $20 each) and have since replaced every bulb in the house that sees more than a few minutes a week of operation. We thought we were saving money & doing the "right thing" for the environment and since then, it has come to light that the disposal of these wonderful little energy savers is contaminating landfills the world over with mercury. So, which is worse? Replacing more incandescents (indirectly poisoning the environment) or directly poisoning the environment with CFL disposal? As was noted elsewhere on these boards, I shouldn't need a HazMat team around to clean up & throw away a broken or burned out light bulb.

Purchasing decisions need to be informed, but where do you get the information from?

We have an old deep freeze, not sure of the date of manufacture. I'm guessing sometime in the '60s. Traded it for a bottle of Crown Royal from the friend of a friend who just wanted to get rid of it 12 years ago. Hasn't cost a thing in parts/service save a bit of wire that I needed to replace on the thermostat circuit, a half hour job.

By not purchasing new, we saved the energy required to manufacture a new one. Cost, too, was an obvious benefit. By using old we don't have the most up to date energy efficient model available and it uses the older ozone depleting R12 refrigerant. Where is the break even point?

I don't know and, in some cases, it is impossible to find out. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is a phone call from the newly formed Department of Obsolete Purchases for the Environment (aka DOPE) telling me it's time to upgrade my fridge, car, guitar, whatever 'cause the break even point is approaching...

<sigh> Starting to ramble here, time to go feed the littl'uns.


----------



## eMacMan

My objections have never been to reducing waste or personal consumption.

My objections are directed squarely at Carbon Taxes and Carbon Credit Trading. Both are designed to steal from those that can least afford it without actually reducing emissions.

I also object to the fact that people are now quite willing to ignore any type of environmental damage if it is "carbon neutral". Good example is CFBs. They contain Mercury and other poisons. The amounts are too small to be easy to recover so by the millions they go straight to the landfills. Net result will eventually be water supplies contaminated by Mercury.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Your take on Pascal's Wager would be appropriate if there was only one god to try to suck up to, and if feigning supplication could fool such a god. But in the context, it's simply a nice illustration of my point. Since we have no reason to think that nature cares _why_ we take a given course of action, or that there are multiple, mutually exclusive ways of reducing our environmental impact, it is entirely sensible for us to take whatever action we can to reduce our environmental impact, wether this action be motivated by pure self interest or the most lofty form of altruism.


Your god of global warming is a false god. There are are many important steps we can take to protect or preserve the environment. It is not sensible to implement all possible programs, just on the chance one of them _might_ be right.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury tries to disrupt the hunt with his drag lure - 'god'.

There's a religion thread out there for you Macfury.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Your god of global warming is a false god. There are are many important steps we can take to protect or preserve the environment. It is not sensible to implement all possible programs, just on the chance one of them _might_ be right.





Snapple Quaffer said:


> Macfury tries to disrupt the hunt with his drag lure - 'god'.
> 
> There's a religion thread out there for you Macfury.


:clap:

If you "can't do the math" then your understanding of science is largely a matter of faith. So SQ for someone their own god faith is in science unless they're dyslectic then it could be the family pet they''re confused faith is with.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your god of global warming is a false god.


I have no gods. I'm compelled by evidence to consider global warming an alarming trend, and furthermore compelled by evidence to consider that human activity may play a significant role in that trend. More importantly, evidence that human activity is having a deleterious effect on the environment as a whole is abundant, staggeringly obvious and unequivocal.

Given that many/most of the changes proposed to mitigate our emissions of GHGs are also important steps in mitigating other deleterious effects we have on the environment, to oppose these changes because they may not succeed in reversing climate change is ludicrous.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> :clap:
> 
> If you "can't do the math" then your understanding of science is largely a matter of faith. So SQ for someone their own god faith is in science unless they're dyslectic then it could be the family pet they''re confused faith is with.


And if you have nothing to say, just bray until for the sake of filling space. :clap:

Seriously, is this the only participation in this thread: Colour commentary? :lmao:


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MannyP Design said:


> And if you have nothing to say, just bray until for the sake of filling space. :clap:


A complicated sentence, to be sure. But you really do seem have something to say, if only one could decode it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Given that many/most of the changes proposed to mitigate our emissions of GHGs are also important steps in mitigating other deleterious effects we have on the environment, to oppose these changes because they may not succeed in reversing climate change is ludicrous.


Only very few of these steps are important in that context, and the most important have little or nothing to do with GHGs. This reasoning is like the local sanitation department suggesting the elimination of all dogs, because it will help enforce municipal pooper scooper laws. Let's work together for the common good! Who doesn't love clean sidewalks?


----------



## Macfury

Danny Glover says Haitian earthquake result of failure to act at Copenhagen summit.



> “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”


PACT WITH GAIA | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> This reasoning is like the local sanitation department suggesting the elimination of all dogs, because it will help enforce municipal pooper scooper laws.


Can you tell us if you are aware of any proposals have been put forward that insist on the actual _elimination_ of GHGs?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Danny Glover says Haitian earthquake result of failure to act at Copenhagen summit.


:lmao:

That's a cracker! Thanks Macfury!

Give that man a quick tutorial in tectonic plate boundaries and the stresses built up when they grind against each other, as in the current case.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Can you tell us if you are aware of any proposals have been put forward that insist on the actual _elimination_ of GHGs?


Of course not SQ. It's just an illustration to show that it's easy to claim that mutual goals imply agreement on the means to achieve those goals. It's a logical fallacy to state that if we want cleaner air, we may as well enact GHG legislation. We would need to show the specific programs and regulations that are beneficial to both parties.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> We would need to show the specific programs and regulations that are beneficial to both parties.


Programs/legislation/and economic changes that result in reduced consumption of fossil fuels will reduce emissions of GHGs and other forms of pollution. I'm in favour of these endeavours. Obviously it's possible to concoct an edge case where reduced fossil fuel consumption could result in something bad happening, but in any realistic scenario, reduced fossil fuel consumption will be good for everyone (except the oil barons, and I'm not worried about them).


----------



## Rps

Macfury said:


> Danny Glover says Haitian earthquake result of failure to act at Copenhagen summit.
> 
> 
> 
> PACT WITH GAIA | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog


I'm so confused! I don't know who to believe: Danny Glover or Pat Robertson.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Programs/legislation/and economic changes that result in reduced consumption of fossil fuels will reduce emissions of GHGs and other forms of pollution. I'm in favour of these endeavours. Obviously it's possible to concoct an edge case where reduced fossil fuel consumption could result in something bad happening, but in any realistic scenario, reduced fossil fuel consumption will be good for everyone (except the oil barons, and I'm not worried about them).


You've over-simplified again. If we could reduce all other emissions from fossil fuel combustion, EXCEPT carbon-dioxide, then I put it to you that we would we be using clean fuel.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Only very few of these steps are important in that context, and the most important have little or nothing to do with GHGs. This reasoning is like the local sanitation department suggesting the elimination of all dogs, because it will help enforce municipal pooper scooper laws. Let's work together for the common good! Who doesn't love clean sidewalks?


A better line for you to have followed then, would have been something like:

" _... the local sanitation department suggesting the ownership of dogs to be limited to people who can demonstrate adherence to the local pooper scooper laws_. "

You jumped from bryanc's "mitigate" to your own "eliminate". The two are, I believe, quite different cases.

Your jumps in logic are interesting but ephemeral wee puzzles, seen through quite quickly..


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> Danny Glover says Haitian earthquake result of failure to act at Copenhagen summit.
> 
> 
> 
> PACT WITH GAIA | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog


The American Eduction system works wonders.

Maybe he thought the fraction of a degree temperature change made the plates slip?
Some new kind of geophysics.


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> You jumped from bryanc's "mitigate" to your own "eliminate". The two are, I believe, quite different cases.
> 
> Your jumps in logic are interesting but ephemeral wee puzzles, seen through quite quickly..


The parallel is not in the prescription to the problem, but in assuming that groups with disparate goals have something in common. 

Just because I believe in reducing air pollution, does not mean I believe in the necessity of reducing airborne carbon dioxide.
Just because I believe in poop-free streets, doesn't mean I would favour the end of dog ownership.


----------



## FeXL

ICE REMAINS, IPCC MELTS



> A warning that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
> 
> Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
> 
> In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.


.
.
.


> The London Times summarises: “If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research.” Which is saying something. More from Walter Russell Mead:
> 
> If evidence this slender was sufficient to convince the IPCC that this threat was real, it’s clear that the panel is more like Chicken Little than a serious source of scientific information.


<sigh> All I want is good science. Somebody. Anybody. Please...

PS If this is indeed true, I wonder how many of these "world class" scientists will lose their jobs. Or even get reprimanded.

IPCC. What a fricking joke.

Many moons ago, my grade 4 teacher had us do up a little book about ourselves, drawings, stories, accomplishments, aspirations. I wrote then (with innocence & wide-eyed wonder) that I wanted to be a scientist. Didn't mention what kind (probably didn't know back then that there were even different kinds...), just "a scientist". Drew up a little picture of me in a lab coat with beakers, flasks and stuff.

Now, every time someone mentions that they are a scientist, I want to run, screaming, in the other direction. (with apologies to those of you who are actually doing your job the way you're supposed to...)

PPS This is hardly the same kind of level-headedness I was accused of a few posts back. Sorry. This just pisses me off... 

This the the kind of egregious error (not checking my sources) that would have earned me an "F" in any of my first year university science papers. Probably in high school, too.


----------



## Macfury

FeXL: Also please note the egregious massaging of data by NOAA and NASA recently exposed. Research stations have been closed by the dozens in cooler locales, with data "interpolated" from warmer stations nearby--where coincidentally, MORE stations have been established.

Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations – Telegraph Blogs



> Notice that nice rosy red over the top of Bolivia? Bolivia is that country near, but not on, the coast just about half way up the Pacific Ocean side. It has a patch of high cold Andes Mountains where most of the population live. One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
> 
> None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
> 
> So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
> 
> Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.
> 
> Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know?





> In Canada the number of stations dropped from 600 to 35 in 2009. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at higher elevations above 3000 feet were reduced in half. Canada’s semi-permanent depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a pure average of the available stations shows a COOLING. Just 1 thermometer remains for everything north of latitude 65N – that station is Eureka. Eureka according to Wikipedia has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” .


----------



## FeXL

Yeah, I ran across that a couple days back, thx.

Just scary what passes for science these days...


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> FeXL: Also please note the egregious massaging of data by NOAA and NASA recently exposed. Research stations have been closed by the dozens in cooler locales, with data "interpolated" from warmer stations nearby--where coincidentally, MORE stations have been established.
> 
> Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations – Telegraph Blogs


Yeah! NASA has been suspect since '69 when they staged the man on moon scam.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Yeah! NASA has been suspect since '69 when they staged the man on moon scam.


That was a long time ago when NASA was highly respected for its achievements.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> That was a long time ago when NASA was highly respected for its achievements.


No the beginning of the downward slide of giving any result for the funding as posted above.


----------



## MannyP Design

I don't know if anybody's posted this:

Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia?s climate doctor - FP Comment



> All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
> 
> The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.
> The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.


----------



## Macfury

I complained directly to Wikipedia about that guy. They told me that his special privileges as an editor had been revoked. However, he still has the right to rewrite articles as a regular public member of Wikipedia.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> No the beginning of the downward slide of giving any result for the funding as posted above.


So their egregious climate errors have resulted form lack of funding?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> So their egregious climate errors have resulted form lack of funding?


fascinating any other conspiracies to flash out


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> No the beginning of the downward slide of giving any result for the funding as posted above.


I didn't understand this comment to begin with.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> I didn't understand this comment to begin with.


I was a bit perplexed to the meaning of that statement as well. I read it to mean NASA was corrupted and produced whatever results got them money. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## BigDL

...did it again?....

...gt where are you, give us something, help us out will ya...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Hot off the press!! (As of December 5th, that is ... )

Himalayan Glaciers ... 

Somebody cocked up.

Looks like FeXL's blogger in the Telegraph cottoned on a bit late?

What riles me and get my underpants in a wad is how these bloggy boys take so long to root these truffles out of the leafmold.


----------



## CubaMark

Huh. Who knew that the earth had a carbon deficit?

*Solar system 'on fire' burned up Earth's carbon*



> FIRE sweeping through the inner solar system may have scorched away much of the carbon from Earth and the other inner planets.
> 
> 
> 
> Though our planet supports carbon-based life, it has a mysterious carbon deficit. The element is thousands of times more abundant in comets in the outer solar system than on Earth, relative to the amount of silicon each body contains. The sun is similarly rich in carbon. "There really wasn't that much carbon that made it onto Earth compared to what was available," says Edwin Bergin of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.


(NewScientist)


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

CubaMark said:


> Huh. Who knew that the earth had a carbon deficit?


Does that mean we're all going to be OK now?


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Does that mean we're all going to be OK now?


At last the truth can be told...! I've found it difficult to keep this to myself.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> At last the truth can be told...! I've found it difficult to keep this to myself.


Trying to corner the market in a depleted resource, eh? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

I've got sacks full of the stuff in the garage!


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Diamonds!

I'll put it about - I know some, shall we say, 'collectors'.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

NASA - NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


----------



## SINC

UN climate report: Scientist warned glacier forecast was wrong

Thermometer manipulation skews climate-change debate: skeptics


----------



## Dr.G.

MazterCBlazter said:


> NASA - NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years


Not good news, MCB. One wonders what the next decade will be like? We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Dr.G. said:


> Not good news, MCB. One wonders what the next decade will be like? We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


Vines may yet return to Newfoundland.


----------



## Dr.G.

MazterCBlazter said:


> Vines may yet return to Newfoundland.


More likely a glacial sheet a mile thick.  Well, maybe not that in 10 years. We shall see.


----------



## FeXL

Linky



> The planet has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide.
> 
> The amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth's atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8°F -- well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time span.


The summary paragraph echoes my observations from a post earlier on about just how much is mankind actually able to effect change.


----------



## MacDoc

Why not post the entire article instead of your misconceptions about it.

Summary - GHG is warming the planet from our fossil emissions
Aerosols from our emissions are masking some of the warming.
None of this is new
Aerosol evaluation is difficult as it can be both a positive driver or a negative driver.

*Do you really thnk the scientists involved support your nonsense..?
*



> Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
> January 19, 2010
> 
> (PhysOrg.com) -- Planet Earth has warmed much less than expected during the industrial era based on current best estimates of Earth's "climate sensitivity" -- the amount of global temperature increase expected in response to a given rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2). In a study to be published in the Journal of Climate, a publication of the American Meteorological Society, Stephen Schwartz, of Brookhaven National Laboratory, and colleagues examine the reasons for this discrepancy.
> 
> According to current best estimates of climate sensitivity, the amount of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases added to Earth’s atmosphere since humanity began burning fossil fuels on a significant scale during the industrial period would be expected to result in a mean global temperature rise of 3.8°F—well more than the 1.4°F increase that has been observed for this time span. Schwartz’s analysis attributes the reasons for this discrepancy to a possible mix of two major factors:
> 1) Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to rising greenhouse gases than currently assumed and/or
> 2) reflection of sunlight by haze particles in the atmosphere may be offsetting some of the expected warming.
> “Because of present uncertainties in climate sensitivity and the enhanced reflectivity of haze particles,” said Schwartz, “it is impossible to accurately assign weights to the relative contributions of these two factors. This has major implications for understanding of Earth’s climate and how the world will meet its future energy needs.”
> A third possible reason for the lower-than-expected increase of Earth’s temperature over the industrial period is the slow response of temperature to the warming influence of heat-trapping gases. “This is much like the lag time you experience when heating a pot of water on a stove,” said Schwartz. Based on calculations using measurements of the increase in ocean heat content over the past fifty years, however, this present study found the role of so-called thermal lag to be minor.
> A key question facing policymakers is *how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects. *
> 
> *The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth’s climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.*
> 
> The authors emphasize the need to quantify the influences of haze particles to narrow the uncertainty in Earth’s climate sensitivity. This is much more difficult than quantifying the influences of the heat-trapping gases. Coauthor Robert Charlson of the University of Washington likens the focus on the heat trapping gases to “looking for the lost key under the lamppost.”
> Schwartz observes that formulating energy policy with the present uncertainty in climate sensitivity is like navigating a large ship in perilous waters without charts.* “We know we have to change the course of this ship, and we know the direction of the change, but we don't know how much we need to change the course or how soon we have to do it.”*
> Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.
> The early online release of the paper is available at AMS’s journals online site.
> Provided by Brookhaven National Laboratory (news : web)


http://www.physorg.com/news183142998.htm

our range of action is 

*a) we have already exceeded the 3.6 degree threshold

to

b) we have 35 years to alter the $7 trillion fossil fuel addiction to avoid serious consequences.*

Given the pace of change by the likes of idiots like Harper - even the 35 years generous buffer scenario seems to be _unobtanium_.

At least for once you posted some science...even if it did not show what you wanted.


----------



## FeXL

*Hypocrisy, thy name is MacDoc.*

Ya know MacDoc, there's probably a dozen different ways to address your mealy mouthed bullsh!t and this morning I'm just not feeling too charitable.

You sit there on your ivory tower and look down your nose at the rest of us, avataring off about the planet being on slow boil, filling your mini van with fuel the transportation thereof that makes the oilsands look like a pool of crystal clear spring water and pumping tons of pollution into the atmosphere on trips to Africa. (I could go on...)

Either you believe it, live it and actually possess a modicum of credibility or spew vitriol from the comfort of the sands of said continent, half the world away and possess no credibility whatsoever.

But, hey, maybe the Bullfrog will take care of all that. Besides, you've got LED lights in your office. That'll show 'em!

When feeding time comes you hit the dirt, slurp up the warmist kool-aid like it was the nectar of the gods and never once lift your eyes above the horizon from your prostrate position to see the train wreck named Climategate flying towards you at breakneck speed.

You quote, highlight and bold passages which echo nearly word for word points that I've made in the not too recent past in this very thread. I'd suggest you look for them but I realize that you're just far too busy solving the world's AGW problems from where? Ah, yes, South Africa. Kinda like all the problems that were solved by the carbon footprint that Hopenchangen left.

Frankly, I don't care who supports my point of view (not really a my dad's bigger than your dad kinda guy, always been able to stand on my own) but, interestingly enough, there appear to be one or two scientists who never did drink the kool-aid or have since stopped and now that their vision has clarified they have, in fact, seen the light. Funny how the taint of BS acts just like smelling salts...

Your side of the argument is backed by quality researchers like the wonderful scientists from the world class IPCC who never bothered to verify the source of the disappearing Himalayan glaciers and you question whether scientists support my "nonsense"? <snort> Just the kind of people I'd want on my six...

You admonish me for not posting complete articles when, in fact, I don't believe I need to spoon feed anybody. For the most part (barring a very few notable exceptions) people on these boards actually have the ability to click on a link and discover for themselves. 

I wasn't hiding anything. I agree with much of the article. You'd never see that, though, what with your blinkered bloodshot eyes, throbbing pulse and rising blood pressure.

Of course aerosol evaluation is difficult, you silly, especially when the numbers don't support your argument. That's why, in the face of record winters "Global Warming" suddenly became "Climate Change". You are correct in one thing: None of this is new.

I also laugh at your summary. If you actually go back and read the parts you bolded in the original article, you will see there are far too many "ifs" noted to reach any kind of concrete solution like the shortsighted one you arrived at.

Kind of like the old saw: If the rabbit hadn't stopped to go to the bathroom, he woulda beat the turtle...

I'm tired of reading your hypocritical blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Enjoy your mai tai's & Yahtzee, MacDoc. I wouldn't bother hiding beneath the brim of your hat & guiltily ducking at YYZ when you arrive back home. Nobody will recognize you in that tan.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

_Last edited by FeXL; Yesterday at 07:42 PM. Reason: spelling_

Phew!

I'm glad you spotted it!


----------



## groovetube

typical denier crap. Unless you live in a cave burning cow dung for fuel and dance around fires donning goat leggings, you couldn't possibly have any credibility.

Usual thing when backed into a corner.


----------



## MacDoc

Nice rant Fxl - no content tho and what there is is wrong.

But you keep your head buried just the same.

Aerosol cooling is nothing new - if you knew some climate science you'd know that. Try _global dimming_ in wiki - circa 1970.
Quantifying it IS difficult, that has been known and focus of research for several years now - as the article mentions GHG is easy in comparison -* have you even got that far ....admit there is a problem as Exxon has done???*
It is important to narrow the range so that carbon reduction plans can be seen to meet the goals set.
Will they meet those goal??s....not likely given the likes of you and " What? me worry? Harper.

I offset my flight carbon cost.....I'm careful - there are good certified projects amongst the many scams out there. I don't support cap and trade as it's a recipe for scamming. I do support a carbon tax which has worked well for two decades in Norway and Sweden.

My power for business/home is carbon neutral courtesy Bullfrog so I don't mind running my hot tub all winter. If you cared to look at my signature you might know that.
The van sits parked 9 months of year except for business runs a couple times a month. When you come across a hybrid van be sure to let me know 
My transport here is bicycle.
The next biz vehicle I'm intending to buy will be either full EV or PHEV and yes I support nuclear power as a major step in the correct direction of eliminating use of carbon based fossil fuel.

No need for me to duck ... you want a pissing contest??....there you go.

I fully expect a couple decades out, all the luxuries we have now including travel in a society with a much lower collective carbon footprint.
Sweden is committed to carbon neutral as a nation by 2050 and Norway not far behind...France already uses 40% of the carbon per person Canadians do. 
There is reason we've set the world record for Dino of the Day at back to back climate summits.
Our national leadership is shameful in this regard....at least some provinces are getting on with it.

So shove your accusations and puerile attempts at shaming where the sun don't shine  oh yeah you're already dwelling there aren't you....it's about as ineffective as your denier campaign...even the fossil fuel companies have moved on, or did you not get the memo?



> *Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate*
> 
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
> Published: April 23, 2009
> Editors' Note Appended
> 
> For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html

and

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html

Try some climate science for your obvious dyspepsia... makes the world less mysterious than it appears you are afflicted with given your disgruntled and out of touch rant....

••

Just so you get your facts straight...something that seems to easily elude you.

I'm not at a resort - I'm at a working farm that has guest houses - 
Longacres
and they don't serve anything except fresh peaches from time to time
Most of my food here is grown locally and I get it from the farmers market each Saturday.









that was about 3 hours ago and one of her chicken pies was lunch.

My intention is to be living here for 3-4 months each year and running the business online with staff at home.
I'm hoping the next flight will be on the Boeing Dreamliner a it is far more fuel efficient and will offer a direct flight...and yes I will offset it.

We CAN have all of the conveniences and exchange of people and cultures and we can do it carbon neutral - just takes will and effort and costs a bit more than using the atmosphere as a free sewer as the oil and coal companies and some here think is their right.


----------



## Vandave

Canada is the second coldest country on the planet, with low population density and still have a resource based industry. It is far more challenging for us to reduce our energy consumption than it is for European countries.


----------



## Macfury

I tune in here after along absence and the hypocritical GHG king is excusing his trips to South Africa on the Co2 Express once again? I don't think we need a better posterboy for Global Warming hypocrisy. Living in the shadow of the Niagara peninusla on environmentally sensitive land, in a sprawling subdivision poorly served by transit. 

Has he hit all the keynotes in this address from South Africa?

1. Norway.
2. The notion that oil companies agree with global warming claptrap, just because they've found a way to shake down their customers.
3, He "offset" his polluting flight (next time go by sailboat) instead of not flying at all..
4. He believes "the science" although it is "difficult to quantify." Yeah there is that little problem with quantification. I hear the boys at Hadley were having trouble with that as well. NASA and NOAA too it seems. But why trouble oneself with such picayune problems as, oh, input data?

Keep it up Maccy D. In light of the failure of Copenhagen and the worldwide collapse of support for GHG nonsense your angry blustering and flailing is looking pretty sweet!


----------



## groovetube

worldwide collapse?

Draaaaaama queeeeen....


----------



## Vandave

groovetube said:


> worldwide collapse?
> 
> Draaaaaama queeeeen....


Support is dropping because something stinks and it isn't aerosols.


----------



## Vandave

MF, if you can afford it, then you too can buy yourself a holier than thou attitude. Al Gore is part of the club and so he gets a pass on his millions of airliner miles and heating of a giant mansion. 

It isn't really different than what the Catholic Church used to do. You just head over to the priest, tell him your sins and you can be exonerated by god by only paying a penance to the church.


----------



## eMacMan

I started out a believer in man made, my main reasoning being that if Barf Limburger and scientist for sale Fred Singer said it was a hoax it had to be real. However I have to admit that I reversed my position on made-made global warming a couple of years ago. 

As I searched the net I discovered that all supporting evidence seemed to come from one source, had no external peer review, the raw data was never available nor were the computer models made available for review. 

When I did find clearly laid out research it came from multiple sources, it was usually peer reviewed and more importantly the scientists involved were willing to make their data and models available to those that wanted to do reviews. Unfortunately it all pointed to Man made global warming as being a hoax.

However checking into Al Gore's personal lifestyle was the final nail. When someone consumes electrical power at 22x the national average in just one of his 5 homes, then buys offset credits from himself, that is a very good indicator that he does not believe. Couple that with the multi-millions he has already made and the billions he hopes to make, pedaling carbon credits and it becomes very obvious that the front line evangelist speaks only in the hopes of profiting at our expense.

Is the globe warming. Yes been doing so with a few anomalies for about 12,000 years. Has it been warming faster over the past 50 years, no even though the late 50s and 60s were actually abnormally cool.

Are glaciers receding yes. Many Canadians live in areas that were under a mile of ice and snow 12,000 years ago. The glaciers of the 20th century were just tiny remnants of the originals and some but not all of those remnants do continue to recede. However they recede as part of the natural cycle not because man may have pushed the total atmospheric content of CO2 from .038% to .0383%. 

Is the climate so fragile that the slightest change in CO2 will put it into a death spiral. NO otherwise every volcanic eruption, every big forest fire or every period of extreme solar activity would have caused exactly the catastrophic failure that Al Gore and his gangster buddies promise and we would be so well adapted that there would be no need to panic.


----------



## CubaMark

*Scientist Discusses Latest Report of Rising Global Temperatures*





> A new NASA report says the past decade was the warmest ever on Earth, at least since modern temperature measurements began in 1880. The study analyzed global surface temperatures and also found that 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, again since modern temperature measurements began. Last year was only a small fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest yet, putting 2009 in a virtual tie with the other hottest years, which have all occurred since 1998. This annual surface temperature study is one that always generates considerable interest — and some controversy. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) offered some context on this latest report, in an interview with the NASA Earth Science News Team.


(Read on at Universe Today)


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


> *Scientist Discusses Latest Report of Rising Global Temperatures*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Read on at Universe Today)


How do you go from claiming the past decade was the warmest *ever *on Earth, when you then admit you're only looking at temperature measurements beginning in 1880. Talk about your "young earth" science.


----------



## SINC

MacGuiver said:


> How do you go from claiming the past decade was the warmest *ever *on Earth, when you then admit you're only looking at temperature measurements beginning in 1880. Talk about your "young earth" science.


Not to worry, it is but one more way to try and instill fear in the general populace and drive them towards spending millions on so-called fixes to these fabrications. Their support is slowly eroding as people wake up to the scam that is AGW and the money making scheme behind it.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

MacGuiver said:


> How do you go from claiming the past decade was the warmest *ever *on Earth, when you then admit you're only looking at temperature measurements beginning in 1880. Talk about your "young earth" science.


Who said "ever"?

Time fer a lynchin' on that one!


----------



## groovetube

Vandave said:


> Support is dropping because something stinks and it isn't aerosols.


support may be slipping particularly because of the alleged scandal regarding the emails (which I think that story is far form over...)

But "collapsing", definitely drama queen stuff.


----------



## Macfury

I love the NASA claims, especially in light of the recent discovery that they've been "extrapolating" more and more data after closing cliamte stations in the coolest parts of the world and those at higher elevations, while over-representing stations in warmer parts of the continent. So much of the data is now extrapolated--with a built-in warm bias--that it merely says what the researchers want it to, or need to believe it says.


----------



## Vandave

eMacMan, like you I initially believed in anthropogenic global warming. As somebody with a scientific background, I have a lot of respect for scientists and research. However, the more I looked into climate science, the more I could see that politics had tainted the science. Science is about debate and allowing ideas to be challenged. This is certainly not the case with climate science, especially when Al Gore says the debate is settled. 

Science is about publishing results and providing others with raw data. Why then has is been so difficult for sceptics to obtain raw information? 

With climate science we are seeing all sorts of researchers jump into the field, although the are not experts in the underlying science. For example, we have all sorts of biologists studying what would happen to should the climate warm (e.g. arctic fox populations). But this has nothing to do with understanding of climate science. When I see such people sign petitions to the government, it makes me sceptical and suspicious of their motives. They are using their credentials to push a theory for which they are not experts in. That's not very professional. As an engineer, I would lose my license if I endorsed a bridge design without being an expert in that subfield. 

When I see computer models being pushed as science as opposed to applied science, I become suspicious. A computer model predicting the future is not a scientific proof. It's a tool for prediction, and one that has not performed well to date. Likewise, calibrating a computer model to past observations (which are debated) is again not science. You can tweak a finite element model to match anything, at least in my experience.


----------



## Macfury

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference



> Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA.
> 
> In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.
> 
> The report reveals that there were no actual temperatures left in the computer database
> when NASA/NCDC proclaimed 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." The NCDC deleted actual temperatures at thousands of locations throughout the world as it changed to a system of global grid points, each of which is determined by averaging the temperatures of two or more adjacent weather observation stations. So the NCDC grid map contains only averaged, not real temperatures, giving rise to significant doubt that the result is a valid representation of Earth temperatures.
> 
> The number of actual weather observation points used as a starting point for world average temperatures was reduced from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now. "That leaves much of the world unaccounted for," says D'Aleo.



NASA's James Hansen's weak response: The data was supplied by other agencies, so we're not responsible for the results.


----------



## Macfury

Vandave said:


> When I see computer models being pushed as science as opposed to applied science, I become suspicious. A computer model predicting the future is not a scientific proof. It's a tool for prediction, and one that has not performed well to date. Likewise, calibrating a computer model to past observations (which are debated) is again not science. You can tweak a finite element model to match anything, at least in my experience.


I was also worried about AGW at first, but now see it as any other effort to seek government funds and extend control over people's lives. The predictive computer models are just like the "14-day weather prediction" that swings dramatically from day to day. It's only a passive generation of predictions based on past data. A thought exercise with no practical value.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NASA's James Hansen's weak response: The data was supplied by other agencies, so we're not responsible for the results.


Yet another attempt at manipulation that will further erode public confidence.


----------



## Macfury

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

From Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen's "work" at NASA. It's tough when the data doesn't support "the truth."



> "As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research. I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made.”
> 
> “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.
> 
> "They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”


----------



## MazterCBlazter

MacDoc said:


> Nice rant Fxl - no content tho and what there is is wrong.
> 
> But you keep your head buried just the same.
> 
> Aerosol cooling is nothing new - if you knew some climate science you'd know that. Try _global dimming_ in wiki - circa 1970.
> Quantifying it IS difficult, that has been known and focus of research for several years now - as the article mentions GHG is easy in comparison -* have you even got that far ....admit there is a problem as Exxon has done???*
> It is important to narrow the range so that carbon reduction plans can be seen to meet the goals set.
> Will they meet those goal??s....not likely given the likes of you and " What? me worry? Harper.
> 
> I offset my flight carbon cost.....I'm careful - there are good certified projects amongst the many scams out there. I don't support cap and trade as it's a recipe for scamming. I do support a carbon tax which has worked well for two decades in Norway and Sweden.
> 
> My power for business/home is carbon neutral courtesy Bullfrog so I don't mind running my hot tub all winter. If you cared to look at my signature you might know that.
> The van sits parked 9 months of year except for business runs a couple times a month. When you come across a hybrid van be sure to let me know
> My transport here is bicycle.
> The next biz vehicle I'm intending to buy will be either full EV or PHEV and yes I support nuclear power as a major step in the correct direction of eliminating use of carbon based fossil fuel.
> 
> No need for me to duck ... you want a pissing contest??....there you go.
> 
> I fully expect a couple decades out, all the luxuries we have now including travel in a society with a much lower collective carbon footprint.
> Sweden is committed to carbon neutral as a nation by 2050 and Norway not far behind...France already uses 40% of the carbon per person Canadians do.
> There is reason we've set the world record for Dino of the Day at back to back climate summits.
> Our national leadership is shameful in this regard....at least some provinces are getting on with it.
> 
> So shove your accusations and puerile attempts at shaming where the sun don't shine  oh yeah you're already dwelling there aren't you....it's about as ineffective as your denier campaign...even the fossil fuel companies have moved on, or did you not get the memo?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html
> 
> Try some climate science for your obvious dyspepsia... makes the world less mysterious than it appears you are afflicted with given your disgruntled and out of touch rant....
> 
> ••
> 
> Just so you get your facts straight...something that seems to easily elude you.
> 
> I'm not at a resort - I'm at a working farm that has guest houses -
> Longacres
> and they don't serve anything except fresh peaches from time to time
> Most of my food here is grown locally and I get it from the farmers market each Saturday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that was about 3 hours ago and one of her chicken pies was lunch.
> 
> My intention is to be living here for 3-4 months each year and running the business online with staff at home.
> I'm hoping the next flight will be on the Boeing Dreamliner a it is far more fuel efficient and will offer a direct flight...and yes I will offset it.
> 
> We CAN have all of the conveniences and exchange of people and cultures and we can do it carbon neutral - just takes will and effort and costs a bit more than using the atmosphere as a free sewer as the oil and coal companies and some here think is their right.



See the center of the picture "fruit cakes"

Spoken like a bitter self-righteous put down artist. tptptptp

Whatever his views are, his hateful delivery of the message negates all credibility. Pay as little attention to him as possible and nothing he says seriously.

Post reported.


----------



## Macfury

MazterCBlazter, apparently you don't get it. He flew 12,000 miles so he could ride a bicycle and be green!


----------



## MazterCBlazter

Macfury said:


> MazterCBlazter, apparently you don't get it. He flew 12,000 miles so he could ride a bicycle and be green!


:lmao:


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> MazterCBlazter, apparently you don't get it. He flew 12,000 miles so he could ride a bicycle and be green!


As long as he gives all of last years, and half of this years profits to the great prophet Gore to purchase carbon offsets, I believe he can indulge himself without any sort of guilt.beejacon


----------



## ehMax

I read through a lot of this thread and quite frankly, a lot of members from both sides of the debate are arguing their points in a very childish manner. 

Come on people, let's have enjoyable discussions here and keep the tone and demeanour respectable.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

A welcome intervention, ehMax.


----------



## BigDL

eMacMan said:


> I started out a believer in man made, my main reasoning being that if Barf Limburger and scientist for sale Fred Singer *said it was a hoax it had to be real*.


A new and improved oxymoron the oxymoronist. Bigger, more compact, good and getting badder. 

You can't find a better oxymoron and if you order in the next 20 minutes, you know folks we can't do this all day as this is an unlimited offer.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc, some more people are leaving their "seat at the table."

Climate change: Chinese adviser calls for open mind on causes | Environment | guardian.co.uk



> China's most senior negotiator on climate change said today he was keeping an open mind on whether global warming was man-made or the result of natural cycles.
> 
> Xie Zhenhua said there was no doubt that warming was taking place, but more and better scientific research was needed to establish the causes.
> 
> Xie, Premier Wen Jiabao's special representative on climate change, was speaking in Delhi at the end of a two-day meeting of ministers from four of the most powerful emerging economies – China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
> 
> The four countries, known as the Basic group, called on rich nations to ensure that $10bn pledged to combat climate change was handed over before the end of the year. South Africa's environment minister accused the US of lagging behind at Copenhagen and said it had a moral obligation to take a lead on the issue.
> 
> The group pledged to pass on details of their own voluntary actions on the environment to the UN framework convention on climate change by 31 January.
> 
> Xie's comments caused consternation at the end of the post-meeting press conference, with his host, the Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, attempting to play down any suggestions of dissent over the science of climate change.
> 
> Ramesh refused to accept China had stepped out of line, although he conceded: "We still need more science to understand whether global warming is causing glacial melt or whether it is the natural cycles."


----------



## Vandave

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Read more: Glacier scientists says he knew data had not been verified | Mail Online


----------



## SINC

It takes some time to unravel a veil by pulling a single stitch, but the veil will be lifted a stitch at a time and the real story exposed on the true data being "tweaked" to suit warmists desires.


----------



## Macfury

VanDave: The head of the IPCC appears to be benefiting financially from the type of dire predictions he's been pushing.

Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief - Telegraph



> Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> VanDave: The head of the IPCC appears to be benefiting financially from the type of dire predictions he's been pushing.
> 
> Taxpayers' millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief - Telegraph


Follow the money. It's always about the money.


----------



## adagio

It's nice to see the so-called "consensus" being blown apart and for many folks the realization that the science isn't "settled". Many more scientists are coming out of hiding from their fear of being blacklisted. The Cimategate e-mails and the shenanigans they exposed have done the world a favour. I believe the next Nobel prize should go to the person who exposed the crime. All those in on the scam owe us an apology and belong in jail.

My wish for the coming year is this fraud will finally be blown right open and given the death knell it readily deserves. Then we can get on with doing something constructive and spend money on real pollution issues instead of making a bunch of fraudsters rich at our expense with carbon credit trades.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

SINC said:


> Follow the money. It's always about the money.


Always :greedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY


----------



## MazterCBlazter

adagio said:


> My wish for the coming year is this fraud will finally be blown right open and given the death knell it readily deserves. Then we can get on with doing something constructive and spend money on real pollution issues instead of making a bunch of fraudsters rich at our expense with carbon credit trades.


Exactly.

Carbon credits as a solution to the worlds problems. Completely out to lunch. It's just another way for the scammers of the world to create wealth out of thin air, keep the rich countries rich, and the poor countries poor and behind in development and technology.

There has even been talk of dumping large amounts of fertilizer over vast tracts of ocean to grow large amounts of algae to be able to make money off of carbon credits. Who knows what other crazy schemes someone will dream up to capitalize on this idea.

Pollution is the real problem, that and resource depletion and allocation. Major part of it can be alleviated by reducing the population instead of increasing it.


----------



## Macfury

Don't let the fact that these people are known frauds and liars who are benefiting financially from their predictions get in the way of the "science." As MacDoc says, if you don't play ball with them, you won't get a seat at the table:


----------



## Vandave

adagio said:


> Then we can get on with doing something constructive and spend money on real pollution issues instead of making a bunch of fraudsters rich at our expense with carbon credit trades.


I brought up Haiti prior to the earthquake on page 90. I questioned why Haiti was sending delegations for climate treaties. I said they clearly had far greater issues to worry about. Unfortunately, it turned out to be far worse than I would have imagined. 

Climate change is a rounding error when it comes to poverty. I can think of a 100 things where our money would be better spent than trading carbon.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Don't let the fact that these people are known frauds and liars who are benefiting financially from their predictions get in the way of the "science." As MacDoc says, if you don't play ball with them, you won't get a seat at the table:


after the probably the biggest gluttony of money, massacre, world domination stuff, posting an image like this in regards to people making money off carbon credits, is, breathtaking.


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> after the probably the biggest gluttony of money, massacre, world domination stuff, posting an image like this in regards to people making money off carbon credits, is, breathtaking.


?


----------



## MannyP Design

Macfury said:


> ?


He's a drummer... just nod and smile.


----------



## groovetube

did I dream about the oil company's wealth and greed?

Or are the pair of you going to now act like that never happened...


----------



## Macfury

MannyP Design said:


> He's a drummer... just nod and smile.


More cowbell.


----------



## groovetube

ok they will act like it never happened.


----------



## eMacMan

MazterCBlazter said:


> Pollution is the real problem, that and resource depletion and allocation. Major part of it can be alleviated by reducing the population instead of increasing it.


Ahh but carbon credits and taxes will help achieve that goal. We all know that The Great Gore will continue to consume at 22+ times the US national average. To accomplish the 50% reduction goal the various carbon penalties will have to be so severe that 40+ American families end up on ice floes.


----------



## Macfury

I'm not always a supporter of Stephen Harper, but am quite proud of him for standing up to this AGW nonsense on the international stage. Note that Obama is still keen on passing cap and trade while ignoring the evidence mounting around him. It was always about more government control.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> ok they will act like it never happened.


Denier, deny! That's what they do best


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> Denier, deny! That's what they do best


apparently. Even to the point where the MOST obvious, well known, biggest money grab in human history, is beyond comprehension?

Quite a thread. As I said, breathtaking...


----------



## Macfury

MannyP: I think he must be referring to the tax revenue the government collects on sales of oil and gas, since this exceeds oil company profits by many orders of magnitude.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> apparently. Even to the point where the MOST obvious, well known, biggest money grab in human history, is beyond comprehension?
> 
> Quite a thread. As I said, breathtaking...


That's why they have the superior big brains, they can see the MOST obvious containing the clarity of sprits.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> That's why they have the superior big brains, they can see the MOST obvious containing the clarity of sprits.


And the trolls continue to offer nothing more than their expertise in slinging crap.

Are you sure you're not a drummer too, BigDL? You're awfully repetitive.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> And the trolls continue to offer nothing more than their expertise in slinging crap.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a drummer too, BigDL? You're awfully repetitive.


Have three children so the rhythm umm, not so good. 

Think, think, think how to properly respond to conspiracy theories hummm! Any suggestions?


----------



## Macfury

MannyP: I love all of this talk of conspiracy theories. As if though this is what's supposed to be behind AGW nonsense.


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Have three children so the rhythm umm, not so good.
> 
> Think, think, think how to properly respond to conspiracy theories hummm! Any suggestions?


Put on a tin-foil hat and spin around in a circle for an hour?


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> Put on a tin-foil hat and spin around in a circle for an hour?


Is this a tried and true method with your official seal of approval?


----------



## CubaMark

*Economic growth 'cannot continue'*





> Continuing global economic growth "is not possible" if nations are to tackle climate change, a report by an environmental think-tank has warned.
> 
> The New Economics Foundation (Nef) said "unprecedented and probably impossible" carbon reductions would be needed to hold temperature rises below 2C (3.6F).
> 
> Scientists say exceeding this limit could lead to dangerous global warming.
> 
> "We urgently need to change our economy to live within its environmental budget," said Nef's policy director.


(BBC)


----------



## Macfury

The NEF is mistaken. First that humans are responsible for climate change. Second that all economic growth involves carbon. Sounds like a position that began with an anti-growth message and developed to support that premise.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> The NEF is mistaken. First that humans are responsible for climate change.


Phew! Thanks for shedding some light on that Macfury.

At last! The truth is out! :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design

BigDL said:


> Is this a tried and true method with your official seal of approval?


Only for those stupid enough to do it. Most sheeple tend to do it without question. :heybaby:


----------



## Macfury

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Phew! Thanks for shedding some light on that Macfury.
> 
> At last! The truth is out! :lmao:


Great Britain will probably go along with it all--look at all the construction jobs you can generate by knocking down buildings!

Cities face wrecking ball to meet carbon targets - Times Online


----------



## Macfury

Concern about global warming falls dead last in list of U.S. public priorities.

Public's Priorities for 2010: Economy, Jobs, Terrorism: Summary of Findings - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.



> Global Warming and the Environment
> 
> Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey. Since 2007, when the item was first included on the priorities list, dealing with global warming has consistently ranked at or near the bottom. Even so, the percentage that now says addressing global warming should be a top priority has fallen 10 points from 2007, when 38% considered it a top priority. Such a low ranking is driven in part by indifference among Republicans: just 11% consider global warming a top priority, compared with 43% of Democrats and 25% of independents.
> 
> Protecting the environment fares somewhat better than dealing with global warming on the public’s list of priorities, though it still falls on the lower half of the list overall. Some 44% say that protecting the environment should be a top priority for Obama and Congress, little changed from 2009.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> And the trolls continue to offer nothing more than their expertise in slinging crap.
> 
> Are you sure you're not a drummer too, BigDL? You're awfully repetitive.


that's pretty childish Manny. Seriously. If all you can do is respond with drummer boy slags, you might reconsider the the troll thing.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

Macfury said:


> Sounds like a position that began with an anti-growth message and developed to support that premise.


Endless cycles of growth followed by collapse - the vision of the future. But that's fine as long as you can buy a mango when you want one! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

I bought a mango the other day, and it was so ripe it collapsed.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> that's pretty childish Manny. Seriously. If all you can do is respond with drummer boy slags, you might reconsider the the troll thing.


 Are you kidding? Really? After all the jabs you and BigDL have dished out in this thread, NOW you get overly-sensitive?

Fine.

I'm sorry for making a drummer slag. I didn't realize you would feel so offended over a silly comment given the nature of this thread. It was my mistake for offering tit for a tat.


----------



## SINC

Yeah Manny, be careful. Also note that it is OK to slag newspaper experience as well, but drummers are off the list.


----------



## MannyP Design

SINC said:


> Yeah Manny, be careful. Also note that it is OK to slag newspaper experience as well, but drummers are off the list.


I didn't realize he was taking this thread seriously.


----------



## BigDL

MannyP Design said:


> Are you kidding? Really? After all the jabs you and BigDL have dished out in this thread, NOW you get overly-sensitive?
> 
> Fine.
> 
> I'm sorry for making a drummer slag. I didn't realize you would feel so offended over a silly comment given the nature of this thread. It was my mistake for offering tit for a tat.


Come on now drummers don't deserve that zenith. Pick on me if you like, but leave the drummers alone.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Yeah Manny, be careful. Also note that it is OK to slag newspaper experience as well, but drummers are off the list.


let me know when and -if-, I ever refer to you as 'newspaper boy' in a derogatory fashion. Let's keep above the IQ of a 5 year old k?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> let me know when and -if-, I ever refer to you as 'newspaper boy' in a derogatory fashion. Let's keep above the IQ of a 5 year old k?


Be glad to let you know. Here's one:



groovetube said:


> is this another story how you have 90 years experience in the news business so no one's opinion matters?


And there's a lot more. Want me to drag them up for you?

Now who's IQ are you talking about?


----------



## MacGuiver

SINC said:


> Be glad to let you know. Here's one:
> 
> 
> 
> And there's a lot more. Want me to drag them up for you?
> 
> Now who's IQ are you talking about?


LOL

I Love when he denies his many insults in one breath only to insult you in the next.


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> LOL
> 
> I Love when he denies his many insults in one breath only to insult you in the next.


"I can't see that comment. It's not there. Round and round she goes! ROFLMAO."


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Be glad to let you know. Here's one:
> 
> 
> 
> And there's a lot more. Want me to drag them up for you?
> 
> Now who's IQ are you talking about?


Sinc. It's very simple. You bragged endlessly about how much experience you had, and how that trumped anyone's opinion.

I called you on it. 

So if you can find where I childishly called you a "newspaper boy", go right ahead.

Now can we now, get past the childish stuff? Finally?


----------



## Macfury

groovetube said:


> Now can we now, get past the childish stuff? Finally?


How about you get in one more childish dig before calling it off?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> LOL
> 
> I Love when he denies his many insults in one breath only to insult you in the next.


many insults? 

I'd say it's about even with the others here. If anyone thinks it's more, go over what you post.

I'd say "drummer boy", is about as childish as it gets.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> How about you get in one more childish dig before calling it off?


how about not macfury. When someone starts getting real personal beyond calling someone on a post, it's time to call it a day.


----------



## MacGuiver

Macfury said:


> How about you get in one more childish dig before calling it off?


Its sorta like tourrettes I think. He can't help it.


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> How about you get in one more childish dig before calling it off?


No need to encourage him MF, he's perfectly capable of doing that. To himself most times. Although he may have been a goalie in another life, given the talent at deflections.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Its sorta like tourrettes I think. He can't help it.


drummer boy, tourrettes...

it gets better! Got any more insults macguiver?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> drummer boy, tourrettes...
> 
> it gets better! Got any more insults macguiver?


No, that'll do.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer

So, we're all agreed about things then? :lmao:

Get a grip, for crying out loud.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> this is an internet forum manny (duh). It's really, not that serious. You make a dumb statement, and I make fun of it. So what.


My how things change. :lmao:


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> My how things change. :lmao:


the forum seemed serious enough, that when someone debates your post you gotta get real personal eh Manny?

It's real simple. Can the derogatory drummer boy stuff. Got it?

Good.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> the forum seemed serious enough, that when someone debates your post you gotta get real personal eh Manny?
> 
> It's real simple. Can the drummer boy stuff. Got it?
> 
> Good.


Cheese 'n crackers, you've dished out your own fair share of personal jabs--some thinly veiled, others flat-out insulting--and your participation in this thread has been nothing short of sarcastic and irreverent.

And you cry foul when it's dished right back at you?

Come on… are you really going to get all in a huff about the drummer thing? Some of my best friends are drummers. It's true. Not that there's anything wrong with it. Heck, it's not like I'm saying you're a _bad_ drummer... you could be a very good drummer for all I know.


----------



## groovetube

if you want to be sarcastic back, go nuts. Banter over the posts is one thing, but leave my personal life not in my posts out and don't use it as a derogatory slam thank you. 

Do I need to post this another 20 times?


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> if you want to be sarcastic back, go nuts. Banter over the posts is one thing, but leave my personal life not in my posts out and don't use it as a derogatory slam thank you.
> 
> Do I need to post this another 20 times?


So calling someone stupid is okay? Just want to clarify.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> if you want to be sarcastic back, go nuts. Banter over the posts is one thing, but leave my personal life not in my posts out and don't use it as a derogatory slam thank you.
> 
> Do I need to post this another 20 times?


And as a reminder making fun of my personal life seems to be fair play to you and you should know that what you do is one and the same as what you get in return.

If you can't take it, don't dish it.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> And as a reminder making fun of my personal life seems to be fair play to you and you should know that what you do is one and the same as what you get in return.
> 
> If you can't take it, don't dish it.


for the SECOND... time Sinc. You seemed to enjoy slamming us with how much experience you had, on a continual basis, so, I responded to it. If you don't like it, don't bring it up.

If you can't see the difference, give it up.

Man. Only on a forum could this kind of miscommunication happen. It's rather like telephone. Face to face, this conversation would take 5 minutes. And it'd be clear. Real clear.


----------



## Macfury

Well you see SINC, when you described your newspaper experience, you were "slamming" people so you got what you deserved.


----------



## groovetube

well, if you can show me where I referred to being a newspaper man as being a moron...

let me know.

start searching...


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> for the SECOND... time Sinc. You seemed to enjoy slamming us with how much experience you had, on a continual basis, so, I responded to it. If you don't like it, don't bring it up.
> 
> If you can't see the difference, give it up.
> 
> Man. Only on a forum could this kind of miscommunication happen. It's rather like telephone. Face to face, this conversation would take 5 minutes. And it'd be clear. Real clear.


I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. You never will get it.


----------



## Dr.G.

Is this thread still about GHG and the threats to the environmnent due to global warming????


----------



## MannyP Design

Dr.G. said:


> Is this thread still about GHG and the threats to the environmnent due to global warming????


Lord, no. But there is a lot of hot air involved.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. You never will get it.


oh I certainly didn't expect one...


I guess you don't see the difference between using someone's profession to refer to them as a moron, and calling someone out for constantly bragging about all their experience.Because that would be admitting you crossed the line. AndI bet, you'll never do it.

Sorry dr. G, but the bunch of them don't get it, that that isn't acceptable, and they're falling over themselves to try and justify it. They crossed the line.

I'd be banned in a new york minute if I did that to any of them. They'd screech to holy heaven. So I'm laughing at their nonsense. Funny enough, only my 'foes' here are yelling...


----------



## MannyP Design

You're right. It's SOOO much worse than flat-out calling them stupid. :lmao:

Yer "foes" may be yelling, but there's only one person here wailing.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> You're right. It's SOOO much worse than flat-out calling them stupid. :lmao:
> 
> Yer "foes" may be yelling, but there's only one person here wailing.


no manny, it's the same thing. Now it's taken 3 pages on nonsense to get this across. I may be sarcastic in regards to what you post, etc. but you won't see me take your graphic design profession, and slam it over your head to refer to you as a moron. You crossed the line, pure and simple.

Now, either own up to it, or, be a jerk. You pick.

Like I said, if I had of done something that to any of you in that fashion, I'd have been banned, or the ensuing screaming would have been deafening.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> no manny, it's the same thing. Now it's taken 3 pages on nonsense to get this across. I may be sarcastic in regards to what you post, etc. but you won't see me take your graphic design profession, and slam it over your head to refer to you as a moron. You crossed the line, pure and simple.
> 
> Now, either own up to it, or, be a jerk. You pick.
> 
> Like I said, if I had of done something that to any of you in that fashion, I'd have been banned, or the ensuing screaming would have been deafening.


Clearly, _you_ still don't get it. There was a line crossed quite a few pages ago but it seems you think you're not accountable for your actions, just others.

For the record, I've been the recipient of some pretty nasty and quite personal remarks on this board--far more personal than poking fun at drummers--and I neither screamed nor screeched for their banning.

I'll own up to one thing: Getting in a huff over a comment about drummers being repetitive is not exactly an attack when it's not even directed at you. It's not even in the same area code.

If you want to continue, go for it. Heck, if you want to throw designer jokes at me--I'm game. I don't have a big ego that I can't laugh at myself/interest/career.

It's not like it's a _religion_.

Q: How do you get a web designer off of your front porch?
A: Pay for your pizza!

Q: What’s the difference between a designer and a hooker?
A: A hooker doesn’t try to find a way for a job to take longer.

Q: How many designers does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Ten. One to change it, and nine to reassure him about how good it looks.​
There, I'm done.


----------



## groovetube

Far more personal than being referred to AS A MORON? 

Right Manny.

No Manny, YOU don't get it. I don't give a rats behind what you think. I don't care if you like being insulted.

I didn't ask for a banning. READ WHAT I POSTED.

I took offence to it, pages ago, and that's the end of the storey. Justify it all you like, that's the end of the line. I won't let you get away with it, and I will hold my ground on it for the next 50 pages if necessary, to show you were a class A jerk.

Despite veiled jabs here, everyone reserves the right to call it on crossing the line. How many times, have I seen Sinc go ballistic, and demand an apology?

I haven't even asked, or demanded anything. Other than, you have crossed the line, now move on. But don't bother justifying it.

Now give it up.


----------



## MannyP Design




----------



## Dr.G.

MannyP Design said:


> Lord, no. But there is a lot of hot air involved.


All too true, MannyP. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## mrjimmy

Man, I can barely see for all the slung 'mud' in here. This thread has gone beyond derailed.

Choo Choo


----------



## groovetube

Yes Manny, you are, truly, a class A jerk.


----------



## Dr.G.

mrjimmy said:


> Man, I can barely see for all the slung 'mud' in here. This thread has gone beyond derailed.
> 
> Choo Choo


Again, all too true, mrj. Personally, I believe in the reality of global warming, caused in part by humans (e.g., cars, industry, etc) and in part by natural causes (e.g., lightening starting off forest first), but I do NOT believe in the trading of carbon credits as the solution. 

I don't see why there is a need for the thread to get off of the rails with back and forth "mud slinging" as you describe. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> Yes Manny, you are, truly, a class A jerk.


PM sent.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Again, all too true, mrj. Personally, I believe in the reality of global warming, caused in part by humans (e.g., cars, industry, etc) and in part by natural causes (e.g., lightening starting off forest first), but I do NOT believe in the trading of carbon credits as the solution.
> 
> I don't see why there is a need for the thread to get off of the rails with back and forth "mud slinging" as you describe. Paix, mon ami.


as I said dr. G, someone went too far, and I called them on it. I don't appreciate the huge insult. And they decided to spend pages justifying it. I reserve the right to call it when someone goes to far, and I'll stand my ground on it.


----------



## groovetube

MannyP Design said:


> PM sent.


oooh. so after calling me an outright moron, and laughing in my face about it, now, you want to complain because I called you a jerk for it.


----------



## MannyP Design

groovetube said:


> oooh. so after calling me an outright moron, and laughing in my face about it, now, you want to complain because I called you a jerk for it.


Not at all. I can repost it here for all to see if you'd like.

Or you can do it. 

For the record--for those just tuning in--this is the comment that GT called a "huge insult":

_Are you sure you're not a drummer too, BigDL? You're awfully repetitive._​


----------



## groovetube

I said it was a huge insult, and it is. Now back off.


----------



## ehMax

This thread has derailed big time. I'm going to _temporarily_ close it down. I've got a lot on my plate today and don't have time to sort out who started what and who called what first. 

All parties involved in the mud slinging, stop. Don't let it spill over to other threads.


----------

