Lister Engine Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: t19 on November 25, 2009, 03:27:08 AM

Title: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 25, 2009, 03:27:08 AM
Breaking news is that leading Climate experts worked together to put forward a myth of man made climate change


Some of the other ALLEGED issues raised by the ALLEGED documents ALLEGEDLY include

ALLEGED efforts to get sceptical academics removed from post.
ALLEGED efforts to stop critical journals getting published
ALLEGED admissions that there is a static/cooling trend that ALLEGEDLY can't be explained by the current models – amusingly, that's ALLEGEDLY a problem with the data, not the models....ALLEGEDLY, it's a travesty!
ALLEGED breaches of Freedom of Information legislation.
ALLEGED attempts to get another BBC journalist to bring Paul to task for writing the “whatever happened to Global Warming” piece...
ALLEGED discussions about changing the Sea Surface temperature record to make an unfortunate warm even in the 1940s go away.

Amidst other stuff.....

Guys I am shocked I tell you... shocked
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 25, 2009, 03:29:05 AM
BBC is calling it a fraud.  Washington post is saying a hacker got in to thier emails and harvested the damning data... so will Al Gore return his Nobel??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on November 25, 2009, 04:07:47 AM
My understanding of this is that the CRU (climate research unit) at Anglian college (sp?) has confirmed that the e-mails in question are genuine. & that they also include tips  on how to hide the fact that global warming is a hoax & how to dispose of ( read that as destroy ) the relevent information so it couldnot be released thru the freedom of information act.
Our press here in the states seems only interested in finding & punishing the hacker ala "joe the plumber" & is almost totaly ignoring the facts that have come to  light since the release of the information.
I find it interesting that they could have cared less who the hacker was that infiltrated Sara Palin's e-mail account, but feel this person must be found/punished.
President Obama, who stated he was not going to attend the Copenhagen global warming meeting later this month has changed his mind & will attend, I'm sure with the intention of forcing the legislation thru our congress, or perhaps with a Presidential decree.
It's amazing to me how liberal politicians believe that these sorts of lies & deceitful tactics are O.K. as long as their intentions are admirable. as long as they feel good about themselves when they are done, that's all that matters & to hell with the consequences for the rest of the population of the world!!

   Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 25, 2009, 04:17:08 AM
I've just ordered a book from our library called "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" by an author named Rudiman.   It's supposed to document climate change from 3000 BC to the present and link man's activities in relation to global temperature.

I've read before that during and after the black plague in Europe in the 13th century(?) or was it the 12th, (my memory that far back goes fuzzy)  so many farmers died and their land reverted back to forest, that there was a mini cold period for a couple of decades until all the trees got cut down again.

When I get the book and read it I'll report back here.  :-X
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on November 25, 2009, 04:53:25 AM
guys

Take a look at this

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

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 25, 2009, 03:46:02 PM
Sorry Bill.....I took a look at this nutcase and decided to take a quick minute to check out just one of his facts.  Professor Phil Jones (in the UK) has no recorded connection with the United Nations whatsoever anywhere that I could find on the internet.  Now when this guy says that he's the guy that provides all the reports for the United nations on climate change, you'd think there would be some mention of something this important on the internet.  Nothing, nada, nyet!

This is a simple method of determining the accuracy of anyone who publishes.

Methinks he's full of it, when one of your major facts is proven false, the rest are suspect.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: david s on November 25, 2009, 05:16:56 PM
hi stan if i remember right the mini iceage in the 12 /13 century has know been blamed on a volcano erupting, not that the field's where left fallow after the black death , please feel right to correct me , my minds a bit fuzzy to day
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mkdutchman on November 25, 2009, 05:25:39 PM
Sorry Bill.....I took a look at this nutcase and decided to take a quick minute to check out just one of his facts.  Professor Phil Jones (in the UK) has no recorded connection with the United Nations whatsoever anywhere that I could find on the internet.  Now when this guy says that he's the guy that provides all the reports for the United nations on climate change, you'd think there would be some mention of something this important on the internet.  Nothing, nada, nyet!

This is a simple method of determining the accuracy of anyone who publishes.

Methinks he's full of it, when one of your major facts is proven false, the rest are suspect.
Stan

Stan,
It looks like his work figured quite largely on the ipcc SPM (summary for policymaker) report....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the UN depended more than just a bit on the IPCC recommendations.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 25, 2009, 07:56:33 PM
Can't remember the title of the last UN report but I do remember reading there were over 3500 contributors.  He can't have had that much to do with it then?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 25, 2009, 10:50:51 PM
Can't remember the title of the last UN report but I do remember reading there were over 3500 contributors.  He can't have had that much to do with it then?
Stan
Stan, do some quick google searches... the Warmers of Climate-gate are  admitting the emails are good.  They fudged their numbers, they put extreme pressure on anyone who questioned them.. and it was two Canadians that they targeted as the worse targets because they were inconvenient in their criticism of human global warming.

Its all over, Carbon tax, Cap and trade, human global warming isa hoax.  Many of the 3500 have since said they did not sign on.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on November 25, 2009, 11:20:57 PM
Sorry Stan, Pine beetles not withstanding, global warming is a scam. I have said it for years, they want your money & control over your movements. If you can control peoples movement, you can control thier existance. We rich north americans have been raping the planet for nearly 300 years & they now want us to pay the rest of the world for our sins. If the liberals have to lie & scam to create a hoax to give themselves control & make them feel good about themselves, well, that's O.K.


  Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 26, 2009, 02:57:20 AM
 I dunno....whole bunch of people in the UK right in the middle of the worst flood in 1000 years, don't believe in coincidences myself.  Got to be a reason for everything, I've seen much of the West side of S. America just last year.  People everywhere are getting ready to move on out, the don't quite know where, but anywhere with water is just about right for them.  Go see it for yourself!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 26, 2009, 03:37:49 PM
Yes Stan, nobody is saying that the climate of the world does not change... only a fool would say that.  Romans use to grow grapes and make wine in the UK.  not today you cant grow grapes there.

But, to say that its us humans who are causeing all the problems and to fix it we have to do Carbon trading, and send Billions to Chinna to help it grow is BS.

BTW the true temparature numbers show the earth getting cooler over the past 10 years,  happens to parallel the lack of sun spots at the same time... thats not man made.

And the flooding, well that is part of the whole El Ninio thing, which is natural ... its why Ottawa might have a warmer winter this year, like in 1998... oh wait that gave us the ice storm and 3 weeks without hydro,,  better crank up the Roid !!!  We are going to have company lol
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 26, 2009, 07:49:52 PM
oh this is too funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 26, 2009, 08:25:43 PM
Oh this is good... when Scientists collide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anHuOAXIl0M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDyfNVUt08&NR=1
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 26, 2009, 09:33:29 PM
Andrew....A very good read about how the earth's climate has changed in the last few million years is Lovelocks, "Gaias Revenge".  He documents the "real reasons" why most life forms on earth really like cooler weather, and why we should be going into a new ice age like some have predicted.  He also shows why man's impact on our atmosphere (and that's what we are really talking about) is preventing that and why our atmosphere is very very near a "run-away feedback" event just like a diesel engine that starts sucking lube oil into the intake manifold, resulting in the ultimate destruction of our way of life.  A similar run away feedback loop happens in electronics when a transistor starts heating up and passes the point of no return.

After all, if you take a standard globe, like the kind sitting on your desk, and cover it with a piece of 20# printer paper, that's a good representation of how thick/thin our atmosphere really is.  It doesn't take much to figure out it's a very easy thing to screw up, especially by a smart animal like humans.

A very good read by a guy who has spent his life studying this stuff, unlike me (I've been too busy raising a family and trying to make a living)  ;)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 26, 2009, 09:45:05 PM
And what does he base his research on?  The failed tree ring predictions?  No one is saying climate does not change, it does, but when you have so called scientists who plot to corrupt the data, who adjust historical data so that it fits their model, how can you believe anything based on flawed research.  I am sure he is a wonderful man, but what does he base his research on, if its tied to any of these Warmers, he is using garbage data.

Dr Susuki and Al Gore are wrong, they have been duped by a group of Zelots
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 26, 2009, 11:13:31 PM
Actually he goes into a lot of depth on his history, and how he arrives at his conclusions, however he mostly points out a whole raft of different aspects of the subject and lets the reader come to their own conclusions.  He's an old dude and has been around the block many many times.   I'm sure the book is available at the library near you, at least it was at mine.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 27, 2009, 03:15:36 AM
Just read the story on the CBC website...."Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists".....It reminds me of the Department of Education here in BC a few years ago.  They took the regulations and changed one word,   " Students that are 2 or more years behind in Math or Reading skills, shall be eligible for student services funding". to " Students that are 2 or more years behind in Math and Reading skills, shall be eligible for student services funding".

Do you see the difference?   When pressed by the TV and Newspaper reporters the governement answered "we haven't cut funding to special needs students at all, it's just there are only 1/3 of the students requiring student services funding than there used to be".  Gross miss statement of the truth by just changing one little word in a huge document, they "saved" over 9 million dollars that year, by preventing 2/3 of the students who needed funding to keep them from failure for the rest of their school lives.

These hackers obviously had the goal of destroying the reputation of these researchers, and by just changing a few little words here and there, and leaving sentences out of the original emails, have again cast doubt (which is the sole goal of the "kept" scientists working for exxon etc.) on the whole subject of global warming. 
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 27, 2009, 04:42:16 AM
Interesting that the CBC is saying that, the Washington Times, the RT network, and the BBC have all reported that the College states that the hacked data is real, and accurate.

Would this be the article??

Quote
The hackers reportedly stole more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists, and posted about 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents on websites.

Skeptics of climate science have seized on the documents — at least some of which have been confirmed as authentic — as evidence that some scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to manipulate data.

But researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have dismissed the posting of documents as an attempt to derail discussions on dealing with global warming in advance of an upcoming global summit in Copenhagen.

Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the hackers were selective in choosing documents they believed could be used to make the scientists look bad.

or this from the guy that was out to break the law and not release data under the Fredom of Information Act, and worked to discrete through blackmail people who viewed his results as questionable?

Quote
In one leaked email, the East Anglia research centre's director Phil Jones wrote that he had just completed a "trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961" in order to "hide the decline," according to a leaked email, which the author confirmed was genuine.

But this has to be the best quote, were we have gone from human kind is killing the world to likely killing the world

Quote
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Reuters the communications posted online "in no way damages the credibility" of the panel's working group's 2007 findings that global warming is "very likely" caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

Yeah great investigative reporting about 4 days after the news broke. 
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 27, 2009, 04:49:03 AM
BTW, according to some intelligence reports from agencies with letters and numbers... it appears the Hack was an inside job, a release of information by someone fed up with the lies.... it would appear more information is soon to come.. this will make for an interesting conference...

Follow the money gentlemen... its the 3d wold pushing to get our guilt payments to spend on god knows what, but not the environment.

 Ian Plimer's book: Global Warming: The missing science. It is replete with scientific references disproving AGW
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 27, 2009, 03:11:22 PM
Sounds like a good read.  I'll go to the library today and see if it's in. 

I'm interested in what you think (not the Sarah Palins  ;D of the world) that the money for mitigating climate change is going for and who is benefitting from it economically?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 27, 2009, 08:13:30 PM
Maurice Strong, a Canadian who bankrupted Hydro One, and is a big friend of the USSR and China... oh yeah and has lots of friends at the UN... and hates the developed West.  Carbon trade was his brainstorm nearly 20 years ago...

Its all about the money, not the environment

Now, just so I am clear

I have no problem cleaning up our sewer systems, or getting rid of garbage dumps that pollute our drinking water... totally on board with that.  But I could never understand how the billions going to China and the third world was going to clean up Vancouver or Ottawa

Can someone tell me??
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on November 27, 2009, 09:44:01 PM
Sure Andrew, Your not going to have all that "dirty money" lying around anymore!! ;D ;D ;D


   Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 27, 2009, 11:57:22 PM
I agree with the idea of "follow the money".  I imagine that the groups with the most to lose/gain in this debate can be shown to be the ones who are richest and can afford to buy the most scientists and therefore sling the most BS.  I wonder if anyone can top the billions that Exxonmobile will lose if climate change really does pan out to be the fault of those burning petroleum products.  Now multiply that by;

•   Assam Oil Company Ltd. (ACL), India
•   Arabian Gulf Oil Company (AGOCO), Libya
•   Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), United Arab Emirates
•   AinMine Petroleum
•   Alon USA, United States
•   Amerada Hess Corporation, United States
•   Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, United States
•   Apache Corporation, United States
•   Arbusto Energy, United States
•   Atlantic Petroleum, Faroe Islands
•   BG Group, United Kingdom
•   Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, India
•   BHP Billiton, Australia
•   Buzachi Petroleum Operating, Kazakhstan
•   BP, United Kingdom
•   Cairn Energy, United Kingdom
•   Canadian Natural Resources, Canada
•   Chevron Corporation, United States
•   Chem-Energy Corporation,United States
•   Chief Oil and Gas, United States
•   Citgo, Venezuela
•   CNOOC Ltd., China
•   ConocoPhillips, United States
•   Cooper Energy, Australia
•   Cosmo Oil Company, Japan
•   Crown Central Petroleum, United States
•   Cupet, Cuba
•   Devon Energy, United States
•   Ecopetrol, Colombia
•   Edoardo Raffinerie Garrone, Italy
•   Enbridge, Canada
•   EnCana, Canada
•   Energopetrol, Bosnia
•   ENSCO International, United States
•   Eni, Italy
•   ENX, Switzerland
•   ENXRU, Russia
•   Essar oil ltd., India
•   Entreprise Tunisienne d'Activites Petroliere (ETAP), Tunisia
•   Eser Corporation, United States
•   First Texas Energy Corporation, United States
•   Galp Energia, Portugal
•   Petronet LNG Limited, India
•   Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd., India
•   Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation, India
•   Gulf Oil, Luxembourg
•   Greka Energy, United States
•   Grupa LOTOS, Poland
•   HryJax Petroleum
•   Hellenic Petroleum, Greece
•   Hess Corporation, United States
•   Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, India
•   HH Venture Capital LLC, United States
•   Husky Energy, Canada
•   IB Daiwa, Japan
•   Imperial Oil, Canada
•   INA – Industrija Nafte, Croatia
•   Indian Oil Corporation, India
•   Inpex, Japan
•   Irving Oil, Canada
•   IQ Petroleum, USA
•   Japan Energy, Japan
•   Kaz-Munay Gaz, Kazakhstan
•   Karazhanbas Munay, Kazakhstan
•   Kerr-McGee, United States
•   Koch Industries, United States
•   Kuwait German Petroleum Company, Canada
•   Kuwait Gulf Oil Company, Kuwait
•   Kuwait National Petroleum Company Kuwait.
•   Kuwait Oil Company, Kuwait
•   Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, Kuwait
•   LUKoil, Russia
•   M3nergy Gamma SDN. BHD., Malaysia
•   Marathon Oil Corporation, United States
•   Maurel & Prom, France
•   mari Gas Company Limited, pakistan
•   Maxol Group, Republic of Ireland
•   MedcoEnergi, Indonesia
•   Mol Group, Hungary
•   Naftna Industrija Srbije, Serbia
•   Naftogas of Ukraine, Ukraine
•   National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Iran
•   National Oil Corporation, Libya
•   Neste Oil, Finland
•   Nexen, Canada
•   Nippon Oil, Japan
•   NNPC, Nigeria
•   Oil Planet International Corp [www.oilplanetinternationalcorp.com], United States
•   Northern Resources[1], Canada
•   Oil and Gas Development Company Limited[2], Pakistan
•   Occidental Petroleum, United States
•   Oil India Limited, India
•   Oman Oil Company (OOC), Oman
•   OMV, Austria
•   ONGC, India
•   PKN Orlen S.A., Poland
•   PSO, Pakistan
•   Petróleos de Venezuela, Venezuela
•   Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico
•   PetroAlam, Egypt
•   Petroleum Development Oman,(PDO)
•   Perenco, France, United Kingdom
•   Petro-Canada, Canada
•   Petrobras, Brazil
•   PetroChina, China
•   PetroKazakhstan, Kazakhstan
•   Petrom, Romania
•   Petron Corporation, Philippines
•   PETRONAS, Malaysia
•   PETROTRIN, Trinidad and Tobago
•   PetroVietnam, Vietnam
•   Pertamina, Indonesia
•   Polish Oil and Gas Company, Poland
•   Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP), United States
•   PTT Public Company Limited, Thailand
•   Qatar Petroleum, Qatar
•   Reliance Industries Limited, India
•   Repsol YPF, Spain
•   Rompetrol Group N.V., Romania
•   Royal Dutch Shell, Netherlands
•   Sagiz Petroleum, Kazakhstan
•   San-Ai Oil, Japan
•   Santos Limited, Australia
•   Sasol, South Africa
•   Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia (the largest in the world)
•   Shell Canada, Canada (subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell)
•   Shell Oil Company, United States (subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell)
•   Sinclair Oil, United States
•   Sinopec, China
•   Snpc, Congo-Brazzaville
•   Sonangol, Angola
•   Sonatrach, Algeria
•   Singapore Petroleum Company, Singapore
•   StatoilHydro, Norway
•   State Oil Company of Azerbaijan, SOCAR Azerbaijan
•   Somerset Refinery, United States.
•   State Oil Company of Suriname, Suriname
•   Sunoco, United States
•   Suncor Energy, Canada
•   Surgutneftegaz, Russia
•   Syncrude, Canada
•   Talisman Energy, Canada
•   Tesoro, United States
•   Todd Energy, New Zealand
•   Total, France
•   Tullow Oil, United Kingdom
•   United Refining Company, United States
•   Vaalco Energy Inc., United States
•   Valero Energy Corporation, United States
•   Wintershall, Germany
•   Woodside Petroleum, Australia
•   XTO Energy, United States
•   YPF, Argentina
•   YPFB, Bolivia

Stan

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 28, 2009, 12:40:51 AM
Thank you for making my point Stan, you must have noted that that entire list was working on "GREEN" solutions, not to mention, like the scientists, were in line to make lots of money in the Cap and Trade business and all the government grants for GREEN research

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 28, 2009, 02:20:16 AM
Quite the contrary!  It is that whole list that has 99% of its income dependent on the sale of petroleum based products.  If the world's people become convinced they are harming the planet, and therefore their own grandchildren, there will be less petroleum used and therefore less profit earned.  Any monies that these companies put into the so-called green projects is largely government backed and in any event amounts to peanuts in their annual budgets.  Merely a sop to try and garner some public sympathy.

The main point however is, the stock in these largely publically owned companies will fall if the global warming people get their opinion widely held, the same stocks that are held as options by the executives of these companies.  Their net worth will fall by billions (collectively).  In a world where people will kill you for a $150 pair of running shoes, how much nasty business do you think these oil company executives will stoop to in order to protect their own stock options?  Like breaking into email archives of researchers and doctoring the wording before releasing them to the press????
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 28, 2009, 05:50:19 AM
Like I said... I'm green... I want Canada to clean up Canada's own little problems.  But this hole Global Warming, climate change is BS.

Of course Climate changes... its tied to the activity or lack there of of the sun.  These so called scientists are a joke.  They produce a computer simulation that cannot repeat its outputs, they doctor historical records to fit their view of the world.

BTW I am not saying that big oil is innocent either, but they are not the root of all the problems.  BTW NASA, not an oil company, has been reporting that for the past 10 years sun spots have decrease... and look... so has the average temp here on Earth... but wait for it... the Average Temp on Mars has been increasing... that must be Martin Big Oil at work :D

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 28, 2009, 06:04:03 AM
Now, this is peer review done old school

Heh heh heh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY...player_embedded

From the Washington Post today
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...=googlenews_wsj

The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. He's right that it doesn't look good that his May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" Mr. Mann says he didn't delete any such emails, but the point is that Mr. Jones wanted them hidden.

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced. The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted." Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003. Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on November 28, 2009, 06:17:51 PM
This thread needs one of my ambiguous musical interludes that best reflect mood over opinion or fact.
Since I can no longer seperate fact from opinion that all I am left with....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUgC6215Gko&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 29, 2009, 12:23:34 AM
Yes Doug..... I am confused too.  I don't quite know what the anti-global warmingist side is trying to say.  Is it....

1.) burning petrochemicals doesn't produce Carbon dioxide?  Cause if that's the case, the simply go down to your local car test station and get them to stick a probe up your exhaust (your car's not your own  ;) ) and watch the numbers.

2.) is it that everyone thinks their own truck or suv can't cause any damage?  Then they should get rid of their egocentricism and think of all the hundreds of million cars, the miriad of coal burning power plants both in N. America and now in China and India (yes coal is a petrochemical product emitting millions of years old carbon dioxide when burned).  Look up the numbers of oil being produced each day, it'll turn your blood cold cause all of that is being burned, every day!

3.) is it because they don't think that our HUGE atmosphere can be hurt by little old mankind?  Then simply look at some of the pictures from the space shuttle (no, they aren't fakes made in hollywood) and see just how thin our atmosphere really is. 

4.) is it because they don't think carbon dioxide helps trap heat?  Then do an experiment yourself for a few bucks that I've done a hundred times or more in the grade 10 environmental studies unit in chemistry.  Build a box out of anything (I did mine out of plexiglass cause it was free) about a yard by a yard by a yard.  Put a tiny christmas light in it beside a thermometer probe (radio shack, $5) with a pie plate between them.  Drill a 1/2" hole in the top, and another near the bottom.  Turn the light on and record the temperature over a couple of days.  Then squirt some carbon dioxide into the bottom hole to drive most of the air out the top hole.  I got mine from a supplier for the school but you can get yours from co2 pistol cartridges or anywhere.  Wait a couple of days and start taking the temperature.  What do you know?  It'll be a couple of degrees warmer than when there was just air in it?  Do this a hundred times and you get the same results.

Now I don't care if the heat that is being trapped by the co2 is from the sun, or from large numbers of menepausal women, the result is the same.  The temperature of the atmosphere is going to go up.  This isn't opinion, this is fact born out by common sense and observable numbers.  The same common sense that says if you hold a hockey puck out at arms length and let go of it, while standing still in your living room, it's going to fall down.

If you don't know what happens to a fluid (yes the earth's atmosphere is a fluid, just a lot thinner than water) when you heat it up, put some water in a glass pot and put it on the stove turned to med-high.  As the water comes to a boil it starts to roil around, creating turbulance.  It doesn't get any hotter than it's boiling point, (which depends upon your elevation) but it sure does get a lot more active.  That's what's happening to our climate.

None of this is good news for humans.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 29, 2009, 01:36:47 PM
Stan the problem is this.  the data you and others have is wrong.  It has been manipulated and messaged to work in a crappy computer model... thats a fact.

CO2 is good for the environment, its what trees and plants need to grow. 
Its the claim that the CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere by human kind is the result of global warming that is false
Oh yeah, the earth while human kind have been on it as master has been higher, and the last 10 years there has been no increase in temperature.

Its these inconvenient truths that have people upset, and the fact that this Cap in Trade stuff is not about cleaning up anything, its about western guilt payments to the 3d world with no ties to them developing clean energy alternatives.  Its a Sham

Tell me, how will Cap and Trade payments help the environment as you see it??  Is any of this nonsenses clean up our lakes and oceans from sewer run off?  no.  Will it clean off the pollution from land fills?  no

I would rather spend money on real clean ups based on fact, that some massaged mumbo jumbo based on at best questionable science with no peer review
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 29, 2009, 02:25:09 PM
Lastly, I have to include this one.

Kudos to Noel Sheppard.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...ess-white-house

<Excerpts follow>

"Scientists involved in the growing ClimateGate scandal were cited in an October climate change report prepared for the White House and Congress.

Titled "Our Changing Planet," the 172-page document was created by The U.S. Global Change Research Program along with the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and was submitted as a supplement to President Obama's fiscal 2010 budget.

As such, its contents not only impact future and current legislation involving global warming, but also how tax dollars are spent to research and address it.

<snip>

The subsequent chapters addressed a number of topics involving climate, and concluded with "Chapter References and Endnotes" where the following names appeared:

* Phil Jones, Director of the British Climate Research Unit
* Gavin Schmidt, NASA climatologist and climate modeler
* Michael Mann, Penn State professor and author of the Hockey Stick graph
* Benjamin Santer, Lawrence Livermore Lab climate modeler
* Raymond Bradley, professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst
* Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
* Peter Stott, climate scientist at the UK Met office
* Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

To be sure, that papers by these scientists would be cited in such a report is by no means shocking. They have been preparing high-profile documents about global warming for years including for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In reality, it would have been shocking if this report DIDN'T include them.

However, what is disturbing is that America's news media haven't cross-referenced this high-profile report with all the names in the e-mail messages obtained from the computers of the University of East Anglia, and reported to the American people just how connected to the United States government these people are."

<Excerpts end>
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 29, 2009, 04:39:08 PM
Hey Andrew, I agree with you 100% on the cap and trade issue.  Not only is it a way for the financial people to collect some more "little" administrative fees for transactions on the cap and trade market, but in Europe it has been proven to be very easy to manipulate.  Remember what I said about capitalism, its a wonderful system in a world without greed, but.......

I liken cap and trade to a fat guy paying a smoker to go on a diet for him, while the fat guy doesn't start smoking so the smoker can claim the fat guy's "non smoking benefits".  Everyone says there is some good going on, but nobody has changed a damn thing.  We've got to stop everyone from belching too much co2 into the atmosphere.  Emphasis on the "too much" as I also agree with you we need approximately 200-250 ppm co2 in the atmosphere to keep it balanced, but NOT the 375 ppm we have now and that is rising fast!  Once it hits 400 ppm we're toast cause it's the tipping point and then all we can do is duck and cover!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 29, 2009, 08:53:05 PM
Where do you get your numbers on the tipping point??  Historically the earth in recent times has had greater, and we are still here.  Its not the CO2 that is the issue, its the other things that this whole debate fails to even address as existing.  There is no computer model avail to show where any tipping point is, its all based on fudged observations.  BTW this is the killer

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6936328.ece)

According to other reports, those stations purged the data after providing it for much the same reasons, especially as it was safely stored at the University. . .
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on November 29, 2009, 09:26:07 PM
Andrew, Stan.....

As much as I enjoy a good debate you have both dug in hard on your respective sides of the issue and nothing short of binding arbitration will bring both sides together.

What influence do a handful of middle aged men chicken pecking away at key boards really have on the world today? Unless we are people with a lot of money, a lot of influence, a lot of brains and of course a lot of connections we aren;t going to change the world. I am not sure we can even fully wrap our heads around the problem considering how much contradictory information there is floating around out there.

And unless we are prepared to sit down and sift through all the data ourselves, practicly a full time job if you ask me, and with truly unbiased eyes we can't be sure of anything in the age of persuasion.

What I can offer is I will mail you each some rocks.
An acid rain rock, scoarched black....
A piece of high grade massive sulphibe ore....
A chunk of fine high quality metalergical coal....
A piece of Slag that leaches heavymetals when wet....
The end prodcut is in your pockets alread nickels and pennies. What great good comes from these things and and how many dead fish dying trees and somewhere out there tonight someone full of Sinter75 is laying in a hospital bed on a ventilator waiting to take his last breath. It took 75 years to finaly realize what the problems were and find solutions. The legacy of of these things will be felt for generations to come.

If we have a climate CO2 problem we had better do something.
If we do nothing untill we are sure the damage may be beyond measure and impossible to deal with.
If we do the wrong thing we will not solve our problems and maybe make our lives worse.

Back to the man with the sinter75 ( nickel oxide ) in his lungs what does he regrete his job, his life , his choices?
I'm full of nickel too ( lets be specific now not a semi refined product but silica dust, lead , copper , PMs, carbon black ect ), enough so I am developing a sensitivity too it but I have nothign to worry about right because all the studdies say my levels are safe and food in my garden is safe right

Its all safe and OK right.......

Thats what they told the guy on the ventilator and they argued and studdied the hell out of it for decades.

Magnify my little problem by 6 billiion and the time to make the right choices is measured now in years not decades and you start to grasp how serious and isue this is. Can we afford to do nothing or should we be spending billions now to change course and studdy the problem. If nothing else we change course and learn to live a little cleaner life using less energy and 20 years down the road we have a good laugh about how much money we blew.

Thats the way I see it, but I grew up in a town were we discussed depleting natural resources and enviromental impact all my life. I've seen huge leaps in technology change a filthy buisness into something aproaching clean and actualy more cost effective and I have seen my own family die for nickels and pennies....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on November 29, 2009, 11:01:39 PM
Doug you hit the nail on the head.... do we have a CO2  crisis.... Its looking more and more like we have a CO2 Fraud and attempt to do a Y2K and get some money
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on November 29, 2009, 11:51:27 PM
I don't know Andrew I can't be sure.

Like I said however the Smart people told me I have nothing to worry about and 5 months on the picket line and I am still hacking and horking up chunks of high grade ore and diesel soot.
I hope the scientists are all wrong and everythng is Honky Dorry. But I have seen companies Skew studdies and test results to try and insulate themselves from the trueth and I am more frieghten of a giant corperation with an agenda then just about anything.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on November 30, 2009, 12:23:36 AM
You're right Doug....I'm afraid we were born into a species with a fatal flaw.  Some things we can only see in the rear view mirror.  Especially the big stuff like "is this good for you or bad for you" and "are we crapping in our home" etc.

Oh well, maybe in a few thousand years we might start getting some of it right.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on November 30, 2009, 12:45:41 AM
Discussion resolved:

We know that we continue to make the same mistakes what ever they may be.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 01, 2009, 05:25:59 PM
Ok, Mr Goldstien says it much better than I

'Botch after botch after botch'

Leaked 'climategate' documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 29th November 2009, 11:29am


I've been poring over one of many leaked computer files from the "climategate" scandal.

It's worse than those e-mails revealing leading climate scientists did a "trick" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures and privately called it a "travesty" they couldn't explain recent cooling.

This document has the innocuous header "HARRY_READ_Me.txt."

I'm indebted to Kate McMillan, the remarkable Canadian blogger who runs smalldeadanimals.com, for calling it to my attention.

You can easily find it online. I used www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_Me.txt.

The file -- 274 pages long -- describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009.

The computer coding, along with the programmer's apparently unsuccessful efforts to complete the project, involve data that are the foundation of the study of climate change -- recordings from hundreds of weather stations around the world of temperature and precipitation measurements from 1901 to 2006, sun/cloud computer simulations, and the like.

PRESUMABLY PRECISE

These presumably precise data are the backbone of climate science.

Reading "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" it's clear the CRU's files were a mess. The programmer laments huge gaps in data, bug-filled programs and worries about all the guesswork he's doing. His comments suggest the problems go back years.

The CRU at East Anglia University is considered by many as the world's leading climate research agency. Here's how CBSNews.com's Declan McCullagh describes its enormous impact on policymakers:

"In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: It claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. The report ... is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it 'relies on most heavily' when concluding carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated."

As you read the programmer's comments below, remember, this is only a fraction of what he says.

- "But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that's useless ..." (Page 17)

- "It's botch after botch after botch." (18)

- "The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour's edits to the program, when the network died ... no explanation from anyone, I hope it's not a return to last year's troubles ... This surely is the worst project I've ever attempted. Eeeek." (31)

- "Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite." (37)

- "... this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!" (45)

- "Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!" (47)

- "As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless." (57)

- "COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn't open until 1993!" (71)

- "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah -- there is no 'supposed,' I can make it up. So I have : - )" (98)

- "You can't imagine what this has cost me -- to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance ..." (98)

- "So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option -- to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ... In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad ..." (98-9)

- "OH F--- THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases." (241).

- "This whole project is SUCH A MESS ..." (266)

And based on stuff like this, politicians are going to blow up our economy and lower our standard of living to "fix" the climate?
Are they insane?

LORRIE.GOLDSTEIN@SUNMEDIA.CA
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 01, 2009, 08:47:19 PM
"Hands all over.... Your gona kill your mother"

Ain't the truth Brother?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiZ2wg1ZBxc
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: quickies on December 06, 2009, 03:30:55 PM
The European Union sends out a weekly news alert about matters relevant to the environment, including climate change.
You can find their site at

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research_alert_en.htm

News alert is distributed world wide, including to many policy makers in various governments.

Some members of this group may wish to sign up for the news alert so that they can find out the latest scientific thinking.
Searches for back copies of alerts also available.

Geoff
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: compig on December 06, 2009, 05:28:54 PM
There will never be a resolution to this argument now. Too many influential people on both sides have too much to lose by either admitting they were wrong. Ultimately though , there is too much money at stake on either side. Personally , I believe there is climate change but not disproportionately due to the industrial activity of mankind. There is much data to show that the planet has seen climate fluctuations of this magnitude and much more before the existence of man. Just examine the data for the emissions of a volcanic eruption to see just how small mans contribution is. However , I do believe man should reduce the impact his activities have on the planet , such as trash disposal , tree felling , power generation etc. Purely because the resources these actions impact are ultimately finite and we are (should be) morally obliged to consider the future of man. Problem is , with our prevailing social systems , we can never be certain of the motives of those in power. Money is ALWAYS the motivating factor and oil is the global fiscal standard , so any technology that exists , and I believe the answers to our energy problems already exist , that threatens the viability of the oil economy will be suppressed or withheld until "THEY" are ready to permit it's use. We are all puppets in this game.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 07, 2009, 02:06:49 AM
OMG- looks like all the data has been corrupted, and nobody is sure anymore
================

Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
December 5, 2009

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics. [God forbid if we provide facts to people, they might come to a scientific conclusion. Can't have that now can we?]

The Met Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after e-mails written by its director, Phil Jones, appeared to show an attempt to manipulate temperature data and block alternative scientific views.

The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.

Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.

The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.

The development will add to fears that influential sceptics in other countries, including the US and Australia, are using the controversy to put pressure on leaders to resist making ambitious deals for cutting CO2.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change admitted yesterday that it needed to consider the full implications of the e-mails and whether they cast doubt on any of the evidence for man-made global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle6945445.ece
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 07, 2009, 02:14:33 AM
Oh no, say it is not so, Al Gore is wrong, and his science is wrong too?

==============================
 Dutch: Gore Wrong on Snows of Kilimanjaro

The Netherlands is afire today over a Dutch study concluding Mount Kilimanjaro's snow melt — used as a symbol of AGW by Al Gore — is entirely natural.
December 3, 2009 - by Leon de Winter

Newspapers and news sites in the Netherlands today extensively broke the news of the findings of a research team led by Professor Jaap Sinninghe Damste — a leading molecular paleontologist at Utrecht University and winner of the prestigious Spinoza Prize — about the melting icecap of the Kilimanjaro, the African mountain that became a symbol of anthropogenic global warming.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.

The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.

At the end of this period, a dramatic climate change from very dry to very wet took place — driven by changes in solar radiation — resulting in the creation of an icecap. At the moment, this part of Africa seems to be at the end of a similar dry period, resulting in the disappearance of the famous icecap.

DOSR calls Al Gore’s iconic use of the melting cap of Kilimanjaro “unfortunate” — since it now seems to be mainly the result of “natural climate variations.”

The journal Nature published the highly technical article by Professor Sinninghe Damste’s team.

The website of Elsevier magazine — the Netherlands’ most circulated political weekly — broke the news as follows: “Dutchman discredits Al Gore’s climate evidence.”

Leon de Winter is columnist for Elsevier Magazine in Holland. He is also a bestselling novelist and adjunct-fellow at the Hudson Institute. He is presently living in Los Angeles.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wr...of-kilimanjaro/
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 07, 2009, 03:36:10 AM
I think what's important is being lost in all of the mayhem.

Global warming boils down to one of the following four statements:

1) Global warming (or cooling) is happening and is the result of man-made activities - we do nothing to change our behavior = eventual extinction

2) Global warming (or cooling) is happening and is the result of man-made activities - we change our behavior = possible survival

3) Global warming (or cooling) is not the result of man's activities - we do nothing to change our behavior = eventual extinction anyway

4) Global warming (or cooling) is not the result of man's activities - we change our behavior = possible extinction anyway

Seems to me that #2 is the only logical choice that makes sense.  If we're wrong, SO WHAT?  The other possibilities are too extreme to take a chance on IMHO.

We can't continue trashing the nest the way we are and expect to survive.  Doesn't take a rocket scientist or a crap-load of climate change data to come to that conclusion.

Am I missing something?

And yes, it infuriates me that it affects my ability to own and run my Listers (long-term)

Steve
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 07, 2009, 04:38:14 AM
If we're wrong, SO WHAT?  ...


So what?  Are you serious?  Have you any idea how much money will  be 'redistributed' as a result of 'fixing' climate change?  to fix somethinig that may not even exist. 

Quote

Am I missing something?



Yes - All 4 of your statements presuppose that climate change is occuring.  Convince me.  I'm a scientist, and remain skeptical...

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 07, 2009, 05:03:23 AM
Highest CO2 concentrations in roughly 600,000 years (ice cores)
Pine bark beetles wiping out vast tracks of forest (usually kept in check by lower temps)
Ocean acidification
Reef die off
What appear to be more intense (at least changing) storm cycles
Decrease in size of polar caps
Migratory behavior that appears to be confused due to changing climate

All point to climate change. 

What is ultimately responsible is anyone's guess.

Citing the redistribution of wealth is not an adequate argument to stay the current course and continue trashing the nest.

Let's assume that we don't do anything and the global warming skeptics are wrong.  Then what?

Are you willing to gamble on the survival of future generations because you're concerned about redistribution of wealth?

The point is, using redistribution as an excuse to not change is not an option IMHO. 

Whether it's climate change, pollution, over-population, etc is really not the issue.  The real issue is we as a species had better get our collective act together in a hurry and modify our behavior because multiple signs seem to indicate that we are quickly approaching what appears to be a tipping point.

Regards,

Steve
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 07, 2009, 06:21:52 AM
Actually Jim if you are concerned about the redistribution of wealth, think about what has been happening in our world since the proliferation of the "global economy", where the large multinational corporations have been grabbing up the vast majority of wealth that exists in the world at a rate far exceeding anything that has happened in the history of mankind.  This started several decades ago and has been accelerating ever since.

I agree this is an untenable situation because certainly I have not seen any of this newly developed wealth.  It is already being "redistributed", right into the hands of the incredibly wealthy, and out of my hands.  I figure you have heard the phrase "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" haven't you?  If you look at the figures for your country or mine, you will see that that's exactly what's been happening faster and faster every year!

If some other form of "redistribution" is going to happen because of global warming, I'd welcome it, especially if I could grab a tiny bit of it as it goes by me!  Hey, I'd even offer to work hard for it, something the executives of Goldman Sachs obviously haven't done!!!!!  ???
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 07, 2009, 03:26:24 PM
I can't believe I am wading into this ....
Has anyone here heard of Global shading?

Its another one of those observations that concludes climat is moderated by the effects of man. Simply put for the first 75 years of the last century dirty industry and power generation put enough soot and ash into the air to act as a shade and reduce the amount fo solar radiation hitting the ground/

The fact it has an effect was proved by the small increase in ground temperature around 9/11 when all those jet contrails were missing above the USA.
Its also been measure in very dry places like Isreal where the measured amount of sunlight hitting the earth dropped for 40 years after 1940s and then started to rise again in the 80s as our technology imporved to reduce polution.

Now in all the places where emissions controls are not a priority like Asia they have this brown smog effect you can see from orbit cvaused by dust ash and soot from the furnaces. One should ask does this moderate the effects of global warming and are the long term effects on climat ewhen they realy do clean up their acts?

Lets do nothing anyways....
Canada can only Bennifit from a milder winter and longer growing season and the increases inprices for the food we will export to the hotter drier places like the USA will make up for the losses we suffer in other areas...
What an arogant and ignorant statement eh?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 07, 2009, 04:21:55 PM
there is at least one other option to add to the list

5. the global changes are normal cycles and we go on living as usual, even if we have to move about to more temperate area's

6. there are "no" manmade changes and we go on living as we have for thousands of years,

7. there is manmade global warming and after a time  the good old earth makes changes to compensate, and we go on liveing here
as we always have.

basically there are far more options than the 4 listed in my opinion.

certainly we can affect our climate on a regional basis, just as the civilizations did in and around chile about a thousand years ago, by creating terraces and large tracts of forest altered their local climate in a way that made it easier to live there, or the nile region
where once were fertile fields are now fallow because of mass irrigation raising the salt level and sterilizing their land about 2000 years ago.

one is an example of how man makes things better, the other how he makes things worse, but both are very regional and localized in nature,, we just don't have the power to alter the climate of the total planet in a predictable manner.

how about this

what if we all decide to radiacally alter our carbon foot print and do it over the next year or two,, no more coal being burned, no more petroleum being burned, nada,,, we live in the cold and suffer, only to find out that the good old earth had mechanisms in place to compensate for what we had been doing that gradually offset our actions over 150 years, and now when asked to alter those same mechanisms in a year or even 10 years might well be too fast and cause the whole system to become unstable.  nature is full of such examples if only for being localized or regiional in nature.

i really wonder if this would be an issue at all if not for the nearly 140 trillion dollars that weighs in the balance.

like an orphan disease, if there is no money to make with it, you never hear about it and we as a group go on living like we have
for thousands of years.

we peasants look to so called scientists, politicians and "elites" as being honorable folks, surely they would not lie?  i assert there is probably more corruption in those groups than there is among we peasants, basically because most of us peasants are too friggin busy
trying to eek out a living and pay the taxes needed to support the system and provide the fuel of their corruption, to have much time or energy left to be corrupt in any meaningful way.. .. yes there are always exceptions but i think most will understand my thinking.

i really think it is our duty to be very skeptical,  if the science is good it has to prove itself out over time, to accept anything less is to
accept being led and lied to, and used much as a slave to a master.

if the science was so good, so conclusive there would have been no reason to skew the numbers, cook the books, discredit those that
disagree'd, refuse to publish decenting research etc.  these are all acts of desperate folks that know the science is flawed and will do anything to cover to protect their grants, jobs etc.



bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: compig on December 07, 2009, 04:31:46 PM
I can't believe I am wading into this ....
Has anyone here heard of Global shading?

Yeah , I've heard of that and saw the report on the effect when all air traffic was grounded just after 911. Difficult to argue with the data from that investigation.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on December 07, 2009, 06:56:19 PM
I'm trying to find my link to Urban Heat Islands, that had photos of the weather stations 50 years ago, in the middle of the town park, and the current photos - with the park gone, and a trailer building's AC blower backed up against the weather station.  Yep, temps went up. :-\
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 07, 2009, 08:29:15 PM
yes once there was a cave, and it was relatively cool year round
then a bear moved in and spent the winters and the temperature went up on average
at bit over prior years,
then a cave man clubbed the bear and took his cave, then moved in his family
and the temperature average went up a bit more over the year,,,

then he discovered fire!

and the average temp went way up in that cave, but

it was one cave, one cave does not make a global climate change.

now if a certain climatologist named "Og" decided to track temperatures
and instead of tracking temps outside out in the middle of the forest, he waited till no
one was looking and took the temps inside the caves in the area, over time as fellow cavemen
became to inhabit them.... and after a few years he started running around yelling "the sky is falling"
"we need to form a committe", "we need to estabilsh carbon credits, raise taxes, redistribute the meat from
the kill" and all that bullcrap, who would wanna bet that old Og might have met a rather untimely end?

jeesh fellows, this is so simple even a caveman can do it!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 07, 2009, 11:51:24 PM
Hi Bob!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 07, 2009, 11:57:28 PM
Insert Quote
Quote
Highest CO2 concentrations in roughly 600,000 years (ice cores)
Are you sure of that?  The 1900-1960s had higher levels - Killer SMOG in GB and Europe.  Cars and factories in the West have become cleaner.  I also was reading an article by an Historian that pointed out the Middle ages had higher levels, oh but wait that was the little ice age, not global warming, inconvenient of me to point that out

Quote
Pine bark beetles wiping out vast tracks of forest (usually kept in check by lower temps)
Yes, except it appears mans limiting of free burns by the forests may have contributed there, so our wish to not clear cut, and allow the fires to not burn actually help the beetles (not native to BC either) so I will give you that, that is a man made problem, but nothing to do with global climate change

Quote
Ocean acidification
 That would be with acid rain, Sulfer not CO2, and we have been working in the western work since the days of ACID rain to change that... its Chinna and the third world that produce that now
 
Quote
Reef die off
see above

Quote
What appear to be more intense (at least changing) storm cycles
ummmm thats why the hurricane season these past two years have been .. quiet.  But that would explain the sudden storms that would regularly sink Spanish Gold shipments, or the Kamikaze storm that wiped out the Chinese invasion fleet.  It would also explain the hot summers that cause the mold to grow in the rye fields causing the black plague.  So is it more intense or just changing?  And what does that have to do with us??

Quote
Decrease in size of polar caps
 Actually, the ice cap has been getting larger for the past 8 years, just ask the Inuit.  Course the perma frost in the Western Arctic has started to thaw, but then the eastern arctic it has gotten colder.  BTW it was -30C in Calgary today.. love that warming

Quote
Migratory behavior that appears to be confused due to changing climate
 Now now that is a stretch.  Why it was only a few years ago the Scientists where blaming it on all the buildings that were causing micro climates, the lights at night that block out thier view of the stars, and of course now we are told not to turn off the building lights because when we do that... bingo we have an increase in bird strikes.  Of course, it does not help with all those old ladies feeding bread to the Geese that they decide not to leave for southern climates.
Quote
All point to climate change.
No, they point to change.  Some man made, some not
Quote
What is ultimately responsible is anyone's guess.
 Finally you are making sense
Quote
Citing the redistribution of wealth is not an adequate argument to stay the current course and continue trashing the nest.
On this I agree with you, we need to continue to combat pollution.  We need to use trade and tarrifs to get the 3d world to adopt clean ways of doing things, not cheap and dirty (like how they make Listeroids).  But you have to admit that trying to get funding for a Global Warming thesis is easier than one pointing out the Sun is in its normal rest period. when you have the likes of AUC doing your peer review


Quote
Let's assume that we don't do anything and the global warming skeptics are wrong.  Then what?
What about this.  We go off half cocked, ruin our economies and find out global warming is a hoax... what then... ask the Chinese for our money back??

As for Alternative energy, I am all in favour of it, on National Security Grounds so we can tell the Arabs to F-off and drink their oil and we can stop sponsoring Terrorists.  
Quote
Are you willing to gamble on the survival of future generations because you're concerned about redistribution of wealth?

Yes, I dont want to enslave my children to some third world power base who has our wealth and is taking care of themselves.  You suffer too much of the white mans guilt for all the wrongs in the world.  I dont buy in to it.  Western Civilization for all its wort's is not that bad

Cheers

Andrew
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2009, 01:44:29 AM
how you been Bob?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 08, 2009, 02:15:45 AM

The data from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University — headquarters for Climategate — is now discredited. This discredits any findings by other research bodies that relied on the Climategate data.

How much falls from Climategate, whose participants read like a Who’s Who at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Not much, says CRU’s disgraced director, Phil Jones, pointing out that CRU’s data for global temperatures is but one of several datasets, all in general agreement. Besides, many argue, CRU was no linchpin to the science. The IPCC relied on numerous other sources. Throw CRU out, they say, and the IPCC’s conclusions remain unshakable.

In truth, if you throw CRU out, you’ve eviscerated the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the most recent and most definite opus from the UN. This is the report, received with universal acclaim in 2007, which scarily stated: “The warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”

The argument over global warming requires evidence that the globe is warming in dangerous ways. This evidence the IPCC presents forcefully in its third chapter on surface and atmospheric warming, which rests overwhelmingly on the official global temperature record of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, called the HADCRUT3 temperature dataset.

And who produced the HADCRUT3 dataset for the World Meteorological Organization? The Hadley Centre of the UK government’s meteorological office (the HAD of HADCRUT3) and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the CRU).

And for those that say its not about money
The EU's emission trading scheme (ETS) may have been the deciding factor in the closure of the Corus Redcar steel-making plant – reported last week , giving the company a windfall bonus of up to £1.2 billion from the plant closure – on top of other savings.

Earlier this year, Corus – part of the Tata Group Europe - disclosed that its UK steel inventory was "close to exhaustion" and analysts are expecting improved earnings from second-half trading as production is increased to meet a rebound in demand.

Mothballing the efficient Redcar plant (with no expectations of its re-opening) thus fails to make obvious commercial sense, especially as Tata bought the plant only in 2007 as part of its strategy to give it better access to European (including UK markets).

However, revealed by The Times today (although the information has been available since June is an illustration of how valuable an alternative product - "carbon allowances" is to the group.

The paper's story focuses on the rival ArcelorMittal group, pointing out that it has accumulated 20.8 million surplus allowances (EUAs) given to it free by the EU. With the carbon price at over £13, they are worth about £270 million. But, with additional surplus allowances up to 2012 and an increased carbon price – expected to rise to £30 - the company could have gained assets worth around £1 billion.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2009, 02:53:44 AM
How's the weather out west Bob?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 08, 2009, 03:56:14 AM
...Then do an experiment yourself for a few bucks that I've done a hundred times or more in the grade 10 environmental studies unit in chemistry.  Build a box out of anything (I did mine out of plexiglass cause it was free) about a yard by a yard by a yard.  Put a tiny christmas light in it beside a thermometer probe (radio shack, $5) with a pie plate between them.  Drill a 1/2" hole in the top, and another near the bottom.  Turn the light on and record the temperature over a couple of days.  Then squirt some carbon dioxide into the bottom hole to drive most of the air out the top hole.  ...

That's interesting.  We tried that experiment here, and saw no difference in temperature that exceeded our estimate of experimental error.  Would you mind posting a link to a detailed description of this experiment?  I teach science to my daughter, and this will be her next assignment...

As I said, we ran this experiment a few times, as it was described in her physical science text, and the results were pretty random.  The design of the experiment in that book was so poor, and had such poor treatment of the concept of a control that it was pointless. (Plastic ziploc bags placed in the sunshine – good grief)  It’s my opinion that that hasn’t stopped plenty of science teachers from ‘teaching’ what the experiment ‘proved’, however…

Gong a little farther out on a limb here…

I just don’t see how a heat source (your Christmas light) in a sealed environment is an accurate model for the earth and its atmosphere in space.  Two huge differences jump right out at me  -

First, on earth, the heat source (the sun) is outside the atmosphere, whereas you propose to put it in the box with the CO2.

Second, in your CO2-filled box, convective heat transfer plays a role in removing heat from the box, and currents will be set up and move the gas around in the box and along the outside surfaces.  Earth, as far as I know, does not lose heat through convection - only radiation.

The more I think about this "experiment" the more it ticks me off.  Not for what it is, but for what it is being (mis)used for.  Ever have any skeptics in your classes?  Encourage them.  Please. 



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 08, 2009, 06:15:46 AM
Actually Jim, the description of the experiment I saw in an old science text book was pretty much as you describe which is why I designed the plexiglass box.  As I said it was approx. 1 metre cubed, and sealed with silicone except for the input and outlet holes ~1" D.  And yes, you are exactly right, there are [invisible] currents in the CO2 "atmosphere" just like there are currents in the "real" earths atmosphere.  Many large thunderhead clouds have been reported by airline pilots to have updrafts many thousands of feet higher than the regular airline altitudes.

You should really read up on the physics of sunlight and how it heats the earth, especially if you are home schooling your daughter.  What happens in the most simplistic terms is the sunlight hits the darker portions of the earth's surface, heats up those portions of the earth's surface, then that heat radiates upward into the atmosphere, and is both radiated out of the atmosphere and convected upward by air currents where it then radiates out of the atmosphere.

If you wanted to be really accurate, you could mount a black ball in the plexiglass box and shine a heat lamp from outside the box on it.  You'll get the same results, that is if you can keep the heat lamp's light off the thermostat's pickup by using the aluminum pie plate.

That's one of the major things that is happening because of climate change.  It's called a "runaway" reaction.  As the ice and snow (ice and snow are white and reflect most of the sun's radiation) melts earlier in the year, there is more dark surface to absorb heat, this melts more snow and ice, resulting in yet more dark surface resulting in more heat and so on and so on.  When enough ice and snow are gone, we reach what is called the "tipping point" and then the hockey stick graph of heating really turns up.  Have your daughter read "Gaia's Revenge"  (or maybe it's the revenge of Gaia, I forget the exact title) by Lovelock, it's a good, interesting read, and it'll encourage alternate thinking on her part.

And, Yes, I encouraged alternate thinking in the classroom.  That's science!  however, facts are facts and my students mostly understood that opinions don't trump facts, not in a Science classroom.

I've been following the Copenhagen summit and am really disgusted with it.  No one is mentioning the many other parts of the whole system that are running amok.  The world's deforestation, the increase in the number of automobiles, the decrease in the oceanic coral reefs, the increasing extinctions both in the ocean and on land, the horrific problem with fresh water,  etc. etc. etc.   All these and more phenomenon are showing textbook "hockey stick" graphs and are all related.  Just taking action to mitigate co2 release by petroleum products isn't going to be nearly enough.


And no one is even whispering about the "Elephant in the Room"!


Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 08, 2009, 07:49:20 AM
Doug:

how cold is it out west?

colder than a witches boob in a brass bra!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2009, 03:06:58 PM
Same here colder than a well digger's arse lol.
Haven't heard from you in quite some time I was beginning to wonder what happened.
You been up too anything interesting?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 08, 2009, 05:44:43 PM
Stan,

If we could just focus on the experiment for a bit…

First question for you – What conclusion do you draw from the experiment?  I’d like to see a carefully worded statement that you believe is accurate.

Second – Below are some essential characteristics comparing my understanding of the earth vs. your 1m cube. 

a.   The earth is about 13,000,000 m in diameter.  Your box is 1 m. 
b.   The earth is heated exclusively by solar insolation at a few hundred W/m^2, while your box is heated mostly by convection from a light bulb of unspecified wattage.
c.   The earth loses heat exclusively by radiation into space, while your box loses heat by conduction through the Plexiglas walls. 
d.   The earth’s atmosphere is comprised of CO2 at a few hindred PPM.  You’ve given us no idea what concentration you used, but I’d say it’s safe to say it was many orders of magnitude greater.


Bottom line for me is that while your experiment does indicate something, applying it to the earth is completely unconvincing.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 08, 2009, 06:06:08 PM
In order to clear the air a little with reguards to GHG experiments with light bulbs, boxes and eccostsyms we need to study the results and sift the data.

For the sake of clarity remember, "You cant squeeze cheeze from a cow before it hatches".

I do have 1000w MH light bulb. For the sake of time and effort I think we need to scale down a planet and eccosystem. My hope is we can have some answeres by Monday.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 08, 2009, 06:17:07 PM
Doug, Bob, why not go to the chat room, thats a better place for your private moments LOL
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 08, 2009, 08:13:07 PM
And how did I know that I'd stir you chaps up a bit...

 ;D

A few cold days does not a cooling trend make...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=axqsAEyw7U.A

Steve
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 08, 2009, 11:32:50 PM
Stan,

If we could just focus on the experiment for a bit…

First question for you – What conclusion do you draw from the experiment?  I’d like to see a carefully worded statement that you believe is accurate.

Second – Below are some essential characteristics comparing my understanding of the earth vs. your 1m cube. 

a.   The earth is about 13,000,000 m in diameter.  Your box is 1 m. 
b.   The earth is heated exclusively by solar insolation at a few hundred W/m^2, while your box is heated mostly by convection from a light bulb of unspecified wattage.
c.   The earth loses heat exclusively by radiation into space, while your box loses heat by conduction through the Plexiglas walls. 
d.   The earth’s atmosphere is comprised of CO2 at a few hindred PPM.  You’ve given us no idea what concentration you used, but I’d say it’s safe to say it was many orders of magnitude greater.


Bottom line for me is that while your experiment does indicate something, applying it to the earth is completely unconvincing.


CO2 acts as a blanket trapping heat.

A. you are correct.
B. you are partially correct
C. you are wrong.
D. you are correct.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 09, 2009, 02:25:10 AM
"trapping heat"?  I see that sort of 'explanation' a lot, but can't you be more specific?  (I was hoping for some tie to a common physical parameter of C02, such as its thermal conductivity, density, emissitivity, specific heat, etc)

Also, you make no mention about this experiment being a model for global warming.  Is it?


If (9b) is partly right, what part is wrong?

Can we break my statement (c) down and see where you disagree? 

1.   The earth loses heat exclusively by radiation into space
2.   your box loses heat by conduction through the Plexiglas walls

Perhaps I should have said "the system, composed of earth and its atmosphere, loses heat exclusively by radiation into space"?  Or is there some means you've employed to stop heat from being conducted through the walls of the box?

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on December 09, 2009, 12:48:14 PM
thought I would post this it makes me laugh, of course I am just a dumb farmer out wreaking the environment so what do I know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQXY4tWaoI
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 09, 2009, 03:58:48 PM
Doug, Bob, why not go to the chat room, thats a better place for your private moments LOL

Well I considered it but my eyes have trouble with the small text and Bob's fingers are the size of Italian sausages hampering typing speed. By the time we figuere out what the other is tryping we wouldd loose interest lol
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 09, 2009, 04:46:51 PM
Jim, the earth doesn't lose heat exclusively through radiation to space.  First the sun heats up the warmer parts of the earth (dirt, asphalt, green trees etc).  It really doesn't matter what heats up those things, the fact that they are heated up is the important thing.  Then the dirt/asphalt/trees, both radiates heat, and heats up the air by convective heat transfer (too complicated a concept until grade 10 or so).  Anyway, the asphalt/dirt/trees heat up the air which carries the heat waaay up into the sky and then it radiates out into space.  Just like my box loses heat into the "space" of the classroom.

Here's a quote from "Plows, Plagues & Petroleum, [how humans took control of climate]" by William Ruddiman.  "No credible climate scientist now doubts that humans have had an effect on Earth's climate during the last two centuries, primarily by causing increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere.  These gasses trap radiation emitted from Earth's surface after it has been heated by the sun, and the added heat retained in Earth's atmospheric envelope makes its climate warmer.

Because increases in both greenhouse gases and Earth's temperature during the last century have been measured, the so-called global warming debate is not about whether humans are warming climate or whether we will warm climate in future decades - we are warming it, and we will warm it more in future decades as greenhouse-gas concentrations rise.  The only issue under serious debate is: By how much?"

This is book is fantastic!  Ruddiman not only makes the climate change/global warming debate clear and simple to understand, but he expands the scope of mankinds effects on climate to the last 8000 years, not just the last 200 years!  He makes a credible case for the effects of agriculture (listen up Bill  ;D ) having a slight but important effect on climate that lasted for 8000 years, making the effects pronounced.

He states that if it weren't for the effects of agriculture over the last 8000 years, we would be heading full tilt into an ice age!  Fascinating!

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 09, 2009, 05:18:00 PM
This has been one of the longest running threads here in quite sometime.

Question:

Has anyone changed their possition or have we simply created a lot of hot air?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on December 09, 2009, 09:10:03 PM
I'm trying to find my link to Urban Heat Islands, that had photos of the weather stations 50 years ago, in the middle of the town park, and the current photos - with the park gone, and a trailer building's AC blower backed up against the weather station.  Yep, temps went up. :-\


http://surfacestations.org/
Scroll to the 2 photos at the bottom. Both sites are only a few miles apart. Yet one is "cooling" and the other "warming"  . Duh. 


Building AC blows on station:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=3403   Sure is getting warmer every summer !!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 09, 2009, 09:31:25 PM
Mike, yup, that's why all the trillions of pine beetles are destroying 60% of all the forests in BC.  That's also why 90% of all the glaciers in Peru and Ecuador are going to be gone (that's 90% of their fresh water) in less than 10 years.  yup yup yup  ::)
Stan
btw... I know you are just joking.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 10, 2009, 12:00:32 AM
Jim, the earth doesn't lose heat exclusively through radiation to space. 

Yes, it does.

Quote
... carries the heat waaay up into the sky and then it radiates out into space. 


 Exactly.  All the heat the earth loses is lost by radiation to space.  No other way for heat to escape our earth/atmosphere system.  Convection does carry it 'waaay' up into the atmoshere, but then what?  It has to be radiated out to space - convection stops when there's no more atmosphere.

Quote
...just like my box loses heat into the "space" of the classroom.


No, not like your box.  As I stated, earth's heat is lost by radiation, your box loses it by other means.

Your box is a very poor model...  And the results of your experiment should not be extrapolated to earth. To continue to do so is misleading your students.



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 13, 2009, 04:53:52 PM
You should really read up on the physics of sunlight and how it heats the earth...

I have.  How about you? ;D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 13, 2009, 05:15:14 PM
See reply #72 and then reply after you have read the book.  ;)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 14, 2009, 01:35:08 AM
Does he explain your experiment?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 14, 2009, 03:30:34 AM
He explains how the earth's geophysical relationship to the sun works.   Same thing.  Great stuff on the sun's relationship to the ice ages.  He also explains how he has never taken any money as wages or grants from industry and therefore cannot be accused of being a bought scientist as many are.  Nor have I for that matter!  ???
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 14, 2009, 03:27:36 PM
^^ I guess that means 'no'?

In other words, you have no further defense of your experiment?

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 15, 2009, 12:12:06 AM
Have a look at this little gem I found while on another site - Army guys talking tanks, bi=Lesbians and tanks

This guy shots down everything Greenpeace stands for
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 15, 2009, 12:48:42 AM
And on and on....

CAuse its the thread that never ends.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Jim Mc on December 15, 2009, 12:50:49 AM
Top notch stuff, T19.  What do you think, Stan?


Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on December 16, 2009, 06:51:22 PM
Another utube clip that I think is worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uel50vsYwiM

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: compig on December 17, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
There is a series of 1 hour programmes on BBC2 here in the UK at the moment , episode 3 is tonight.
Now I have been a climate change/global warming caused by man sceptic since this whole thing started but this programme is making me take another look. The main issue that shakes my tree is temperature rise data. The main supporting data for temp rise was from historical readings taken from small thermometer based weather stations throughout the world , with a  few playing a major role as they had been read for 200 years continuously. The correlated data showed no temp rise until the start of industrial activity. This was a principle factor in scientific belief of global warming. The skeptics then tried to discredit this data due to urban heat island issues etc. Then , the scientific community bought satellite data gathering into play and after 10 years of data acquisition they determined that the skeptics were in fact possibly correct as the data showed a temperature REDUCTION.
However , some members of the scientific community were not convinced and suspected some sort of error so began to examine the data more closely.
They discovered there was an error in the readings due to the satellites orbit gradually reducing in height , this changed the readings from the calibrated factor because of the lower height of the readings and the changed time of day the readings were taken.
When the data set was corrected for these errors the result was a measured global temperature increase.
When the graphs of the thermometer weather station readings were overlaid with the satellite data set the similarity is beyond coincidence.

This information is making me doubt my belief that climate change / global warming is due to normal climate fluctuation. Combined with other info in the programmes it's difficult to see it any other way. Presuming the information can be trusted of course.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on December 17, 2009, 12:56:37 PM
Presuming the information can be trusted of course.

Yup that is the key, can the info be trusted!!!!

When the data set was corrected for these errors the result was a measured global temperature increase. Makes you wonder if the people or should I say scientists that are doing the correcting have a predetermined conclusion! ALWAYS worries the hell out of me when someone starts talking about computer models. You and I know very well that garbage in equals garbage out. It is one thing to computer model some thing small that can be confirmed by a real man made model after the computer simulations say it will work if you build it this way. But we just can't rebuild the earth in a box and test our findings to see if we should go with cap and tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax ................
 
Like lord M in the utube clip I and I believe T19 put up he said EVERY one on earth would have to go without the use of fire to change the trend, if global warming is the case.................

Of course what do I know I am just one of the guys out wreaking the planet by producing food by agriculture.

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: compig on December 17, 2009, 01:26:39 PM
Totally agree , trust is the issue.
But then there is the thermometer weather station data set which can be tested by virtue of the diversity of locations and people monitoring them. That would be one hell of a thing to fiddle ! Especially considering that many years of data were gathered before the climate change issue arose.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 17, 2009, 01:39:56 PM
Nobody said climate does not change.

the inconvenient part is that for the past 10 years we have been cooling.... its totally screwing up their models. 

So does that mean we are cleaner?  Could be, we don't throw lead in the air like we used to, our cars are cleaner today, with less smog like emissions out the tail pipe.  The Amazon has been reclaiming clear cut lands because of farm failures.  Oh yeah, and the sun has been quiet.

I would be happy if we stopped throwing waste into our waterways, stop buring garbage and burn it (low emissions with plasma), I wold be happy to have all the coal fired gen stations get scrubbers installed.  There are lots of things we could be doing to clean up our act.

Copenhagen is about money.  The developing countries claim they should be paid for the privilege of not making smoke because the West had 150 years freestart.  BS, they benefit from the 150 years with new clean tech that we developed so they get to spring board over the hard times.  The benefit from the drugs we developed, the Internet, and new systems that make life better than the rural stone-age many are emerging from.  this is another attempt at white mans guilt, nothing more nothing less.

If these developing countries would use thier own resources, to buy new tech instead of buying weapons and killing off thier own people (Africa) they would be better off.  I hate to say it but many were better off under colonial rule than they are now as independent countries.  We gave them schools, a public service, infrastructure, and they pissed it all away.  Now they want money, no questions asked.  Sorry, not from me






Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 17, 2009, 03:20:27 PM
Today Robert Mugambe is lecturing the West on our bad ways and that we should be sending him money ... this is the man who took a prosperous country and tan it into the ground...  yeah its about the enviroment
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: compig on December 17, 2009, 03:31:48 PM
Nobody said climate does not change.

the inconvenient part is that for the past 10 years we have been cooling.... its totally screwing up their models.

So does that mean we are cleaner? Could be, we don't throw lead in the air like we used to, our cars are cleaner today, with less smog like emissions out the tail pipe. The Amazon has been reclaiming clear cut lands because of farm failures. Oh yeah, and the sun has been quiet.

I would be happy if we stopped throwing waste into our waterways, stop buring garbage and burn it (low emissions with plasma), I wold be happy to have all the coal fired gen stations get scrubbers installed. There are lots of things we could be doing to clean up our act.

Copenhagen is about money. The developing countries claim they should be paid for the privilege of not making smoke because the West had 150 years freestart. BS, they benefit from the 150 years with new clean tech that we developed so they get to spring board over the hard times. The benefit from the drugs we developed, the Internet, and new systems that make life better than the rural stone-age many are emerging from. this is another attempt at white mans guilt, nothing more nothing less.

If these developing countries would use thier own resources, to buy new tech instead of buying weapons and killing off thier own people (Africa) they would be better off. I hate to say it but many were better off under colonial rule than they are now as independent countries. We gave them schools, a public service, infrastructure, and they pissed it all away. Now they want money, no questions asked. Sorry, not from me








Thats the thing though , the corrected satellite data indicates a warming trend which confirms the thermometer weather station data. On the assumption that this is fact , should the developed countries not provide financial support to the less developed countries , it would not be possible to stop global warming because of their continued pollution emission. Some hell of a dilema !!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 17, 2009, 06:46:47 PM
Nobody, even here, is still willing to talk about the elephant in the room.
Stan

Sorry if I can't reply quickly, I'm visiting my daughter and my computer time is "rationed".  LOL
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 17, 2009, 07:14:03 PM
The elephant in the room bothers me Stan. But I am also scared of the pollution Gorilla and the resource depletion lion and the angry corporate greed bull moose in the corner appears to still be in rutt and he's pawing at the laminate flooring and looking at me funny.

As to which one pulls my arms off, stomps me under foot, tries to eat or fucks me first?
That's anyones guess.

What scares me most right is that Moose with twinkle in his eye and the big tube of KY.
He's gone to great lengths to me my special friend this year and he is not going to stop untill he gets what he wants....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on December 17, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
Nobody, even here, is still willing to talk about the elephant in the room.

Is that the population pachyderm?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 17, 2009, 07:26:16 PM
No Mike your think thinking of the black bird of over population and starvation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184&feature=channel
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 17, 2009, 09:58:02 PM
yes but today the Russians are pointing out that they gave to the British 100 years of data... and the British only used 25% of the data... the data that supports global warming.  if you use 100% of the data... ummm... no warming trend.

As for the satellite data... who did the mod to fix the change in altitude ?  If they were part of the Climate gate Kabol I would take anything they say with a grain of salt
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 18, 2009, 02:13:53 AM
Nobody, even here, is still willing to talk about the elephant in the room.

Is that the population pachyderm?

Yup!  That's the only "real" problem with the world today.   And what do you do about it?  Insist that every second person get sterilized?  That'd go over big in most countries don't you think?  Name a country that could do that and I'll name a dictatorship! 

Are you aware that there is credible intelligence that some countries have plague strains on hand to release to their own populations, with enough vaccine on hand so that the elite would survive, to prevent the inevitable popular uprising and resulting slaughter of that same elite?

Pleasant dreams!


Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on December 18, 2009, 03:58:38 AM
Now Stan

You are starting to talk like a conspiracy wack job. ;D

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 18, 2009, 06:19:44 PM
I don't think its unreasonable to assume there are those out there will to "kill for the greater good"

How many genocides did we have last century anyways?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on December 18, 2009, 07:10:24 PM
I don't think its unreasonable to assume there are those out there will to "kill for the greater good" 

PETA and Killers of Dr's (at abortion clinics) come to mind.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 19, 2009, 04:48:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ddIVgnVKvs&annotation_id=annotation_53909&feature=iv

I think its still worth listening to Gwynne Dyer

I believe Stan mentioned " The 4 conclusions " in an earlier post but I don't recal actauly having it posted..
Recently some nice people UNITE in the UK began to refer to me as " Comrad Doug " in response to my more militant stance on trade unionism and greed and I don't think I mind it as much as it used to bother me lol. So I think I will work that into just about every conversation from now on refering to anyone of a like mind who I see is being attacked for have a left wing and local view.
There is a growing feeling in the cirlcles I talk with that the single biggest reason the enviroment is in the mess it is caused by greed.

A Union is a rather selfsih form of socialsm since it doens't realy adress the problems of sociciety in general but encourages to some extent the me first at the trough mentality. And its not all that different from the pure Capitalsit force that are working ( not by any master plan but just it's nature ) to concentrate wealth in that direction. Midlle class and upper class, two shrinking tiers of society fighting and arguing with each other while the sillent growing underclass looks on in frustration and resentment.

Nothing we do seems to adress the rel problem of trying to decide not what is fair but how much is enough.
Unless we are prepared to discuss what is enough and set quotas, ration, and look for a sustainable way of life we are fucked. You and I and nearly everyone we know does not fit into the this semi educated to illiterate class of "have not's" who toil in the fringes. The real danger is what happens if they decide they are not going to be sidelined anymore. IF global warming causes mass migrations like some predict and resource depleation and energy shortages combine with a critcal mass of realy pissed off poor people we will have a real probem.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 20, 2009, 01:30:49 AM
:Yup, they found out real quick in WWI that if thousands of the enemy are coming at you, you can only shoot/gas/bomb/ so many of them before the mass gets to you.  Imagine if a million/billion of them are coming?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on December 20, 2009, 02:07:54 AM
Sounds like i better start buying all the ammunition i can get my hands on.  lol
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 20, 2009, 02:33:19 AM
No Scott if you do that we give into the idea we are not in control of our lives and countries.

We need to change everything and we need to start looking for solutions that can raise everyone to a decent standard of life with freedom equality and human rights.

Or we face a world of ecconomic apartied, violence and mysery and you will never have enough cases bullets to hide behind from it....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 20, 2009, 03:32:38 AM
we live in a world that will always be parted by a number of factors, there will always be rich and poor, sick and healthy, crazy and sane
and there will always be war. that is the human condition.

this does not mean we should not do what we can to help those in "real" need, but you gotta make sure the help actually gets to
those that have real need, and not line the pockets of some tin pot dictator.

in my opinion it is high time to establish a multinational elite force with the mandate to rid the world of crazy dictators, terrorists, and those
that would starve their own mother to gain politically or economically.

i am not talking war, i am thinking something much more clandestine, sharpshooters with a mission to pop the likes of that nutbag in north korea, this counterpart in iran and venesula would be a good start.  of course a good training ground would be in mexico and columbia where spotters and the sniper can hone their skills.

seems to me it would cost far less in innocent lives, loss of soldiers, loss of materials, and dollars to go after the head rather than continueing
to try to kill the snake by millions of paper cuts starting at the tail.  the billions of dollars saved could be better spent helping the population after
you get rid of the assholes that make  like miserable for everyone.

case in point, iran
the iranian people are not bad people, however there leadership has been screwed up for decades, first the shaw, then the komeini(s) now this
awkmadenajad (ok so my spelling is bad, shoot me).  The people of iran tried to rise up after a rigged election and were put down by their crazed
dictator, if ever there was a time to step into a country it was then!  there would have been no need to win over the hearts and minds of the populace,, they were already there!

its amazing in my opinion how much could be done if the nutbags were just not part of the equation. 

yes as long as there is humans on this earth there will be those in charge and those that are charged.

btw, as of october 1st the american shooting public (non military, non police, just average joes) bought over 12 billion rounds of ammo
since the first of the year.

with 12 billion rounds you don't have to be an expert marksman

personally i full ascribe to "walk softly and carry a big stick" , there are those that just simply cannot be persuaded without overwhelming
force.

obama can talk to dictators and try to reason all he wants, sooner or later he will come to realize that just like the bully on the school yard
all the talking is not going to save you your lunch money, or a bloody lip. 

its not till you meet the bully with a ball bat to the head that you gain respect, ask kahdafi about that
ever wonder why he has been relatively quiet?  don't hear much out of sadam or his bastard son's either, thank allah for recycling them.

and yes, waterboarding should be the next olympic sport!

:)

bob g

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 20, 2009, 07:04:55 AM
No Scott if you do that we give into the idea we are not in control of our lives and countries.

We need to change everything and we need to start looking for solutions that can raise everyone to a decent standard of life with freedom equality and human rights.

Or we face a world of ecconomic apartied, violence and mysery and you will never have enough cases bullets to hide behind from it....

The only thing we can control is our own country.  So long as people wish to live under people like like Mugabe, or that nut job in Iran... nothing we can do except invade them ... but people only understand and want freedom and democracy if it is given and paid for in blood.  Until the people in their own country decide they want to raise themselves up, nothing we can do for them.  The West imposed Democracy, infrastructure and institutions on their colonies, and within 10 years, many of those colonies are back to tribal rule and dictatorships.  The people were not ready and not able to understand what it is they had been given, because it has to be won and paid for in blood.  Only Canada, Barbados Australia and New Zealand have been able to go from Colony to to free democratic state without a revolt and  without reverting to dictatorships or tribal rule.

If people cant fix where they live, how are we as a world going to tackle some airy fairy concept such as Global Warming?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 20, 2009, 08:10:46 AM
"the single biggest reason the enviroment is in the mess it is caused by greed."

100% correct Doug. 

We are also witnessing the implosion of capitalism first-hand.  For those that think it's not, don't kid yourself.

"So long as people wish to live under people like like Mugabe, or that nut job in Iran... nothing we can do except invade them"

Andrew, with all due respect, you are way, way off with this statement.  What would you like them to do, throw dirt clods at the military guys holding automatic weapons?

"people wish.."

Give me a break dude!  Have you EVER walked down a sidewalk lined on both sides with military police holding automatic weapons that is 40 officers long?  I have, in a third world country no less, and I can tell you it's more than a little intimidating.  Walking a gauntlet like that with them all looking at you is very unnerving even if you've done nothing wrong.

Again, please explain how an unarmed population is supposed to rise up with no help.  Have you visited Darfur lately?  How about Iran?  Maybe you should and you could instruct the folks that have tried to rise up how they could do it better.

Regarding Bob's comment about cutting off the head of the snake, I couldn't agree more.  This constant war BS needs to end as it's bankrupting this country.  Further, there is simply no need for it on many, many levels.  Limit the fighting to professional sports and be done with it. 

Funny thing is, I bet if the masses were treated fairly and equitably, there would be far less war and very little to no reason for it.  It's the concentration of wealth that leaves folks hungry, broke, homeless, etc that causes them to rise up and support assholes who promise them the world...

Steve
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on December 20, 2009, 10:21:34 PM
Well....
No one in the world will trust he U.S. to help them rid themselves of the dictators that oppress them. they have seen, too many times, the U.S. loose a few thousand people & run from the fight. Wether it be from Vietnam to Iraq to Somalia to Afghanistan, they see as Osama Bin Laden did that too many people in this country can not stomach the taking of human life. Before some of you start to hound me about the disrespect of our military personnel,, you can stop, I have nothing but respect and awe of the people that put their lives on the line every day for this country, my wife is a desert storm /Somalia veteran, nearly half my family are in one branch or another. But as long as we have people that refuse to see the use of force as an option, have a media that will drum beat for any anti-war cause , with a Democrat party that will use it as a political tool to gain power & the "enemy" knows that they will only have to wait for the next change of a president to get the time table for our withdraw from a conflict- who can trust us, & why should they.

   Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 21, 2009, 04:34:37 AM
Scott you are right, we in the west have forgotten that war must be hell.  Why?  So we dont do or go into it lightly.  that once we are in it, we give it 100%, win it at all cost and go home.

Now we have limited wars with rules of engagement.  Since the End of WW2, we have collectively forgotten how to wage war and are getting our buts kicked by the guys with the 5 and 10 year plans.  They just wait us out and play out on the media.  remeber on the ground the VC lost Tet, but in the living rooms of the USA, the VC won.

Germany is having a look see at why they killed civilians that were raiding a fuel truck with the Taliban.  WTF?

And in Canada, we have the Loyal Opposition upset because we turned a Taliban over to the local police and he was tortured... yes he was hit around the head with a shoe... and thats a problem???

We have forgotten was is hell.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 21, 2009, 05:41:06 PM
Slippery slope Andrew one you starting hitting a Prisoner even witha shoe.....

I don't think it would be seen as acceptable to Canadians if WE had POWs that were being even mildly mistreated and we can't expect more than one set of rules.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 21, 2009, 07:35:31 PM
What are you trying to imply doug?
The prisoner was hit with a shoe by local police.  Canadian Soldiers took the prisoner away from the local police and did not turn him over until another group came and got him with assurances that he would not be beaten.  so what is the problem?  That we turned him over to the legal authorities? 

The Canadian Military informed Foreign affairs who worked with the Red Cross to establish new rules for treatment of detainees.  Let us hope that if some poor western soldier is captured, that he or she is treated to the high standards of the Geneva convention, or at least up to the standards that Mohammad himself instructed his followers to follow... but I suspect they will be tortured, beaten, then beheaded with a dull knife and posted on uTube.

No one,  not in or out of the military advocates abusing detainees,BTW they are not POW, they do not qualify under the definition as combatants... we would be within our rights under international law to summarily execute them on the spot as spies and saboteurs.   Dont believe me, look it up, you will be surprised what is and what is not lawful, and you will see the Western forces have gone out of their way to treat the detainees with respect, and dignity.

And war fighting has nothing to do with that.  In the Second world war we had no qualms of leveling a city, now we get upset if people are put out on the street because a sniper was using their house and our tank takes out the second floor with the sniper.

We are losing our will to fight, we have no stomach for it, and we will be abused, and enslaved for it.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Geno on December 22, 2009, 10:21:28 PM
Back on topic.
From Climateaudit.org and Steve McIntyre

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqi7fxERiqk
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnCLQIYNYgo
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Pj6uWTgXM
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWYuZs6Idb8
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTS3K9DFy0

Thanks, Geno
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on December 22, 2009, 11:10:41 PM
 James Hansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen"), the guy behind climate modeling and pretty much the most important climate scientist in the world.

Here is a video of him (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/22/leading_climate_scientist_james_hansen_on") speaking against cap and trade and being glad Copenhagen has failed. He also talks about "climategate" (skip to 48:00 minute mark), special interests in Washington and pretty much what's up with today's global warming debate.
Quote

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 23, 2009, 12:03:48 AM
I'm once again becoming frustrated and radicalized with things and the lack of direction and strong leadership on the issues that face us.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTbashsKic
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 23, 2009, 12:38:11 AM
I would say we have great leaders.  but, just what is the emergency?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 23, 2009, 01:04:53 AM
You're retired and live in Ottawa (full employment, house prices going up, rental rates super low etc.)  Andrew.  Ask the people of "small town" Canada like the ones in Castlegar BC where the multinational pulp mill decided a couple of years ago that it didn't want (despite being very profitable) to pay it's taxes to the town.  So for the last 2 years 40% of the tax base has been missing, on top of the legal bills incured by the town to try and sue these bastards.  They've threatened to close down the mill putting the majority of the people in town out of work, if they aren't allowed to operate tax free.  btw....the company (Mercer Intl) is being supported fully by the Harper govt. and his spawn, MP Jim Abbott (aka conservative lemming)

That's the emergency, repeated in countless other towns.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 23, 2009, 02:08:53 AM
I retired from the forces... with no pension, I was a full time Reservist.  I have a job, with full employment.

I come from Oshawa, were thousands have been laid off, family included.  I was born in Ebbw Vale Wales were the closing of the Steel Mill forced my parents to migrate to Canada.  So whats the point?  You assume I dont know hardship?

As for companies supporting the Conservatives, you really need to brush up on current election finance law.  Thanks to Liberal PM Crietien, companies are limited to how much they can now give, its as little as $2500.  Not a lot to buy a political party with.  BTW the conservatives recieve over 80% of their funding from Joe and Jane Canuck, unlike the Liberals who owned Canadian Big Business.  So why the change?  Spite, The Shawinagin Strangler did it to screw over Paul Martin, and in effect bankrupted the Liberal Party.

As for your local issue, sounds like if your town read the BNA or Canadian Constitution, they would know that municipalities are the domain of the Province, not the federal Gov't, so maybe your town should talk to the Liberal Premier about helping, instead of the Feds who are not allowed to do so.

The first step would be to go to the provincial courts and apply to confiscate the property and assets for sale for back taxes.

What is it you want the Feds to do??  In what way are they being supported??  And what does this have to do with Climate Change??  And how would the Liberals or NDP do anything different?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 23, 2009, 02:29:16 AM
Trying to get the polticians to stand up for Canada i slike banging two bricks together.
At the end of thday your arms are tired and your left with a pile of dust around you.....

Now start throwing them bricks and maybe they will take notice!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 23, 2009, 03:20:27 AM
lets see.... Harper stood up for Canada at Copenhagen and got crapped on my the lefty elites

He stood up to China on human rights... lefty media crap on him

He (and former Liberal PMs) are standing up to the Taliban and Al Quada... and the lefty media crap on him

He stood up to Ham-mass while the Liberals tried to get them delisted as a Terrorist Org, and the Lefty media crapped on him


What do you want them to do specifically?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 23, 2009, 03:52:41 AM
Every heavy industry we have except oil i seeing a decline in wages as we loose control of our ecconomy of multinationals export or wealth and jobs.

Where we do have growth in things like oil we again don't even have a Canadian oil company anymore.

We are going backwards and people just except this is normal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgw-V0LrYFU

Now there are new jobs that do pay well but the trueth is we can't squeeze 20 boddies into one job.

Money flies out of the country now and skips right over Ottawa and Toronto. Not even publicly traded companies anymore.

We can't even get an anti scab law in this province because big buiness says its unfair they must hire scabs to run the plants rather than negotiate lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHYAozdxaSM&NR=1&feature=fvwp

OK its out of my system for now .

Happy Christmas  ;D 
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 23, 2009, 12:43:48 PM
You might be surprised, but I agree with you, I do not think that closing down our heavy industries or selling them and the tech to the Chinese is good for Canada or the USA from a national security perspective.  I remember the absurdity of our ships having to get parts that were no longer made in Canada/West, but had to be bought from the USSR, who the ships were hunting.

I dont buy the arguments that heavy industry jobs will be replaced by high tech... its not happening, nor is it going to happen because we are outsourcing that to India

I believe in Fair trade, so far the free trade has been good for Walmart, not good for the country
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 23, 2009, 01:33:05 PM
its hard to imagine how a "high tech" job will ever build one of those monster screws/propellors for a submarine.

when the chips are down you need that foundry, and those foundry workers, and their abilities while enhanced by
high technology are certainly not something that is a requisite to getting the part made.

i can't imagine us ever getting into another world war like ww2,  where on earth are we to get all the materials and all
the manufactureing base up and running in time?  where are we going to get the sewing machine factories to convert to
small arms manufactureing?, where are we going to get all the foundry's to cast all the needed parts? crap our car companies
are so robotized and specialized, it is hard to imagine being able to repurpose them to building tanks and other stuff.

we don't even have the machine tool manufacturing we did in the 1940's, i am not even sure we have 2% of that capacity remaining
in this country. there were dozens if not hundreds of machine tool manufactures in cincinatti alone in 1940, where today is there even
one left?

how many aircraft manufactures did we have?  what do we have left? one of six or more heavy aircraft manufactures?

all we need about now is another (smarter) hitler to pop up somewhere on the globe and start another reighn of terror, with the
current political thinking in this country, we would want to talk him to death for 10 years while he was busy building up and taking country
after country.

folks say ww2 could never happen again, probably just like they said ww1 could never happen again.

you know it is going to happen, the questions are when and where.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 23, 2009, 04:30:54 PM
Your right Bob.....

Trueth is if Lenin sat up in his coffin and started to speak I would stop and listen.
Because I am running out of reasons to think the status quoe will improve and further I will be expected to continue to give up more and more in the name of free markets and free trade.

The real problem we face is everything we buy is getting cheaper that 1972 home shop drill press sitting ina show room was 700 dollars today its 300. The only thing that has changed is the people whop build, move sell and buy it have less and less.

The real probelm is you can't make Iron and and coal and steel much cheaper ( in real dollars ). But you can make the labour involved cheaper by squeezing wages outsourcing and reducing the human content by automation. The tipping point where we can no longer aford to buy enough of these things to keep the factories running has been reached, and we can no longer borrow enough money to pay for it.

We can't cut taxes enough to compensate for the loss to the working class there simply  is not enough money available to sustain our satndard of living so the real ecconomy that you and I and everyone here lives and worls in shrinks. The people above us who used to gain from from the tax cuts and lower wages are starting to pich now too. The investors lost their shirts where the midle class spending orgy ended last year. Sure they got some back with the goverment bail out spending orgy but that didn't fix the problem.

We can't raise the taxes.
We don't make much with our labour anymore.
We can't find the money to keep the wheel turning.

We are left pounding the bricks.

Once the empty bellies start to rumble and the roofs overhead leak people will stop pounding those bricks and start throwing them.

Bob and I share significantly different political and ecconomic views but we both see the same problem. I don't think he has any solutions better than mine. I don't think anyone here has a solution that will put things back to the way they were in 1960 when the goverment worked, unions worked, buisness worked and mass production and mass consumption still worked.

War still works however its as good at soaking up manpower and industrial production than ever. Infact its even better at now thanks to modern technology than ever....

 
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 24, 2009, 12:45:37 AM
As for companies supporting the Conservatives, you really need to brush up on current election finance law.  Thanks to Liberal PM Crietien, companies are limited to how much they can now give, its as little as $2500.  Not a lot to buy a political party with.  BTW the conservatives recieve over 80% of their funding from Joe and Jane Canuck, unlike the Liberals who owned Canadian Big Business.  So why the change?  Spite, The Shawinagin Strangler did it to screw over Paul Martin, and in effect bankrupted the Liberal Party.

Andrew...I know the law well.  FYI, here's how it works.  Company "A" a big multi national, in a town near me, is a firm supporter of the gov't  and gets lots of "perks" because of that.  It's mandated maximum funding is set.  However, this company tenders out to many private firms, from one man operations to large  ocompanies/suppliers.  It's well known that if you want to do business as a contract or or supplier for this big multinational, you have to have ON RECORD (which is public) that you have contributed the maximum amount to the Conservative party, or you don't get the contract.

there's a way around every law, and this one has a loophole a mile wide which the friends of Stephen flaunt openly.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 24, 2009, 02:04:15 AM
\except as I pointed out the cons get most of their funding from private people, even before the Liberal changes.  Its the Liberals who are having the hard time because the big companies cant contribute like they use to.

BTW what you reported is against the law, if you have proof you should report it
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 24, 2009, 02:37:48 PM
Come on andrew, you've been around the block just as many times as I have.  You know very well that if anyone reported this kind of behind the scenes shenanigans, against the law or not, the commissioner of elections ( or whatever his/her title is this month) would just ask, show me written proof, and there will be none.  No large company is stupid enough to put something like that in writing.   If anyone swore out an affidavite against the company, some committee would start investigating the complaint and that would drag on for years.

For example.....A major oil company was recently accused of totally ruining a river in N. Alberta and as a result, the Alberta govt and syncrude struck a committee of 50 people with very narrow guidlines to investigate.  In the instructions to the committee were rules that stated any results had to be by concensus and as you can well imagine it will be decades before 50 people can all agree on anything.

 As well, the person/contractor who finked would never get another contract for work as long as he lived and everyone knows it.  Don't ever confuse "laws" with "justice".  Laws are artificial constructs most often based on political expediency, justice is an ethical philosophy, rarely considered in politics.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 24, 2009, 05:56:52 PM
Yes Stan, I have been around the block many times, but you seem to miss the point that I have been making.  The Cons get thier money from individual donations, not large company donations.  And most companies give the same amounts to both major parties these days because it is so limited.  What I find so interesting is you seem to think this is a recent event, it has been common place since confederation.  You vote Conservative and the Libs get in, you dont get your bridge, and visa versa.

Hell you live in BC, the home of Whack Bennett et al. 

And your concerns are the same regardless of which gov't is in, we have a situation where a couple are suing the OPP and the provincial gov't for abandonment of their duties because the police would not do their jobs and arrest Indian Protesters who took over a building site, leaving Mr and Mrs Brown to be Terrorized and abused by these native thugs.

Royal commissions are to make us feel good, not get anything done.  by the time they get a solution, people wonder what was the question - Air India, etc



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 24, 2009, 06:21:50 PM
The biggest Con I see.....

http://www.metalprices.com/FreeSite/metals/nickelalloy/nickelalloy.asp

LME inventories are breaking up the sky. Un heard of levels of metal sitting in warehgouses in Rottordam and Shanghi....
Now get ready for this the price is rising......

Its been up and down all year but it s trading at or above the production costs of all producers ( of conventional nickle that is )

Look at Coppper, Alumunim and Iron ore.....
All have HUGE stock piles and all are trading at very high levels....

The free market system has been fixed plane and simple, the true monopoly has been replaced by thge wink and a hand shake.

Its not about producing and keeping costs down anymopre its about restricting production and and inflating prices.

See Now INCO was regulated and restricted in my fathers day. It was the last big monopoly after standard oil. It used to manipulate the prices like this and then drive them so low that any new compeditors would be crushed.

What has changed nothing? 

Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?
Where's our goverment ?


Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 24, 2009, 06:46:27 PM
Where is your Governement?

That would be in Ottawa, what do you want them to do??

Looks like the metal guys are taking a page out of the OPEC play book.

This is going to hurt
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: SHIPCHIEF on December 25, 2009, 01:22:31 AM
So AGW turned out to be the hoax we thought it was.
That does not mean the perps will stop trying for the brass ring. What was the end game anyway?
Can't they still get that with a new crisis? Swine flu fell thru the floor, so I guess it will be domestic terrorists who believe in self determination, and mention things like 'the consent of the governed'.
There is alway a new crisis around every corner.
Control of a rich and self determinate population is the problem here. Those effing middle class brutes are too hard to control. Better trash the world economy and reduce the north american continental population.
They are mucking up the ultimate theme park for the uber-leaders.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 25, 2009, 04:12:15 PM
Its been something like 140 years since this was written nations have rissen and fallen and everthing that has happened risks happening again unless we learn to ballence wealth, freedom, democracy and property rights. Nothing will stop sudden violent change once we reach a tipping point and no one can predict what will happen once everything is tipped over and we have nothing but smahed pieces and rage left.

How quickly our ideals can be corrupted....

Arise, ye workers from your slumber,
Arise, ye prisoners of want.
For reason in revolt now thunders,
and at last ends the age of cant!
Away with all your superstitions,
Servile masses, arise, arise!
We'll change henceforth the old tradition,
And spurn the dust to win the prize!
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

No more deluded by reaction,
On tyrants only we'll make war!
The soldiers too will take strike action,
They'll break ranks and fight no more!
And if those cannibals keep trying,
To sacrifice us to their pride,
They soon shall hear the bullets flying,
We'll shoot the generals on our own side.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.

No saviour from on high delivers,
No faith have we in prince or peer.
Our own right hand the chains must shiver,
Chains of hatred, greed and fear.
E'er the thieves will out with their booty,
And to all give a happier lot.
Each at his forge must do their duty,
And we'll strike the iron while it's hot.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally,
And the last fight let us face.
The Internationale,
Unites the human race.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 25, 2009, 04:41:24 PM
it has been the motto of the liberals for what seems like forever

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

when you ascribe to that modus operandi, you stand to make millions, billions and if you do a really good job "trillions" of dollars.

to these folks "government" much like a hammer see's every problems as a nail.

hard for me to see government as anything other than a framing hammer just waiting to tenderize my thumb.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 25, 2009, 04:58:23 PM
Gee Doug, your workers paradise has been tried and found wanting. USSR, East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... ummm see a pattern here?

The words of the International are nice drivial but were does it say the people take risks with their assets so that those workers can work?  What is the reward for that risk??

And how does that relate to the Climate Warming Hoax?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 25, 2009, 05:24:59 PM
Gee Doug, your workers paradise has been tried and found wanting. USSR, East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... ummm see a pattern here?

The words of the International are nice drivial but were does it say the people take risks with their assets so that those workers can work?  What is the reward for that risk??

And how does that relate to the Climate Warming Hoax?

Since you mentioned the USSR, who was it said their workers appear lazy and unproductive, thus killing the system, but the workers say "you pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work".

Any system can be ruined from within by greed and corruption, look at our compatriat conrad black!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 25, 2009, 06:30:00 PM
Gee Doug, your workers paradise has been tried and found wanting. USSR, East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea... ummm see a pattern here?

And how does that relate to the Climate Warming Hoax?

It all relates Andrew...

And it's a warning if you read that post change what we have and how we use what we have or will learn the lessons of the past as the wheel turns again.

Cap and Trade = Ration Card and line up
Or do we want to get out of the Hampster wheel and find another way......

YUM YUM ITS A BEAUTIFUL FREAKING WORLD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr6Wwb6Std0&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on December 26, 2009, 02:56:43 AM
Ok Stan, I might have had too much Bailey's in my coffee but what are you on about???  People are corrupt...well duh, there was only one perfect man, and he had a crappy Easter Weekend.  I would rather live in the illusion of democracy an Freedom than know that the world sucks in a Communist / Socialist world... at least in this, our system, there is the hope that I will do better than my parents

Doug I agree with you on Cap and Trade, I do not think that will work, but I would like us in the west to become more Pro Western, and keep our "cleanned up" heavy industry here

BTW Ronald McDonald has one hot daughter
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 26, 2009, 06:33:36 PM
Happy Wrestling day.....

Andrew it sure would be nice to keep our heavy industry all cleaned up and profitable but I don't think its going t happen. We may keep the bricks and mortar but we won't keep the jobs.

The machine the little guy from Shawinigan was supposedly operating was actually have a nervous break down that day. A chum of mioe retired now was actually hiding around a pillar out of sight running it manually. Eventually the machine did run sort of but this particular scoop now rests comfortably in the garage at 6000 level only ever run with an operator.
The promiss of new technology to create jobs making these machines never happened. Much of the work was out sourced, most of the technology was shelved.

http://www.republicofmining.com/2009/07/06/sudburys-high-tech-mining-mania-by-stan-sudol/

"Prime Minister Chretien is no stranger to the region’s high-tech mining industry.  In a 1994 visit, he was photographed operating an underground robotic scoop tram at Inco’s North Mine while on the surface many kilometres away."

But the promiss of a machine smart enough to do a man's job with a minimum of supervision from an unskilled ( low wage ) operator at a remote location ( could be a telemarketer skill level in a Toronto or even Rio ) has not been forgotten.

There is little or no justification for high wage jobs in the new economy I the technology exists to automate and outsource them. This is something I just can't drill into people's heads.....
I built the control package for that Scoop!
The technology was not ready however because a Pentium 1 processor running the crude and clumsy software of the day would fail at some point in a shift.

But we are so close now....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wgyGglytKg&feature=related
These play a dull game of soccor but they have the technological sophistication to muck a round. I wonder how long before they have the sophistication to do other things like clean a road, move suplies, scale, drill and bolt a heading ect.

Just one example but we don't make this type of technology here in the nickel city or Canada for that matter and even if we did it will not offset the numbers of workers it displaces. We all know technology drop's in costs every year right so how can people performing a task in competition with technology ever expect anything but less and less wages and a lower standard of living. The fellow in the third world will also face the same challenges how can he ever rise above the level of a disposable implement if his wages increase to the point he must compete with automation.

How will government respond?
Loosen the rules health, safety, job security and pollution to keep out brick and mortar competitive with the 3rd world?

Here is the facts there is not enough of anything to go around for 6 billion people
The only way to compete in the new economy is slash the costs you can control such as wages.

So our jobs are disappearing and I challenge you to show me any signs of new growth in the past 20 years that has stopped the slow rot in our economies as our good jobs disappear. We can't keep the wealth here without fixing the game to exploit workers in the third world by shipping them our dirty jobs at poverty wages. We can't stem the tide of wealth fleeing the country to invest in low wage countries. We have no way to produce enough energy and raw materials to raise 6 billion people to our standard of living even if we burned out and ripped up every scrap we have in the world to make enough widgets.

And if all that was not enough we have the spector of technology producing more than we can buy but no system in place that can evenly distribute the necessities of life even if we all accepted the idea of a 2/3 decline in our western standard of living in order to raise everyone else up to our level. By that I mean we have no economic system in place that can redistribute the wealth in a society where we have more have nots than haves that is fair.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 26, 2009, 06:44:26 PM
My prediction is we get the lines and ration cards in Canada those on the top will pay what ever is needed to keep us under control.
They have too many guns in the USA for people to except rationing so I have no idea where that will lead.
There will be riots in places where they simply can't control the masses and feed them.


The climate will take care of itself as our energy production drops or cool rapidly ( nuclear winter ).


Smile if you own guns and can fix things odds are you will make it....
 ;D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: SteveU. on December 26, 2009, 08:49:14 PM
Folks this has all happened before many times. Egyptians, Greece, Rome, China (several times), Great Britain three times most recently right before the North Sea oil wealth rush.
Rapid social/economic changes led by technology shifts and markets flooded by cheaper out of country imports raw AND manufactured materials and labor. EG: US and later Canadian cheap wheat onto the world markets in the 1870's-1914. Cheap colonial wheat and slave labor flooding Rome, and foreign smart hungry merchants and trades men displacing established workers. Sound familia? Good for the Haves, the New Rich; but hell on the native born.
Solutions are have all been tried and experienced. Bread and circuses, great labor absorbing public works projects, labor intensive wars, polarization and stratification of societies into Have and Have-nots. The Haves employing and paying for personal security forces. Western civilization in the 1200-1700's. Adaptation can be slow and somewhat controlled, or, rapid and brutal. With our pace of life now, well?? I haven't been seeing too many people waking up and hoeing a garden yet.

Yes good time knowing how to fix real everyday needed things. Good time to know how to supply your own basic needs for food, shelter clothing and energy.
Pretty much why we are most here , eh?

Guns?? I have guns. I have used guns to kill now too many times. Had blood on my hands just this last week. Means that this time my just being a gun owner failed to keep the respect and peace. So far in a civil society that is what they are best for. Past that utility I consider my guns as means to survive a failure. . . . and that never puts a smile on my face.

Regards,
American SteveU.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 26, 2009, 09:18:23 PM
at least in this, our system, there is the hope that I will do better than my parents



I agree that we all hope this, and in a few ways maybe we have succeeded, but economically, we have failed in this miserably, unless you are in the top 1% of the income earners in Canada.  btw...this isn't just my opinion, it's in stats Canada's figures on income.

Who's daughter is hot?????    Maybe I'd better have another rum & coke.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 26, 2009, 09:29:44 PM
With all due respect Steve I don't think you get it at all.

I am in the Automation buisness and I didn't see and understand what was happening for nearly 20 years. The pace of shange is happening faster than than we can retrain people to do other things. By the time we do retrain a blue collar worker for a Job that pays a decent wage that job has changed to where a new workers skills are not marketable or there is a wash of people already invading that sector to the point wages have eroded.

Who is going to invest 2 or 3 years training and lets say 25,000 only to find out that job only pays about 25,000 with stagnant ( at best )wage gains for the future.

The last rescession was a warm up we had ecconomic growth and no real jobs for very long time. Employers learned improved productivity was cheaper than expanding the workforce. Now eventualy people did find new jobs but 1 bread winner family that becomes a 2 bread winner family with mom at Walmart and dad driving a truck or working in construction is not the same even if they have regained the spending power they lost. Obviously we found out with the housing buble people were buying on credit and that sector collapsed as an example. The high tech buble before that provoed we can't employ Milions of people in a sector that doesn't actulay make anything or produce proffits ( and the high tech sector moved to India anyhow ).

Yes like the Industrial revolution in the begining Skilled jobs were replaced by factory jobs that paid less. But a combination of improved productivity and higher wages gave rose to mass consumption and mass production.
What we have here is a case of mass over production, declining wages, technologivcal displacement and an ever increasing rate of change that no worker can reasonably be expected to adapt too.

Once a job or carreer lasted you might change jobs a few times but you you never realy changed your basic skill set. Now your skills have to change every 5 years or less. You must learn new skills pay off the debts incurred and make a living then retool and start over and still not fall into debt.

I'm a good electrician, but I can't keep up with the rapid change in Machinery just in my trade. Retrain 10,000 men to do what I do, depress wages by increasing the labour pool and see how many people drop out of the trade and how quickly you can't find a specialist like me. I am expected to do everything from wire wall plugs to trouble shoot a giant marine electric propulsion system for a ship. I'm not a salor ( never worked in naval electrcial system ) so I need to work at it for an extended period of time. Then I am awash in new retrained people who only know that. Then the next piece of technology from something no one ever expected is grafted into my little industrial plant and everyone scratches their heads.

Wages don't reflect what one knows but rather what one does. Obscolete skills are worthless. redundant workers are worthless. Retraining for jobs that don't last is not cost effective.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: SHIPCHIEF on December 27, 2009, 02:19:52 AM
Doug the Luddite.
Well I guess we all are at least after turning 40 or so.
You previous post about automation is pointing to the heart of the matter, almost like the opening lines to "The Terminator".
The Renaissance occurred after the plague swept Europe, (which was after the Mini Ice Age?). So many people died that there just was not enough brute labor to get everything done. So levers and machines were invented.
Now we have automation, and much of the labor will no longer be required. Surplus people.
The world can support 6 billion people. There just is not enough productive work for them to do. And we all know that Idle hands stuff.....
So I read about economic models that are supposed to tax (cap & trade) the rich nations to fund and establish productivity in poor nations so the quality of life will go up and birth rates will go down.
Now that's what I call a planned economy. It would need a global government to force it.
I guess it's the new way now that every one is afraid of an atomic war.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 27, 2009, 04:15:10 AM
The labour movement dropped the ball in the 60s in the auto plants when the first CNC machines and computers started to show up.

Its not about retraining because you can't retrain people for jobs that don't yet exist in a future you can't see. And nearly any repetitive task has the potential to be deskilled, simplified and automated. The speed at which this is going to start to happen VERY shortly will absolutely blow your fucking minds. Pardon my language but its another one of my tipping points I see not more than 5-10 years out the dawn of the workless factory is almost here.

Am I a Luddite?
No but we have totally failed to consider a future that can not continue to grow because of resource and capital restrictions

If we had taken the right steps in the 60s and moved to a pension system that invested in our employers.
Included fair and real profit sharing index wages in place of strike/wage demands claw backs.
If we had turned our productivity gains into free time like a 30 hour work week.
If we had moved to a system of consumption taxes that rewarded people for saving and fixing instead of spending and throwing out.
Turned things like Welfare in " Volunteer fair " and rewarded the weakest and move vulnerable in our society with a social wage for helping improve everyones lives.

There is a lot of things that need doing in our society we have no conventional way of paying for. Things done by church groups and volunteers that should be considered work because they generate wealth but are not because they are done for free. But we have no system to reward people for this and this should be considered an important part of the economy.

We can't go backwards, technology held the promiss to make our lives better reduce waste and suffering. But we didn't think about how to get there we never planned for it.

The machines are not the problem WE are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AY09DJkQMY
Well if we had done these things we would not be in such a state of shock now when things go into convulsions
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: SHIPCHIEF on December 27, 2009, 06:24:53 AM
I love Metropolis, and it was far ahead of it's time.
I'm not too sure how much you can read into tho-
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 27, 2009, 04:47:44 PM

No its just a cool movie.

It doesn't illustrate any of my point other than the worker as a disposable implement. But like to day the capatalists at the top do not understand the effects of their technology on the workers. They are even horified to discover their workers are not happy but rather have become apathetic parts of the machines.

And I really dig the Moloch machine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNPyrVaC2LM&feature=related
Perhaps some interesting insights into earlier parts of the technological revolution. Frizt Lang could not predict the computer or they way mass information would empower workers. But he did seem to understand how it would create class of leaders insulated from reality
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 27, 2009, 05:56:02 PM
it has been the motto of the liberals for what seems like forever

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

when you ascribe to that modus operandi, you stand to make millions, billions and if you do a really good job "trillions" of dollars.

to these folks "government" much like a hammer see's every problems as a nail.

hard for me to see government as anything other than a framing hammer just waiting to tenderize my thumb.

bob g

Yeah, kind of like GW did with Iraq...

Collectively we need to lose the repub/lib mentality as it's a complete waste of time.  Both parties are now the same and it's all a big charade.  Ever heard of divide and conquer?  We've bought into it hook line and sinker with the repub/lib mentality and it's why the sleazoids in power have been able to remain there. 

I've written about this before.

Steve
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: SteveU. on December 27, 2009, 05:59:30 PM
Hey Doug,
I love you like a brother, man.
Excellent post speaking from the standpoint of a skilled tradesmen.
You have accurately described my own three trades careers investment, training and burn outs to a Tee. All obsolete and redundant now, employing less people at minimal wages.
The last I began in 1999 at nearly 50 years old to become a Master Automobile Technician. Did it too. Took five years. An initial 2000+ hours then an annual 500+ hours a year in learning/training. An initial investment of $16,000 in tools and then at least an annual $5,000 tool investment a year, each and every year to advance and try to keep up.
Problem was by 2005 mine and all other auto tech/mechs earnings were declining annually, new guys were being 9-10 month minimal wages burnt out and  and I with the new sales end team approach was being forced to be the torch burning them out. I could earn 60% of an 80's, 90's wage IF I was willing to work one journeyman and two burn out  "apprentices" slaves in actuality below me. Yeah, did that for as long as I could stomach it.  I finally puked and John Gaul walked away along with many others. Good luck getting your 2001-07 purchased pride and joy repaired now that you cannot afford  new anymore.
And All because the normal automotive business 8% annual investment/replacement cycle had been screwed up after  the Al-Kydia attacks in 2001 to a 12% pace.
To "Save our Economy" our President unleashed the Lions of finance and the manufacturing robots were cranked up producing too many cars. Why repair? Just buy new. Everybody involved did more and more for less and less. By 2005 there were 100,000's of thousand LESS auto workers making more and more cars. Want to earn a living wage then? Go into housing construction. Go into Sales. Well that bubble has popped now too.
With all of the borrowed and false printed money flooding the economy of course people went on a buying binge.
I saw it in most of my friends, relatives and neighbors around me. Only the older ones like my self having lived through "hard times" of rationing, shortages, double digit inflation and stagflation knew and showed a little restraint with all of these new cheap shiny goodies dangled before them.

You see Doug I actually agree with you. Normal pace of reinvestment and change in most all areas have been exceeded. Why invest just to lose?
Our governments repeated the same mistakes of the 1920's and the 60's.
This is where we do differ: Governments as much as other external factors Create these shortsighted instabilities.  They should be the governor of these up and down swings Not the creators. This is Why every one of these civilizations eventually over matured aged out and collapsed.

Always back to the same - I and my family have winter heat, food on our table and cloths on my back because I made these things happen; not the Guild, not the Union and certainly NOT my government.
Tthis is the same as happened to all of those same craft/trades men in all of those civilizations I listed when things spun out of control too.
Those who set aside their no longer needed specialized skills and got back to supping their own basic needs survived and did ok. Be the same today. Just add a little more self made power now.

Regards
SteveU.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: apogee_man on December 27, 2009, 06:15:50 PM
I've posted this before, but based on where this thread is at, I believe a reminder is in order.

I would strongly, strongly recommend all here take the time to watch the Crash Course.

Also, read about Chris Martenson, as he approaches this stuff from the most neutral perspective that I'm aware of. 

Well worth the time imho!

Steve

Crash Course http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 27, 2009, 06:32:30 PM
an interesting perspective

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/fact_based_climate_debate/


bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on December 27, 2009, 06:37:14 PM
My dear old retired Dad tells me the biggest new thing happening where he lives in the USA is the yard sale and barter.

He says there is a whole lot less good stuff in the trash and a lot more people pinching pennies.

Maybe this is the start of something or just a symptom of decline but as long as we know we can't move backwards there is the possibility we will move in a better direction what ever that is.

I'll be fixated on the themes of Metropolis for a while but the message is quite revealing
Between the hand and the head must be the heart.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on December 30, 2009, 04:06:22 PM
Hopefullly it's a start of something new, cause all the finiancial big wigs in the states and canada keep saying we've got to go back to the old way.

Unfortunately the "old way" is simply an economy based on fraudulet securitiaztion of reckless debt.  That means too many people buying too much and paying off one credit card with another one.  It had to crash eventually!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on December 30, 2009, 10:12:14 PM
getting back to the original topic

i got put onto this one, now we got to find the paper

http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

this agw thing is global BS in my opinion, and i think 50 years from now they will be teaching in history class
how the world thought the sky was falling and how we almost screwed up the worlds economy trying to offset
based on BS pseudo science.

If anyone finds a copy of the paper referenced to, please post a link

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Geno on December 30, 2009, 11:02:41 PM
Here ya go. 115 pages which at a glance appear to be 1/2 easy reading and 1/2 way over my head.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Thanks, Geno
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on January 01, 2010, 07:14:00 PM
Here ya go. 115 pages which at a glance appear to be 1/2 easy reading and 1/2 way over my head.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Thanks, Geno

   WOW!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 01, 2010, 11:06:26 PM

this agw thing is global BS in my opinion, and i think 50 years from now they will be teaching in history class
how the world thought the sky was falling and how we almost screwed up the worlds economy trying to offset
based on BS pseudo science.
bob g

Sorry Bob, hate to break it to you but the worlds economy is screwed up already, and it hasn't had anything to do with trying to offset global warming.  It's screwed up simply because way too many people are way too greedy, and the most greedy of all are the most powerful among us.  The latest is that the UK has been delivered a serious blow economically because their banks are the ones that mostly underwrote the Dubai debacle.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 01, 2010, 11:40:44 PM
granted the worlds economy is "hosed" for now, but it will recover

had the jerkwads of AGW fame had their way the worlds economy would have had the rules completely rewritten
and recovery to anything like what has proven to work would be doubtful.

does anyone really think that taking billions from rich industrial natiions and giving it to poor subindustrial nations would
really result in helping the people of those countries?  my bet is 90% of the money would end up funding more tin pot
dicatators efforts at procuring weapons, and other crap

i can hear it all now,

"we here in bumfuckalubey are investing the billions we are getting from the world fund in safe clean nuclear power to improve
the lives or our people, (don't pay any attention to all those centrifuges and missle sites behind the curtain).

the 10% that would get to the people would get there by extension, the dictators have to feed the workers, so there would be
some improvement in their economy, even if it is building materials of war.

some of the most verbal at the conference, that would have been recipients of these redistribution schemes were the very same
crack pipe smoking, lunatic, inbred tin pot dictators that are starving and abusing their people now.

remember no good deed ever goes unpunished.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 02, 2010, 12:42:31 AM
Well said Bob.

New year new record for you and I being in agreement in the shortest time lol.

I stand by my beliefe the best way to get things turned around is a consupmtion tax. Tax the things that go in the trash and reward those who pay their debt,s save for retirement, and suport those who own small buisnesses and shops that repair referbish and sell parts
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 02, 2010, 06:37:26 PM

I stand by my beliefe the best way to get things turned around is a consupmtion tax. Tax the things that go in the trash and reward those who pay their debt,s save for retirement, and suport those who own small buisnesses and shops that repair referbish and sell parts

Couldn't have said it better myself!  ;D
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 02, 2010, 07:33:51 PM
Consumption tax... oh like the VAT in (Formerly) Great Britain??

Yeah thats a great plan, working well for the brits it is.  Take it you guys dont get out of your own country very much.

How about this... a fair tax system, based on income, that means people all pay their fair share.


Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 02, 2010, 08:41:53 PM
No thats not true Andrew the richer you are the more places you can invest your money to avoid taxation.

Come on do you realy believe the rich and powerful, and multinational corperations pay their fair share of taxes.

Here are some facts!
Our standard of living is shrinking and has been shrtinking after inflation for decades. Our GDP has grown the same time . So where did all this money go? Our taxes have increased as a % of total income to compensate for the loss in spending power ( our midle class taxes that is big buisness pays a lot less today). So where did all that wealth go and why are we paying more of the tax burdon?

No a consumption tax is a good thing. Its a tax the working man can avoid by fixing and saving and tax the upper classes can't avoid of they wish to continue spending ( this of course require s a mechanism for avoiding money fleeing the country through investment banks ).

Besides we already have a value added tax Andrew its called the GST it simply needs some tweeking ( needs to be raised ) and our personal income taxes need to drop across the baord to reflect this
 
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on January 02, 2010, 10:53:22 PM
Doug your smart enough to know that companies don't pay any taxes, they are passed on to the people that purchase their products & services.
And do you really think that personal income taxes are going to be lowered ? Value added tax or not, taxes only go up not down, so if you want to pay more in taxes go ahead, just leave the rest of us out if it.

 Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 03, 2010, 02:35:24 AM
Your never going to get a fair tax system with that attitude.

Untill the Proletariat ( and lets face it we are being reduced to a third class standard of living so get used the tag ) stand up and demand to be heard we will get no where.

And now for trip on the way back machine 99 years the past is the future if we let it.....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.png
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 03, 2010, 04:58:17 AM
No thats not true Andrew the richer you are the more places you can invest your money to avoid taxation.

Come on do you realy believe the rich and powerful, and multinational corperations pay their fair share of taxes.

Here are some facts!
Our standard of living is shrinking and has been shrtinking after inflation for decades. Our GDP has grown the same time . So where did all this money go? Our taxes have increased as a % of total income to compensate for the loss in spending power ( our midle class taxes that is big buisness pays a lot less today). So where did all that wealth go and why are we paying more of the tax burdon?

No a consumption tax is a good thing. Its a tax the working man can avoid by fixing and saving and tax the upper classes can't avoid of they wish to continue spending ( this of course require s a mechanism for avoiding money fleeing the country through investment banks ).

Besides we already have a value added tax Andrew its called the GST it simply needs some tweeking ( needs to be raised ) and our personal income taxes need to drop across the baord to reflect this
 

Gee Doug maybe you should start by reading what I wrote.  The income tax we have to day is not fair, for the very reasons you cite.  Im talking about taxable system that states clearly

How much did you make?
How much did you give to Charity (to a max deduction)
Pay your percentage - I dont care if it is flat or proportional

No ability to shift income to overseas like Paul Martin did, or get deductions like Jean Chrietien did for his golf course.  Limit deductions to Charities, eliminate Political party deductions and the ability for political parties to get funding on the tax payers tit.

The govt can offer limited additional deductions like the home upgrade plan, or how about an energy efficiency grant or deduction for adding better windows or upgrading the furnace to high eff.

Income tax gets at the money, and if applied fairly can reduce taxes for the middle and lower classes. Right now only the rich can afford accountants to find all the loop wholes.  We need to reduce the need to have accountants being paid to avoid taxes.  A consumption tax means we have to pay to burry our parents or children, that women pay tax on fem hygiene products, or childrens clothes.. not something the rich give a damn about but joe and jane canuck sure do.  See you see Lexus and Bently's being the problem and cash cow, I see the average joe having to pay taxes on stuff they need.  How is that fair?

Actually come July we will have the HST with everything being taxed.  Your heating bills, your wills, new homes, new cars, McDonalds, and of course Tim Hortons... so tell me how that is going to hurt the rich again?  Thankfully Harper reduced it from 7 to 5 %, too bad the liberals in Ontario did not do likewise to keep the tax neutral

Doug, you still have not answered my question... show me one place were Karl Marx and the communist drivil he promoted has been a success for the Proletariat.  BTW I will stick with my tag of Citizen, its noble and has meaning
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 03, 2010, 05:05:26 PM
I think this is spinning out of control now.
I have been radicalized as happens in times like this and I move left as I have done in the past and probably will do again.

I don't think it matters what people believe or how they vote but its important they make themselves heard and push in a direction they feel will make this country a better place. I will push politicians in my direction, you should push yours.

I think we are heading backwards at a break neck speed towards a cold hearted Dickens style of society but this forum is not a place to realy be talking politics is it?. Maybe we should stop before tempers flair and this thread has to be locked down.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 04, 2010, 02:54:12 AM
Doug, I agree with you.  People need to get out and vote.  I know the pols in this country note how the people are voting and for what, its why Harper the Refomer is governing like a Liberal.  If people dont vote, then dont bitch.

So I was at CFB Trenton for the Repat of 4 Brave Soldiers and 1 Brave Reporter killed in the sandbox.  It was bitterly cold, snowing, and we were all praying for just a little global warming :D

I hope our standing in the freezing cold helped those families to realize that Canadians appreciate their sacrifice.  Without the work of these fine young men and women, we could not be here debating Global warming, politics, Marx, and are Listers and Listeroids targeted by the EPA.  Thank you for your hard work and efforts for freedom.  You were heroes by life, not by death


Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 04, 2010, 02:05:09 PM
never really paid much attention to all the english pecking order, kings, queens, dukes and lords
but i am really liking this guy!


http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_COP15


bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 06, 2010, 12:30:42 PM
Ok, here is a letter from the Loard that takes the Oz Gov't and the Warmers to the chicken coop for a backside warming.... Doug, Stan, please be careful reading this,  the truth is hard to take.
===============
A letter sent from: The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

1 January 2010

His Excellency Mr. Kevin Rudd,

Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Australia.

Prime Minister,

Climate change: proposed personal briefing

Your speech on 6 November 2009 to the Lowy Institute, in which you publicly expressed some concern at my approach to the climate question, has prompted several leading Australian citizens to invite me come on tour to explain myself in a series of lectures in Australia later this month. I am writing to offer personal briefings on why “global warming” is a non-problem to you and other party leaders during my visit. For convenience, I am copying this letter to them, and to the Press.



Your speech mentioned my remarks about the proposal for world “government” in the early drafts of what had been intended as a binding Copenhagen Treaty. These proposals were not, as you suggested, a “conspiracy theory” from the “far right” with “zero basis in evidence”. Your staff will find them in paragraphs 36-38 of the main text of Annex 1 to the 15 September draft of the Treaty. The word “government” appears twice at paragraph 38. After much adverse publicity in democratic countries, including Australia, the proposals were reluctantly dropped before Copenhagen.

You say I am one of “those who argue that any multilateral action is by definition evil”. On the contrary: my first question is whether any action at all is required, to which – as I shall demonstrate – the objective economic and scientific answer is No. Even if multilateral action were required, which it is not, national governments in the West are by tradition democratically elected. Therefore, a fortiori, transnational or global governments should also be made and unmade by voters at the ballot-box. The climate ought not to be used as a shoddy pretext for international bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship. We committed Europeans have had more than enough of that already with the unelected but all-powerful Kommissars of the hated EU, who make nine-tenths of our laws by decree (revealingly, they call them “Directives” or “Commission Regulations”). The Kommissars (that is the official German word for them) inflict their dictates upon us regardless of what the elected European or any other democratic Parliament says or wishes. Do we want a worldwide EU? No.

You say I am one of “those who argue that climate change does not represent a global market failure”. Yet it is only recently that opinion sufficient to constitute a market signal became apparent in the documents of the IPCC, which is, however, a political rather than a scientific entity. There has scarcely been time for a “market failure”. Besides, corporations are falling over themselves to cash in on the giant financial fraud against the little guy that carbon taxation and trading have already become in the goody-two-shoes EU – and will become in Australia if you get your way.

You say I was one of “those who argue that somehow the market will magically solve the problem”. In fact I have never argued that, though in general the market is better at solving problems than the habitual but repeatedly-failed dirigisme of the etatistes predominant in the classe politique today.


The questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and cool.gif even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.

Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.

We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming ΔT at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,

ΔT = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write –

ΔT = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees

Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.

By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.

Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.

We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv –

Business as usual: ΔT = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°

– Copenhagen Accord: ΔT = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°

= “Global warming” forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°


One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result – an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it – would run into trillions of dollars. Do your Treasury models demonstrate that this calculation is in any way erroneous? If they do, junk them.

You say “formal global and national economic modelling” shows “that the costs of inaction are greater than the costs of acting”. You ask for my “equivalent evidence basis to Treasury modelling published by the Government of the industry and employment impacts of climate change”. I respond that the rigorous calculation that I have described, which your officials may verify for themselves, shows that whatever costs may be imagined to flow from anthropogenic “global warming” will scarcely be mitigated at all, even by trillions of dollars of expenditure over the coming decade.

Every economic analysis except that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, with its near-zero discount rate and its absurdly inflated warming rates, comes to the same ineluctable conclusion: adaptation to climate change, in whatever direction, as and if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation. In a long career in policy analysis in and out of government, I have never seen so cost-ineffective a proposed waste of taxpayers’ money as the trillions which today’s scientifically-illiterate governments propose to spend on attempting – with all the plausibility of King Canute – to stop the tide from coming in.

Remember that I have done this calculation on the basis that everyone who should comply with the Copenhagen Accord actually does comply. Precedent does not look promising. The Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord’s predecessor, has been in operation for more than a decade, and it was supposed to reduce global CO2 emissions by 2012. So far, after billions spent on global implementation of Kyoto, global CO2 emissions have risen compared with when Kyoto was first signed.

Remember too that we have assumed the maximum warming that the CO2 imagines might occur in response to a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Yet even the IPCC’s central estimate of CO2’s warming effect, according to an increasing number of serious papers in the peer-reviewed literature, is a five-fold exaggeration. If those papers are right, after a further decade of incomplete compliance and billions squandered, warming forestalled may prove to be just a thousandth of a degree.

Now ask yourself this. Are you, personally, and your advisers, personally, and your administration’s officials, personally, willing to make the heroically pointless sacrifices that you so insouciantly demand of others in the name of Saving The Planet For Future Generations? I beg leave to think not. At Flag 1 I have attached what I have reason to believe is a generally accurate list of the names and titles of the delegation that you led to Copenhagen to bring back the non-result whose paltriness, pointlessness and futility we have now rigorously demonstrated. There are 114 names on the list. One hundred and fourteen. Enough to fill a mid-sized passenger jet. Half a dozen were all that was really necessary – and perhaps one from each State in Australia. If you and your officials are not willing to tighten your belts when a tempting foreign junket at taxpayers’ expense is in prospect, why, pray, should the taxpayers tighten theirs?

You say that climate-change “deniers” – nasty word, that, and you should really have known better than to use it – are “small in number but too dangerous to be ignored”, and “well resourced”. In fact, governments, taxpayer-funded organizations, taxpayer-funded teachers, and taxpayer-funded environmental groups have spent something like 50,000 times as much on “global warming” propaganda as their opponents have spent on debunking this new and cruel superstition. And that is before we take account of the relentless prejudice of the majority of the mainstream news media.

How, then, it is that we, the supposed minority who will not admit that the emperor of “global warming” is adequately clad, are somehow prevailing? How is it that we are convincing more and more of the population not to place any more trust in the “global warming” theory? The answer is that the “global warming” theory is not true, and no amount of bluster or braggadocio, ranting or rodomontade will make it true.

You say that our aim, in daring to oppose the transient fashion for apocalypticism, is “to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible”. No. Our aim is simply to ensure that the truth is widely enough understood to prevent the squandering of precious resources on addressing the non-problem of anthropogenic “global warming”. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing. No interventionist likes to do nothing. Nevertheless, the do-nothing option, scientifically and economically speaking, is the right option.

You say that I and others like me base our thinking on the notion that “the cost of not acting is nothing”. Well, after a decade and a half with no statistically-significant “global warming”, and after three decades in which the mean warming rate has been well below the ever-falling predictions of the UN’s climate panel, that notion has certainly not been disproven in reality.

However, the question I address is not that but this. Is the cost of taking action many times greater than the cost of not acting? The answer to this question is Yes.

Millions are already dying of starvation in the world’s poorest nations because world food prices have doubled in two years. That abrupt, vicious doubling was caused by a sharp drop in world food production, caused in turn by suddenly taking millions of acres of land out of growing food for people who need it, so as to grow biofuels for clunkers that don’t. The scientifically-illiterate, economically-innumerate policies that you advocate – however fashionable you may conceive them to be – are killing people by the million.

You say my logic “belongs in a casino, not a science lab”. Yet it is you who are gambling with poor people’s lives, and it is you – or, rather, they – who are losing: and losing not merely their substance but their very existence. The biofuel scam is born of the idiotic notion – a notion you uncritically espouse – that increasing by less than 1/2000 this century the proportion of the Earth’s atmosphere occupied by CO2 may prove catastrophic. At a time when so many of the world’s people are already short of food, the UN’s right-to-food rapporteur, Herr Ziegler, has roundly and rightly condemned the biofuel scam as nothing less than “a crime against humanity”.

The scale of the slaughter is monstrous, with food riots (largely unreported in the Western news media, and certainly not mentioned by you in your recent speech) in a dozen regions of the Third World over the past two years. Yet this cruel, unheeded slaughter is founded upon a lie: the claim by the IPCC that it is 90% certain that most of the “global warming” since 1950 is manmade. This claim – based not on science but on a show of hands among political representatives, with China wanting a lower figure and other nations wanting a higher figure – is demonstrably, self-servingly false. Peer-reviewed analyses of changes in cloud cover over recent decades – changes almost entirely unconnected with changes in CO2 concentration – show that it was this largely-natural reduction in cloud cover from 1983-2001 and a consequent increase in the amount of short-wave and UV solar radiation reaching the Earth that accounted for five times as much warming as CO2 could have caused.

Nor is the IPCC’s great lie the only lie. If you will allow me to brief you and your advisers, I will show you lie after lie after lie after lie in the official documents of the IPCC and in the speeches of its current chairman, who has made himself a multi-millionaire as a “global warming” profiteer.

However, if you will not make the time to hear me for half an hour before you commit your working people to the futile indignity of excessive taxation and pointless over-regulation without the slightest scientific or economic justification, and to outright confiscation of their farmland without compensation on the fatuous pretext that the land is a “carbon sink”, then I hope that you will at least nominate one of the scientists on your staff to address the two central issues that I have raised in this letter: namely, the egregious cost-ineffectiveness of attempting to mitigate “global warming” by emissions reduction, and the measured fact, well demonstrated in the scientific literature, that a largely-natural change in cloud cover in recent decades caused five times as much “global warming” as CO2. It is also a measured fact that, while those of the UN’s computer models that can be forced with an increase in sea-surface temperatures all predict a consequent fall in the flux of outgoing radiation at top of atmosphere, in observed reality there is an increase. In short, the radiation that is supposed to be trapped here in the troposphere to cause “global warming” is measured as escaping to space much as usual, so that it cannot be causing more than around one-fifth of the warming the IPCC predicts.

My list of the Copenhagen junketers from Australia’s governing class is attached. All those taxpayer dollars squandered, just to forestall 0.02 C° of “global warming” in ten years. Yet, in the past decade and a half, there has been no “global warming” at all. Can you not see that it would be kinder to your working people to wait another decade and see whether global temperatures even begin to respond as the IPCC has predicted? What is the worst that can happen if you wait? Just 0.02 C° of global warming that would not otherwise have occurred. It’s a no-brainer.

Yours faithfully,

VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 06, 2010, 02:42:12 PM
Warming cooling its all a mute point at -20 when the gas bill is over due and bank wants house.

End game.

Bye guys its fun...
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 06, 2010, 08:32:48 PM
Andrew....This guy the VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY (whoever he is that is using this moniker) is so full of it it actually belongs on an air farce show.  I've never seen so much mind bogglingly wrong data misconstrued so far out of line!

What are this guy's qualifications?  Is he a mathematician?  Better yet, is he really who he says he is.  You must remember the famous far side cartoon with a dog sitting in front of a computer talking to another dog saying,  "on the internet, no one never knows I'm really a dog" (or words to that effect).

Sorry Andrew, I'll take the vast majority of "real" scientists years of data gathering and "real" skill and knowledge account that not only is there significant global warming taking place, it's man caused.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 06, 2010, 09:54:00 PM
He is a real Lord.  He is not a scientist.

Where is his data wrong?  He does speak for scientists... just like Al Gore, just better

Cant explain why Al Gore nor the Pres of Green Peace will not debate him if he is full of hot air.

You would think someone would just want to shut him up... but even Dr Suzuki will not
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 07, 2010, 01:22:36 AM
Conrad Black is a real lord too.  Would you believe anything he says? 

The reason most people won't debate guys like this is that it leads to public recognition of their credence or lack thereof.  Most thinking people are now patiently explaining why these climate change deniers are not being given equal time.  It's because they are a very small minority, and most are proven to be "bought" scientists, on the payroll of Exxon or one of the hundreds of other oil companies.  This makes everything they say suspect because if they publish anything that goes against their employer, they not only get fired, they are blacklisted.  (or worse, they are posted to a far northern community with polluted water to do "studies" for the rest of their life).

Here's how it won't work.  Analogy time.  Lets pretend that you and I and most of the planet think it isn't a good idea to bludgeon your wife to death.  Sounds simple.  It goes against most religeons, and laws all around the world.  But there are a probably a few people out there that do believe it, for various reasons, some involving drugs, mental problems,  skewed religeous reasoning or whatever.

Lets say these people insist that they get equal time to present their case to the world, to debate the concept in public.  Would you let them?  Or would you tell them that their case is so patently false that they don't deserve equal time with anyone.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 07, 2010, 02:45:17 AM
Stan:

back away from the koolaid while you still have a chance!

this whole AGW thing has turned out to be a huge joke, and there is little doubt now save for a few
that have fallen into the big purple vat and drown in the koolaid.

climate change? sure, it gets hotter some summers than others, and in winter it gets colder some than others

sure colder than usual in many parts of the world this week.

this is nothing more than a religion to those that have no other belief in anything, thinking man is the epitome of existance
and in control of everything.

amazing!

in the immortal words of "magicjack"

"man controlling the global climate is much like a dog pecker gnat trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier"

it just ain't gonna happen.

bob g

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 07, 2010, 04:22:44 AM
Come on Stan... Lord Black was selected by the Labour Party for his efforts to save the British newspapers.  This guy is a hereditary lord... different creature

Now where is your proof that this Lord is on anyone's payroll?  You dont have any.

And your warmers were not quietly debating, they were blackmailing and threatening anyone who disagreed with them so they could get on the Al Gore Carbon bonanza.  Explain for me how Al Gore can become a billionaire with his carbon company.  Is that any different to Exxon, who by the way is one of the largest funders of GW science because they see opportunity to exploit new Carbon markets and still sell a lot of oil.

And yes I would let them, because in democracy you debate.  You use debate to show their position is absurd.  Thats what Parliament is supposed to be doing when laws are being passed.  I have debated people who were in the Canadian KKK... it was easy to make them look like fools for their silly and unproven beliefs.  Its seems that the Warmers are on such shaky ground with their bogus science that it will not stand up to rigorous review...

Now if you want to talk polution, cleaning up things that Doug has been on about, I think you would find many of the people who are saying GW is full of crap, would be saying yeah, lets clean up things, because we can see the polluted rivers, we can see the leaching chemicals.  The GW crowd have failed to prove their point.  It really is that simple.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 07, 2010, 05:26:53 PM
Better watch what you say about lords Andrew.  They were all appointed in the beginning.  You're now treading on shaky ground dissing the Queen and her appointees.  ;)

Bottom line Andrew is that ~90% of all scientists in the world say that global warming is not only man made but is now in a run away state.  I also dispute your facts on Al Gore and his financial history, I've never seen any credible data on that, and I'm certainly not one of his supporters.  Besides, can you honestly say that anyone on this earth has as much financial loss invested in not burning carbon based fuel as exxon?  (and that's not even counting the hundred or more other oil and gas and coal companies)

I'm far more impressed with Lovelock and his long history of academic studies and learning on this subject. 

I've said before, you should read any one of his books, you will be impressed, I'll bet you a beer next time we get together.  It's amazing how so many have been pulled in by the half truths, and unproven innuendos of the nay sayers but I guess it's always easier to sling doubt than to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.  The proof is out there, beware!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 07, 2010, 07:34:12 PM
I was not putting down the real Lords, just pointing out that as a heritage Lord, his background and education is much different than a Lord like Black who on his death loses the title.

Do a Google search on AL Gore, Bilionaire
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/03/al-gore-going-green-to-make-green/
http://newsbusters.org/node/10951
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1998/08/03/246288/index.htm this one shows that in 1998 he only earned $200K, so how did he become a millionaire..er...Billionaire?

And where did you pull that 98% stuff?  Who conducted the poll, what was the level of accuracy?  Or is that 98% of those who signed the UN paper in support.  Stan, you are throwing up numbers, with no backing.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 07, 2010, 11:33:09 PM
this AGW thing is much like a disease, where a vampire bites you and you can never recover
and become a vampire yourself.

Stan, i worry for you my friend, it appears you are hopelessly infected
not to worry though, i am sure no one will sneek up on you at sunrise and drive a wood stake
through your heart.

:)

btw, i recently saw an incredibly interesting program on the national geographic channel on subduction zone volcano's

seems more co2 is spewed from them that all of humanity, and it is a normal part of the earth cycle

guess where all this co2 goes to?

it combines with water vapor to form carbonic acid,

guess what has an affinity for carbonic acid?

the world oceans do, they love all of it they can get, because of the huge amount of calcium carbonate
locked up in sediments, shells and other stuff.

here is a thought,

just maybe the planet has come to equalibrium to counter human input over the last 150 years, now
we want to rapidly change the human input?

might just tip the thing over to some very cold climate until the planet can counter again?

nah?

dog pecker gnat ain't gonna turn the carrier.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 08, 2010, 02:04:40 AM
I took a couple of minutes to look up some of the climate change naysayers (not worth more time).  One stood out.   Republican senator from Oklahoma name Inhofe.  It seems he has a reputation for leading this anti-climate change thing.  The only problem is that he appears to be "bought" just like I have been harping about all along.  it seems in 2008 he accepted $446,000 from big oil for his campaign.  Then before the next election in 2010 he collected another $430,000 from big oil.

Can you spell conflict of interest?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 08, 2010, 02:41:01 AM
can i spell conflict of interest?

oh hell ya!!!

its called government research grants, r&d grants, and a plethora of other bullcrap based on the
AGW thing,,,

you think your boys are lilly white?

ya right!

every friggin one of them on both sides are bought and paid for.

which leaves one to sort things out on the evidence presented, and quite frankly i don't see the case at all.

certainly no where near enough to stand up to proof needed in a court of law,

science like math should be rock solid, replicable, and able to prove 7 ways from sunday

by anyone capable of doing the replication of the math, tables and calculations.

none of this will stand the scrutiny of a reasonably proficient mathematician, statistician, or for that matter
an open minded and competent  high school math/physics teacher.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: BruceM on January 08, 2010, 03:35:49 AM
Bob, the notion that the world's PhD climatologists are not as smart about climate change as you, lord Mockington (a notorious crack pot), and some idiot local school teachers is just silly.  The notion that they have all been "bought" is an equally silly, unsupportable allegation.

Last I heard, you didn't have any advanced degrees in climatology. 

I don't either, so I'm willing to listen to what the majority of Climatologists have to say, and assume they are probably right.  I'm also willing to listen to opposing positions by qualified climatologists but I sure won't assume that a minority position that "sounds good to me" is right.  (Good to me is that we don't have to deal with CO2.)

It's a position many thoughtful people take. 









Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 08, 2010, 04:49:29 AM
Bruce:

perhaps you can direct me to any university that has phd degree's available for climatology?

the assertion that big oil has bought off the naysayers is just a bunch of crappola, take  a good look
the big oil companies have bought into just about every alternative energy production scheme, carbon credit scheme
etc available, so they have it made no matter which way the thing goes.

actually when you think about it, they make more money if we buy into the AGW thing, because
they are into solar, wind and all the other stuff in a big way, and oil is not going away anytime soon anyway.

here is a another short video

http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

i suppose this old dude has been bought off by big oil or some other right wing republican neocon?

i agree we need to be as clean as possible, no reason to crap in the nest, but geesh

man does not create anything, all the carbon that is here today has been here long before even a monkey even considered
to walk upright.

to be perfectly  honest i would have been much richer had i jumped onboard to this AGW thing, how many folks have made
millions and billions off of this joke so far?

for me to have done something like climbing aboard algores train, would mean being a traitor to my children and grandchildren
along with all the other descendants of each of us.

create the crisis, provide the solution

that has made many men very rich since the beginning of time.

maybe folks that buy into this line of thinking would like to contribute to their fix, i however choose to opt out where possible.

i choose not to be an enabler, and would like to state this for the record

if i am wrong, and it is proven so, i will be the first to admit being wrong.

i sure as hell am not holding my breath waiting on algore to do the same when it is proven he is wrong.

edit

btw, i remember the 1970's and how we were all going to freeze solid, that never happened,
i also remember that the world was going to end in Y2K, that never happened,
now i am to believe the AGW movement?

comeon, any movement that has algore as its pitchman should be automatically suspect!
he is a friggin politician, and by its very definition is one that clearly stretches the truth, will lie to become elected
and when pressed against a wall surely will lie, especially when there are millions and billions of dollars at stake.

along with a sense of importance on a world stage, the brain dead norwegians give the guy a nobel peace prize?

has everyone gone completely mad?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on January 08, 2010, 01:43:58 PM
Mobile Bob

That John Coleman clip you found and linked to is very well done, sounds good to me now I can go back to my 8000 year old job of agriculture and it's supposed climate changing ways without any worry that by tilling the soil and using fossil fuels I am wreaking our ways of life!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now  for a few other comments.

Man is burning all this old oil and coal and releasing ages old trapped carbon and that is causing GW or so we are lead to believe.
Now how did all this carbon get sequestered? I was lead to believe that all the coal and oil was formed by ages old rain forests that grew up millions or Maybe billions of years ago and through some sort of cataclismic event were found covered by thousands of feet of soil which the pressure from caused the formation of the fuel we now use to power modern civilization.

So if the above paragraph is correct or some what close to what happened, then I would like to know what the atmosphere was like back then????
Back in the age of the rain forests that made to days coal oil and natural gas what was the carbon content of the atmosphere? We are told now that it will be the end of man if  the co2 levels of today get to 400 parts per million that runaway global heating will slowly kill us all!

Yes I am sure it took more that 1  or 2 years for all of the forests way back then to sequester all the carbon that we have been using, so of course TIME would be a HUGE factor. But where the hell did all the carbon come from way back then, the atmosphere must have been so full of co that you could almost not breath if you were an oxygen breathing red blooded animal????

I wounder how those rain forests felt after some years and all there exhaust, OXYGEN started to pollute the place. Oxygen is a corrosive  element to some things, even humans if it gets to to high a concentration.

Just wondering about a few things if anyone with the answer to the question of where the carbon came from way back then please let this dumb farmer know.

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: BruceM on January 08, 2010, 05:50:07 PM

"for me to have done something like climbing aboard algores train, would mean being a traitor to my children and grandchildren
along with all the other descendants of each of us."

Wow.  Al Gore created Global Warming.

I thought it was created by Bush's hand picked Republican scientific advisory board.  They reviewed the science, came back and reported:  1.  Yes, it's happening. 2. Yes, It's likely man-caused.  I didn't believe it until Republican party hand picked scientists said it, and so I blame Bush.  I'll bet all those guys were already investing in carbon trading!

We know oil is a finite resource and that we must transition to other fuel sources.  Starting to do so now betrays your grandchildren how?

What if you're wrong, Bob.  Don't suppose that's ever happened.






Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 08, 2010, 06:52:29 PM
Bruce:

believe me sir, i am wrong more than i am right, however

i learned early on basic scientific method, and how data can be tweaked to give whatever results you are looking for.
thats why i don't like some conclusions, because the tweak the data.

you are absolutely right that we must transition away from oil over the long run, but
stampeding off the cliff seems a bit futile to me.

as for trusting either side of the issue, my point is only that one needs a healthy dose of skepticism

like i stated earlier, this is not the first instance of the "sky is falling" over the last 40 years, and likely won't be the
last either.

maybe for me it just comes down to the messenger, algore

had it been anyone but him as the frontman, perhaps i would have bought into the craze.

i just don't see doing more to wreck the one country on this planet that has done more good for the worlds
population, everything from feeding the starving, providing for aids in africa, fighting wars for all sorts of countries,
bailing out after natural catastophe's  etc.

yes we need to continue to clean things up, we need to do an orderly transition from oil, and develop cleaner still coal,
more nuclear power, along with a long term push for all the other alternative energies.

we didn't get to the moon in a year, rome wasn't built in a day, why the hell must we buckle under to AGW alarmist's
and take it up the tailpipe without a similarly careful and deliberate plan.

if the science of AGW is so good it will stand the test of time, the light of day, and heavy scrutiny, without
the need for those working on the data to tweak any data to fit the result they are after.

thats just bad science, pure and simple

there is a precept in law, if you are testifying to facts, and you misrepresent or lie about one single thing, all of your testimony is
thrown out no matter how solid the evidence is.

science is no different, you get caught tweaking the numbers as was clearly alluded to in the "email" hacking reported over the last
couple months, everything you have done before is suspect, everything you state now is suspect, and everything you do forever forward
is suspect.

remember the cold fusion guys, reporting they had cold fusion??? ya right,,
you don't here about them anymore anywhere do you?

why is this any different?

my comment about feeling like a traitor to my kids and yours, comes on the overwhelming feeling and building evidence that
if i am right, if i buy into and support AGW i have strapped them into a life standard that is far below that of myself and my parents.

what right do i have to make that decision? what right does anyone have to make that decision?

what this comes down to with me is the thought that man in his incredible arrogance thinking he can harness mother nature, do it effectively,
do it with any sense of accuracy, and make any lasting change one way or another, save for lighting off all the worlds nuclear stockpiles all at once
it is unlikely we are going to affect anything beyond regionally/locally.

thing is neither side is going to convert anyone from the otherside, and those in the middle are getting to be quite few.

i respect your view, and your passionate belief in AGW, i allow you your belief, however
i also demand no less from you.

:)

bob g

ps. yes i do believe algore was very instrumental in if not the creation of AGW, certainly its promotion.
after all he got the nobel peace prize for his work/promotion/creation of or whatever of AGW

but maybe i am mistaken, oh ya,, i am wrong!!!

algore was the one who invented the internet!!!

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: BruceM on January 08, 2010, 07:56:54 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Here's several thousand American scientists ( idiots according to you)  with advanced degrees in earth sciences who  might think your hatred of Al Gore has clouded your judgment, Bob.  He's just a geeky politician who lost to GWB.  Nobody with an education believes a word coming from a politician's mouth.

How should we weigh your credentials when trying to decide?  What are your academic credentials?
Have you published some papers in peer reviewed journals on earth sciences and climate?  Are you acknowledged in this field in some way?  This is how real science works; your words are weighted by your credentials in the field.

I'm not passionate about global warming. It's not my field, I'm not an expert, and I have just barely enought brain function left to know that there are people smarter than me in that field that I should listen to.  Skeptically- yes, but not blinded by irrational hatred as you most clearly seem to be.

I wish you well, less pain, and much more peace.
Bruce







Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 08, 2010, 08:49:21 PM
Bruce:

i have to know someone intimately before i can hate them as a person, however
all i have to see is actions to know whether or not i hate what they do.

no i do not have a degree in climatology, nor am i acquainted with anyone that has one either.

i am no expert on climate, however i do have a reasonable set of critical thinking skills.

you mentions thousands of scientists that have signed off on AGW, how many are still signed onto it?

how many have changed their position based on finding that the data sets were tampered with?

bottom line is i am only one old dude, that has about as much affect on AGW, government or anything else
than that dog pecker gnat i referenced earlier.

however i do know i can effect some control over what i choose to do, and what i choose to believe.

control of "self" is about all we can hope for really.

like i stated, i will likely not convince you of the folly that is AGW, anymore so than you will convince me of its legitimacy

i will endeavor to live the remainder of my life being as carbon neutral as i feel prudent, and lead by example
should anyone want to follow? they will.  should they want to fight me? they will do that as well.

but i refuse to be led by the nose by algore and the AGW alarmist, "until" such time as there is clear demonstrable evidence
that they are correct. and for the life of me i have no idea how that will ever happen now!

they have polluted the data so badly that it is all suspect, and i still have to ask "why"???

if the evidence was so solid, why monkey with the data?

i guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and part as friends
otherwise all either is likely to do is piss off the other.

:)

fair enough?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 08, 2010, 09:04:57 PM
well guys, all good things must come to an end i suppose
and perhaps this will make a number of you happy

i will be canceling my membership to the forum, and moving on.

its been great while it lasted, but the forum and myself have grown apart

i leave each of you with this parting thought

"maintain your critical thinking skills, don't accept anything without proof, most especially those
things that will end up costing you freedoms and your lifeblood"

thanks

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 08, 2010, 10:21:03 PM
Billswan...You are pretty much right, but here's a few additional facts.  Yes the carbon sequestration was from plant growth, but a lot of it was algae in shallow seas.  It was aided by extremely high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, probably caused by millions of massive volcanoes and also very high temperatures.

We don't want to go back there again.  ::)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on January 09, 2010, 05:26:24 AM
Bob

Say it ain't so  :o :o :o

Please stay on board :'( :'( :'(

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 09, 2010, 04:27:42 PM
Billswan there comes a time when stuff like this just isn't fun anymore.

I don't know how many times I butt heads with Bob over the years but given half a chance I'd sit down buy him a beer and find somethnig better to talk about than Indian engines and politics.

He's tired of this, so am I, even Andrew has grown tired and he's been here even longer.

Fact is the engines will quietly become impossible to find and the discussions have become stale.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on January 09, 2010, 08:27:37 PM
All too often discussion of these situations gets led far astray from pure seeking of truth. What becomes scoring points in an argument is often oratorical drama consisting of hundreds of different devices from sly ad hominem attacks to simply flawed logic or exaggeration. The loudest or most persistent often gets to carry the flag. Often the measure of a persons status has been in how long he managed to stand in the way of progress.

Critical thinking is never an absolute as none of us is free of subjective filtering in our perception of things. Everyone has his own value system by which he weighs every pro and con presented. Pride is a big hindrance in a discussion, and whether or not there is a perceived audience always factors into its progress.

Even a basic truth is elusive game and if the target one is a matter of opinion, you might as well forget about slaying it.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 10, 2010, 10:56:53 PM
 The mini ice age starts here
By David Rose
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Though record lows were experienced as far south as Cuba, where the daily maximum on beaches normally used for winter bathing was just 4.5C, the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming.

The work of Prof Latif and the other scientists refutes that view.

On the one hand, it is true that the current freeze is the product of the ‘Arctic oscillation’ – a weather pattern that sees the development of huge ‘blocking’ areas of high pressure in northern latitudes, driving polar winds far to the south.

Meteorologists say that this is at its strongest for at least 60 years.

As a result, the jetstream – the high-altitude wind that circles the globe from west to east and normally pushes a series of wet but mild Atlantic lows across Britain – is currently running not over the English Channel but the Strait of Gibraltar.

However, according to Prof Latif and his colleagues, this in turn relates to much longer-term shifts – what are known as the Pacific and Atlantic ‘multi-decadal oscillations’ (MDOs).

For Europe, the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic, now several degrees below its average when the world was still warming.

But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

'They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’

Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

But from 1940 until the late Seventies, the last MDO cold-mode era, the world cooled, despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continued to rise.

Many of the consequences of the recent warm mode were also observed 90 years ago.

For example, in 1922, the Washington Post reported that Greenland’s glaciers were fast disappearing, while Arctic seals were ‘finding the water too hot’.

It interviewed a Captain Martin Ingebrigsten, who had been sailing the eastern Arctic for 54 years: ‘He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, and since that time it has gotten steadily warmer.

'Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended into the sea they have entirely disappeared.’

As a result, the shoals of fish that used to live in these waters had vanished, while the sea ice beyond the north coast of Spitsbergen in the Arctic Ocean had melted.

Warm Gulf Stream water was still detectable within a few hundred miles of the Pole.
In contrast, Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow.

‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’

He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing.

For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’

Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’

Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’.

He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’

He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

The work of Profs Latif, Tsonis and their teams raises a crucial question: If some of the late 20th Century warming was caused not by carbon dioxide but by MDOs, then how much?

Tsonis did not give a figure; Latif suggested it could be anything between ten and 50 per cent.

Other critics of the warming orthodoxy say the role played by MDOs is even greater.

William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’

But last week, die-hard warming advocates were refusing to admit that MDOs were having any impact.

In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ‘Warmergate’ leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ‘a very rare and exciting event’ in Britain, and that ‘children just aren’t going to know what snow is’.

Now the head of a British Council programme with an annual £10 million budget that raises awareness of global warming among young people abroad, Dr Viner last week said he still stood by that prediction: ‘We’ve had three weeks of relatively cold weather, and that doesn’t change anything.

'This winter is just a little cooler than average, and I still think that snow will become an increasingly rare event.’

The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...tarts-here.html
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 11, 2010, 01:37:12 AM
Bob you are leaving??  what are you going to do with yourself?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 11, 2010, 03:51:10 PM
Andrew...once again you've quoted a hack reporter who is making a killing writing for a cheap, sleazy British tabloid (remeniscent of some of the same on the shelves at supermarkets who bleat "Two Headed Martian Born to Britney Spears") as their "Debunk Climate Change" reporter.  He has no scientific background and is only skilled at using inflamatory english words.

Here's what one poster said about him, and I quote this guy only because I couldn't have said it better myself.  "I hope you all realize that the Daily Mail is a British tabloid though I should think that the way the article is written would have made that obvious.

The wording [in his "news" report] is smug and dismissive of climate change and anyone who agrees that it's real:
"die-hard warming advocates" "The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion." "some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs" "even the most committed global warming activists" "the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics." "both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2." "Last week, as Britain froze, Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband maintained in a parliamentary answer that the science of global warming was ‘settled’." "conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance. " "the BBC assured viewers that the big chill was merely short-term ‘weather’ that had nothing to do with ‘climate’, which was still warming."

Then, of course, framing everything else as being simply a matter of fact (rather than the matter of scientific debate which it is):
"has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start." "the crucial factor here is the temperature of the water in the middle of the North Atlantic"

To cite one side and leave the other almost entirely unrepresented.

And of course the explanation of the actual science is almost entirely absent. Something about ocean temperature and "warm mode" and "cold mode"? SERIOUSLY?

This is not journalism, and it is not credible. A cheap attempt to stir up controversy and sell papers. Buried.

Finally, to quote a single professor at a large university, with views differing from the rest of the staff is not only expected, it is encouraged in the name of "academic freedom".  Most universities prize having a maverik on their staff for this very reason.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 11, 2010, 10:01:02 PM
Ok how about the Washington Times?? 

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing

By jim_robbins on Jan. 10, 2010 into Water Cooler


A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 11, 2010, 11:32:04 PM
Again, what they don't mention is more pertinant than what they do!  If you read reports from the "real" scientific papers, they tell you that the growth in ice is from "new temporary" ice and melts entirely each summer.  This reporter just took the first half of the report and expeditiously left out the second half.  The "real" ice which is much older, harder and longer lasting is shrinking fast.

I had the opportunity to get some of the old ice, (estimated as 10,000 years old) about 10 years ago that fell off an iceberg off the coast of Nfld.  It was a chunk about the size of a human head, that was fished out of the water by a fisherman that took us out to get some pics of the icebergs. We took it back and put it in the ice-chest in the VW van after first washing out the chest well.  Normally, a chunk of ice purchased from a gas station would last about a day and a half, this puppy was still going strong 3 days later.   Amazing, I would never have believe there was different qualities in ice but there is!   The melt water even tasted delicious.

btw...I highly recommend taking a camper, van, motorhome or even a tent (brrrrrrr) and taking at least 3 weeks (nowhere near long enough)  visiting different places in Nfld.  The very north, up where the Vikings first landed (N. 0f St. Antony)  is amazing.  The West coast is fanstastic (Gross Morn park) .  We especially liked the area around Twillingate.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 11, 2010, 11:46:47 PM
I just bought a new (preciously enjoyed) Harley and will be doing some of that this and next year.. got to take advantage of the global warming :D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 12, 2010, 01:52:49 AM
Congratulations!  What model?  I don't know much about them but a buddy of mine is an afficienado.  We must see a pic!  :)

That'd be perfect to nip over to nfld on with a small tent and see the rock.  It's one day to NB, and in the next day you could be on the ferry.  Me on the other hand takes at least 7 days of driving (daytime only) to get there.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 12, 2010, 05:23:41 AM
This is my new beastie.  bought her on eBay.  Drove it home nonstop 775km in the cold Nov.  Its a 2000 Screaming Eagle Road Glide.  Its one of their Top models that year, with all the toys... it has a tour pack not shown - trunk

I saved a ton of money buying it in the USA.  I dont smoke, drink or do drugs, but I do like my toys


(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk298/trapperjohn1441/screaming3.jpg)

(http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk298/trapperjohn1441/screamingeagle2.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 12, 2010, 05:28:58 AM
I'm gonna show those pics to my harley buddy and I'll let you know what he says.  To me it looks fantastic.  I can't imagine how solid a machine like that'd be on the highway.  congrats.
stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 12, 2010, 06:55:11 PM
This is interresting..
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES
Climate Summary
December 2009

The average temperature in December 2009 was 30.2 F. This was -3.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 14th coolest December in 115 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 12, 2010, 07:33:36 PM
And yet they are covering the slopes of the mountains at Whistler to try and save the snow for the next month so there will be some left for the Olympics it's been so warm.  The Canadian Meterological society is reporting the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded.
Stan

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/11/bc-olympics-cypress-mountain-snow.html
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 12, 2010, 09:58:32 PM
.  The Canadian Meterological society is reporting the last decade has been the warmest ever recorded.


And yet, on their site the talk about both warmers and anti warmers.  The do give a link to all the long term readings going back over 100 years... yet the site does not exist.  So I went to Enviroment Canada... yeah no luck there getting the posted climate data.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 13, 2010, 01:07:07 AM
I have the difinitive answer on the climate change question.  Proof positive, no arguments possible, sad but true, it's happening right outside my window.   THE SNOW IS MELTING OFF OUR SKI HILL.  :o ??? :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

It's never happened before in the 60+ years it's been in operation.  My $600 ski pass might be wasted.  :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

Please be right Andrew, please please please.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 13, 2010, 02:56:59 AM
out my window is cold, snow and ice... has been since nov... 3 bad winter

I have a harley... its more than $600, I want GW... I really do
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 13, 2010, 03:23:49 AM
Stan:

the ski slopes are melting?

maybe if all you AGW guys would quit blowing hot air and wringing your hands
it wouldn't be melting!!!

ok, ok,, i just couldn't help myself!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 13, 2010, 12:13:47 PM
Just watched Canada AM
Featured a guy who had built his first backyard ice rink... looked very nice, kids on it skating, having fun.  The ice was very flat and thick.

It was in Dallas Texas... not really known for its outdoor rinks
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 13, 2010, 03:43:52 PM
You should put in a suggestion to the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee to move the 2010 Olympics down to Texas!  First reports of trouble from the heavily censored press here in BC about not having enough snow for the olympics.  Very surprising the right wing press here in BC would even mention it.  They sure as h3ll are going to get slapped down by the provincial gov't for stepping outside the allowed parameters for reporting.

Next to the oil and gas industry the large press monopolies are the heaviest contributors to the right wing rednecks we have in power here.  My Socials 10 class did an analysis without any involvment by myself (just to clear the record  ;) on news stories reported before one of our provincial elections.  They rated the stories as negative to the right wing party, negative to the left wing party, positive to the right wing party and positive to the left wing party.  They added up the positives and negatives and it came out to roughly 10 to 1 in favour of the right wing side.  I would have never thought the press would have been so blatant about it, but apparently they figure the general public are idiots and won't notice.

That's whey we never get any pro climate change stories reported in BC anywhere except the very last page of the last section of the papers.  The press in the UK is far more balanced, which is why the Scientists in the UK are getting attacked the most by the tabloids I guess.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 13, 2010, 05:16:00 PM
Stan:

if what you say is true about your press being right wing?

i will trade you 5 of ours for every one or yours!

:)

actually, maybe i will put in for immigration to BC!
warmer climate than down here in the far south of washington,
and a conservative press?
wow, sounds like paradise to me!

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 14, 2010, 04:20:54 PM
Hey Bob....There's a couple of towns here in BC that are renouned for being right wing.  One is Williams Lake, the other Merritt.  Google them and see what you think.  :D
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 18, 2010, 07:05:35 PM
here is the latest unraveling of one of the "glaciers are melting" scares

Stan: i would be interested in your take on this report?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece


bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 18, 2010, 10:33:55 PM
OK Bob....My take on newspaper reports like this are as follows. 

1.) newspaper reporters are not scientists, they only report what they think they hear.

2.) Typically, they start with an idea, and then go out and try to find data to prove it.  This means that anything they find that might disagree with their idea they simply don't include it in their artical.

3.) They never include data in their stories.  Data is critical in proving or disproving a statement.  When I wrote my thesis, I was told over and over again, "if you have data which proves or disproves what you are saying, you either have to provide the data yourself if you gathered it yourself, OR you have to footnote the source of the data so it can be researched.

This article reports on an IPCC report which is NOT quoted.  Words are used such as "benchmark report", "most detailed" and "central claim" which are never used in a scientific paper.  How does this reporter know that this report is "benchmark".  Maybe it's just an idea paper published to attract dissenting opinion (a common tool for researchers).  How does he know it's a "most detailed" report?  Has he read ALL the other reports which are "not the most detailed"???  He asserts the glacier portion is a "central claim", but doesn't tell us what all the other "claims" are.

Lots of clues that this is a hack piece of reporting by a reporter that doesn't have a clue what he is talking about , and the ironic thing is he is simply passing along unverified data which is what he asserts was done by the scientists he is reporting about!   Kind of ironic no?
Stan

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 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.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 19, 2010, 08:13:20 AM
ok Stan, fair enough, now then

perhaps you could share what type of report or article you would find as being troubling to the AGW claim?

we can't use newspaper articles, because obviously they are all "rags"

we can't use reports from other scientists because they are "hacks"

we can't use data that doesn't originate with those that support AGW

so what can we use?

is scientific american a suitable source? if not why not?

what publication would you find acceptable?

i am curious, perhaps you can enlighten me?

the thing is you see, is that you are more than capable of critical thinking skills in analyzing any reports that are anti AGW
but "seem" to lack the same when it comes to those that support AGW. that i find most curious and quite frankly beyond my
understanding.

good science is always met with opposition and skepticism even in the face of broad acceptance, there was a time when the popular
belief was that the world was flat, or the center of the universe, and all that...

one man stood out and said, no this isn't right, the world is not flat and it is not the center of the universe.  he was ridiculed as being
a heretic and/or a lunatic. it took a while for everyone else to come to the light, but one has to wonder how long it might have taken
had he not taken a stand and asserted his claim?

i remember reading in scientific american about the approx 3k floating ocean temperature monitors that measure the oceans of the worlds
temperatures at various depths, they had data going back 20 years

the first 18 years iirc the oceans temps rose something on the order of 2 degree's C which is an alarming amount and i would bet we both could agree to that, however

the 19th year there was a slight decline followed by something like another decline of 1.8 degree's in the last year, which basically wiped out
the prior gains in average temperatures,

what concerns me is those researchers that as you say about reporters, form a theory or hypothesis then go out and try to find all the data they
can that supports their assertion but conveniently leave out any that might refute or mitigate their claims. we are starting to see this sort of thing reported on, and i for one find it criminal.

as i would expect that you too would take strong issue to any report that was based on the numbers of the first 18 years and excluded the last 2 years, that made a strong assertion that AGW is a fact and we need to alter our lifestyle now! pay out billions of dollars to various companies and countries for all sorts of reasons and damage our economies and way of life so that a hand full of elite's can make billions of dollars in profits.

i don't understand what is so difficult to grasp as being possible, we all know that the oil companies in the past, just as the tobacco and asbestos
etc companies twisted reports and data to make themselves filthy rich, why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that perhaps this AGW thing is
just another example using a different twist by many of the same people?

in fairness and trying to back off and not be so abrasive, i understand that this is your belief, but
from a background such as yours, shouldn't you be more critical of these reports and perhaps even allow more thought into the possibility
that this is just another cherade' much like the 70's iceage, Y2K, cold fusion etc.?

as they say "the best mark for a salesman is another salesman"

i truely hope this is not the case with you Stan.

in closing,
Stan you have your belief and I have mine, and that ought to be fair enough

all i am saying is this,

if we are to be forced to alter our way of life dramatically, suffer increased taxes and regulation, pay out billions if not trillions of dollars
and all that, would it not seem prudent to establish a commission to go back over all the data, all the computer modeling,  statistics
reports, and other documents and check each and every facet for accuracy and statistical variance, while also taking a hard look
at any other possible explanations for any results before we turn over control to any group?

should be not check out the credibility of each of the researchers/scientists? and as we do in a court of law summarily dismiss those that have cooked the data, altered or hidden data, fudged computer models, are proven to have conspired to coverup decenting opinion or research via emails and the like?

this is not chump change we are talking about here, this is very serious amounts of money and power being turned over by we the people
to those that look to gain huge amounts of power, influence and wealth.

does this seem unreasonable?
if so maybe you have deeper pockets than i do? or maybe you like huge government control?
i don't know?

thanks
bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 19, 2010, 05:06:39 PM
Ok Bob, to answer your question, the only articals that are accepted as bonifide "worldwide" are those that are subjected to peer review.  I don't know how many people reading this will know the steps to peer review but here's how it happens.

Step 1.  A scientist gets an idea and sets out to find out if its true or not true.  this is important because it looks at both sides, it doesn't try to prove a point.

Step 2.  the scientist gathers data, preferably "primary data" that is facts they have recorded themselves.  If their idea still looks OK, then go on to step 3

Step 3.  the scientist writes a preliminary paper and publishes it stating his/her idea and the facts that support it.  This paper is just preliminary, and these are the papers that a lot of other scientists either support (with facts) or don't support (again with facts) AGAIN with published papers.   Here's where the rag reporters jump in and cite "this scientist refutes the law of gravity" or some such thing.


Step 4. The original scientist reviews all the published responses to their paper and either gives up because they have been proven wrong, or refutes the negative published papers with more data and more experimentation.

Step 5. A final paper is written and submitted to a panel of other scientists in the same field, who judge it as bonifide or not bonifide.  It is then submitted to many "real " journals and won't even be published unless it is accepted by the panel.

This is where the public is constantly being misled by the rag reporters.  They hear about these preliminary papers which are just "sounding boards" for scientific thought and never have been and never will be accepted as "peer review" articals.

As a general rule, you shouldn't accept as truth, any artical that hasn't been "peer reviewed" and that you haven't read yourself.  If every third sentence isn't footnoted, don't accept it as truth.
Stan

I forgot to mention this is exactly the same process I went through to get my thesis accepted.  It took 2 years.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on January 19, 2010, 07:26:40 PM
Ok Bob, to answer your question, the only articals that are accepted as bonifide "worldwide" are those that are subjected to peer review.  I don't know how many people reading this will know the steps to peer review but here's how it happens.

And from where I sit, the peer review process for GW at least, has become broken.    It's taken on a cult feeling, with only the "right thinking" articles appearing, and the wrong thinking ones are blocked.  There should be a balance of pro and con articles appearing.  They aren't and so there can only be 2 reasons.

1) Forbidden thinking (anti-GW thoughts) and will be blocked from publication
2) there is no objection, and GW is a Truth.

The Climategate data release  seems to suggest ( 1 ) has occurred, but has not been peer reviewed, so we can't have further discussion about it.

It's hard to look at the players to sort this one out, you have the Carbon Taxers on one hand, and the Oil Burners on the other.
   I can't decide, so I'm going solar and bio diesel ASAP
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 19, 2010, 08:04:37 PM
The whole peer review process has indeed slowed down.  As Lovelock states in "the revenge of Gaia", most of the papers on the is subject that have been peer reviewed and therefore trustworthy, are at least 4 years old.  There is so much controversy on this subject that peer reviewing is taking much longer than it traditionally has.  I take that to mean that scientists are examining the data much more carefully before lending their support to one side or the other, and that makes it more effective, rather than breaking down.

One thing that you have to realize is that most independent scientists don't have an opinion on climate change.  They have nothing to gain or lose either way.  They only report the facts, just the facts, (like a hollywood private eye used to say).  When those facts point to a trend, you report that trend.  Just like lines on a graph like the famous hockey stick graph.  That's not anyone's opinion, that's figures on a chart that go in one direction, in two different slopes.  People have criticized the way he gathered his data, but in the years that have ensued since he reported it, virtually all studies have confirmed his results.

It's only when you are employed by a private, for profit corporation that you have to report opinions based upon your bosses wishes.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 19, 2010, 09:43:09 PM
Facts? hmmmm

ok, review the following shall we

2 + 3 = 5

if the peer group reviews this simple equation all would concur that the finding of "5" is correct and irrefutable, however

both pieces of data "2" and "3" might not have been thoroughly vetted, most especially if the underlying data is buried deeply
such that

(1/2 + 3.5/2) + ((12/2)/2) = 5

now if the first finding (1/2) was from some dude in india, the second from a guy from england, the factor from some  pofessor in the US
etc etc, it all becomes too easy to skew the data, and still make the outcome painfully obvious (5) so much so that no one would think to
question it, after all everyone knows that 2+3=5 right.

it is so easy to skew results to produce any result you want, and if you are crafty enough you can do it in such a way that it is buried very deeply
within the calculations so as not to be easy to ferret it out unless you are so motivated to spend a huge amount of time and money checking for the problem.

how do i know this? because i used to make sport of instructors that were so cocksure that they could not be fooled.

when one is so focused on what he wants to see, he often misses the obvious and most likely explanation for any problem
there is a premise that when faced with a problem the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

i just think there was a rush to judgement based on enormous amounts of money and power at stake, without taking a hard look at what other possible explanation there might be for any global warming (again assuming there has been that isn't cyclic in nature anyway).

i am reasonably sure that when the chips are down and this has been all sorted out, which it might be now that the copenhagen thing resulted in
basically no action,, that it will be proven that there is some AGW, just no where near the scale that is reported, and
it is on the decline. certainly there ought to be a case for smokestack pollution of the first half of the industrial revolution might well have had some effect, but certainly the last quarter is far less than during any point in the first half.

it just amazes me that it can take decades to prove out a theory even when scientists can setup experiments in a lab and observe what is reported, but takes less than a decade to come to hard fast conclusions of fact on something that cannot be proven in the lab and will take a hundred years to determine one way or the other?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on January 20, 2010, 12:16:03 AM
how others may see the situation:
(http://www.solarcycle24.com/graphics/warming.jpg)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 20, 2010, 04:00:21 AM
Bob, to use your example, the "2" and the "3" would both be thoroughly documented, with footnotes to other scientists examination of  both "2" and "3" and those scientists data would be readily available for others to test and verify. That's the basis for the whole scientific method, "testability" and "repeatability".  Do you remember the infamous "cold fusion" fiasco of a few years ago.  The guys who published the first report on their success in creating cold fusion (now there's an energy source that could revolutionize the world) let their report get out to the press, who ran with it, and didn't bother to find out if the process had been subjected to peer review. 

The world gasped collectively and no matter how many times the original guys shouted "wait, wait this hasn't been peer reviewed yet" no one listened.  When the peer review was eventually completed, it was reported that no one could replicate the process successfully.  The original guys were ridiculed and ruined.

That's why the peer review process MUST run it's course and everything must be verified and confirmed by many many people BEFORE the distinguished and respected hack reporters of the world publish their own distorted and erroneous crap!  You'll notice I don't have much respect for reporters.

A little anecdote.....I was once given the task of finding out if it was too dangerous for school children to cross at a specific cross walk before and after school.  I spent a couple of days observing the cross walk and wrote up the report.  I detailed 9 specific and very clear reasons why it was dangerous.  I wrote everything down and gave a copy of the report to every school board trustee, and the reporter for the local paper.  The next day the paper published a story on my presentation and of the 9 points I gave them IN WRITING, they got 7 of them wrong.  Just my own little experience with the press.  >:(

Yes, even the Scientific American sometimes publishes reports that aren't verified, because they are only popular press, not scientific journals.  You might as well read the articles in Popular Mechanics, interesting, but hardly scientific (despite the name).

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 20, 2010, 12:21:12 PM
Stan:

thanks for the unneeded lesson in scientific method and peer review 101, but you are missing my point

my point is this,

anytime you have something that is very complex and multifactored, and that is not replicable by anyone else
you have a problem

the AGW thing is not replicable by anyone under any circumstances, it is based on computer models alone.

the only way it can be proven is to compare the model against the measured realities over the next 100 years.

that is a huge problem that likely would not have become such an issue had idiots like michael moore, and algore
not latched onto it and made themselves piles of money in the process.  its after such takes place that AGW began
a life of its own, and began to be supported by those that would and could either cut off your funding, discredit your contributions
or in some manner make life miserable for those that have opposing views.

those of course are the ones that have the time, money, and other resources to try and at least do some checking of the processes used
to arrive at this AGW theory.

to think that peer review is infallible is laughable in my thinking.

it is so easy to steer the review process, most especially when you get politics involved, and as you and i both know politics
is an ugly dirty business.

what peer is going to step up and say bullshit, if he is faced with being ridiculed? cutoff? defunded?  far easier to sign off on some aspect
of the equation than to make waves.

and it is even easier to sign off on large blocks of the equation, if there is a promise of more grant money being piped into either your pocket directly or into the institution you work for.

do you not see any of the revelations of late, as being troublesome?

how do you prove AGW independently? if this is good science and not just a theory, it has to be proven independently does it not?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 20, 2010, 03:25:47 PM


the AGW thing is not replicable by anyone under any circumstances, it is based on computer models alone.

the only way it can be proven is to compare the model against the measured realities over the next 100 years.


Not true.  There are many forms of data that have been gathered for many years that have proven the world is heating up dramatically.  One such that you can find for your self is the ice core work being done by several countries scientists in both Greenland and Antarctica.  There is no computer modeling involved, it is pure numbers that anyone can see leads to an inevitable conclusion.  The earth is warming up.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on January 20, 2010, 04:13:17 PM
Quote
There is no computer modeling involved, it is pure numbers that anyone can see leads to an inevitable conclusion.  The earth is warming up.
Stan 

True enough .  Ever since the last ice age. 

 Before that, there was a warm age, before that, a different ice age.    And so on, several many times, warm cold warm cold.  Something other than mankind drove those.  But according to Al Gore and the GW/Climate Change industry, mankind, introducing 0.01% more Co2, is going to kill the planet and the polar bears. But none of the contrail clouds from jets or cosmic ray induced cloud cover has any effect ?   There are problems in both camps, but nobody addresses the historic changes.   Climate is never stable, it's always changes. Just not always the way we like it to.  Cow farts - what of the herds of buffalo that covered the plains states of the US? Cows as far as the eye could see, like a blanket over the land.

So what do we do?  Do we go out of our way a little bit, glue PV on our roofs, and eat tofu?  Ban cement production & live in mud huts? Burn trees in power plants instead of coal? California has passed laws, and they are starting to be implemented, at HUGE expense to the state, to reduce global Co2 by less than 1%, and China is mining more coal for power plants, yet attends the GW talks as if they will really do something.   It's all a sham.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 20, 2010, 09:41:57 PM
Yes Mike, I agree with you on the China thing, however China is getting scared (the olympics smog fiasco was one wake up call) and the people of China are starting to grumble, not a good thing for a dictatorship.

I just wonder if in 30 years when my great grandchildren ask me, "what did you do to try to avoid the mess we're in now" that I can have an answer for them that will allow them to respect me.

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 20, 2010, 11:16:09 PM
Stan:

you can tell your grandkids it is all bob's fault!

:)

(cuz you can bet i will be telling my grandkids it is all YOUR fault)

lmao

bob g

ps, looks like there might be some problems with the peer review process?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012004123.html
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 21, 2010, 01:51:20 AM
Not at all Bob....This proves my point precisely.  As he said "The procedures (meaning only quoting published work that has been peer reviewed) have been violated in this case."

There's no peer reviewed publication in the world that would have published a report saying "I talked to a guy who said he thinks the glaciers will all have gone by 2035".

If the IPCC (which I don't read anyway because they are politicized) quotes reports like that, it's no wonder they are being laughed at.

To get the real data, (not opinions of non-scientific persons) you have to read articles like these.   http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/search/publications/

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 21, 2010, 06:23:22 AM
Stan:

it appears this "Mann" fellow, the one with the hockey stick graph that everyone is gaga about
refuses to tender is computer modeling to peer review?

yet everyone accepts his graph?  and no one has been allowed to review the underlying puter code?

whats that about?

do you find this troubling?

if not why not?

bob g

further reading

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3021

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 21, 2010, 04:13:20 PM
His graphs (he has many, only the most controversial have been hysterically trumpeted by the right wing press) can be plotted with a piece of graph paper and a pencil.  If you want to sit down and take his raw data and do the averages by hand, all you have to do is look at the trends.  The conclusions don't depend on computers plotting probabilities or anything like that, they are just plain common sense.

I've said many times that the end result of global warming isn't the warming or cooling of specific areas on the globe, but the confusion of day to day weather.  However since you like pointing out to me that "Texas is getting snow" etc. etc.  so here's one for you.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/01/20/bc-cypress-mountain-no-snow.html

The unfortunate part of all of this is that we (the people of BC) now have to pay for this trucking and helicoptering of snow.  GRRRRRRRRR  >:(

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on January 25, 2010, 08:21:08 PM
Now the Vancouver Sun is publishing some counter claims, rigged data, cherry picked data, interpolated data....

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

excerpt:
 “NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 26, 2010, 12:09:49 AM
Our government has been systematically closing down rural climatic reporting stations for years, but not out of any attempt to distort climate data.  They've been doing it simply because they are anti-climate change (they still think they will see some benfit from sucking up to George W. Bush) and  see no benefit in collecting climate data and as so it only makes sense to close down the more expensive weather reporting stations.  They have also been closing down just about all of our light houses, which coincidently were climate reporting stations.

As a matter of fact, it's the high latitudes that have been warming up the most.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 26, 2010, 02:54:37 AM
Stan, we have been closing down weather stations everytime we close down a military outpost... that started with your hero  Pierre and continued with Jean and Paul.  Harper has only been in power in a minority gov't for the past 4 years...  come on do you think with the majority of parties part of the Global Warming Cabal he could get away with the wholesale shutdown of weather stations??

And if you haven't noticed, GW Bush left office last year, and your man of change is now Steve's best friend

Stan, Im going have to call you on your statements.  It seems it was posted here that the people who tract temp in the north have stated that its not warming
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 26, 2010, 03:21:56 AM

Stan, Im going have to call you on your statements.  It seems it was posted here that the people who tract temp in the north have stated that its not warming

I"m talking long term not just the last year.  Canadian Meterological Society just posted the last 10 years has been the warmest decade in recorded history.
Stan

Edit:.....
Thought I'd go and get a document written Nov. 2009 by Canadian scientists.  Note....none of the 5 societies listed is in any way associated with any big oil companies.  These guys have no axe to grind, no interest financially in either the rise or fall in global temperature.  They are just government scientists, making an annual wage, paid for by you and me.

Dear Parliamentarian,
At the Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the eyes of the world will be on Canada. We, the leaders of the following Canadian scientific societies, urge the Government to negotiate an outcome that will rapidly and adequately address climate change.
Current and anticipated impacts of climate change in Canada are well documented. They include loss of summer ice in the Arctic Ocean, reduction of snow-covered period, increased melting of glaciers and permafrost, increased evaporation from lakes and wetlands, more extreme weather, severe urban heat waves, increased forest fires that turn boreal regions into carbon sources, and disruptions in agricultural, forest, and energy production. Major initiatives and changes are needed to adapt to our new climate.
Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.
Canada is one of the largest per-capita greenhouse gas emitters. Human activities must be optimized to significantly reduce emissions starting immediately. With vigorous action we can develop more efficient processes that reduce emissions, improve the quality of air we breathe and the water we drink, maintain the integrity of our ecosystems, and open new economic opportunities.
We must act responsibly. We must act now. We must act in concert with other industrialized nations. Our societies stand ready to provide scientific insight and advice.
This letter was overwhelmingly endorsed by councils or members of the following organizations of scientists:
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS),
Canadian Geophysical Union (CGU),
Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP),
Canadian Society of Soil Science (CSSS) and
Canadian Society of Zoologists (CSZ)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 26, 2010, 05:20:32 AM
Do you have a link?  I have searched their site for their data and there is just a statement.  These are the same people who say the polar bear is in trouble, yet the Dept of Natural Resources and the Inuit say the population is exploding as is the seal population
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 26, 2010, 05:24:49 AM
if there were no monetary gains to be had, one has to ask why would these 5 scientists have spent the time sorting
and calculating to come to a AGW conclusion?

don't they have things better to do?  aren't they paid to do other stuff?

your asking me to believe they did the compilation on their own time? their own dime? and the 5 of the agree?

hmmm,  when was the last time you could get 5 people together to work on a complex project for free, using their own time,
and get agreement?

perhaps you canadian's are more agreeable folks than us unruly americans?

they don't have an axe to grind? no dog in the hunt?  ya right!

thats a bold leap of faith in my opinion to believe that to be the case.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 26, 2010, 06:10:46 PM
Absolutely Bob....You wouldn't have heard much from these 5 groups but they are the most prestigeous groups of scientists in Canada.  They don't have any ties to any industrial organization, they don't go on speaking tours to make money, they are paid by but not "beholden to" the federal government, and they have no connection with any left wing commie tree huggers.  I'm just guessing as I don't know the exact numbers but I figure these 5 groups represent hundreds of scientists across Canada.

As a matter of fact we presently have a right wing red neck prime minister who rules our federal government more strictly than any dictator of any banana republic.  The standing joke "on the hill" is that if you want to go to the bathroom you have to have a pass signed by King Stephen himself.

He grudgingly admits maybe there might be something someday amiss with the climate, but he's not going to do anything about it until someone proves it to him beyond a reasonable doubt.  His policies resulted in crippling the environment ministry, hamstringing anyone who dares go against his will and proving his underlying hatred for anything with the word environment attached to it is legendary.  He's the guy responsible for shutting down all the rural and Northern climate reporting stations in the last 4 years.

Despite all this crap coming from the top, these 5 scientific organizations which are so well respected world wide they can't be touched without a huge political hit, have dared to speak out against this overwhelming pressure from the top and state what is written in this letter.

If you were to hunt for the rest of your life for a more "arms length", "qualified" bunch of scientists you'd never find one.
Stan

Andrew....Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society webpage has all the links.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 26, 2010, 06:24:43 PM
Do you have a link?  I have searched their site for their data and there is just a statement.  These are the same people who say the polar bear is in trouble, yet the Dept of Natural Resources and the Inuit say the population is exploding as is the seal population

Don't know where they got their numbers...Maybe they are caving in to Stephen's directives.  Here's what I found from an international group.

"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming."

Its from the same site that your info came from but they didn't report "the rest of the story".  Here it is.....

"Some Native communities in Canada have been reporting increasing numbers of polar bears on land. Traditional hunters believe this indicates an increased population, although the increased presence on land may, in fact, be related to shrinking sea ice and changes in the bears' distribution patterns."

See how things get distorted when reporters only report the first part of the paragraph?  It really burns my butt when they do this .   In my opinion, telling only a part of the truth is tantamount to plain simple lying.
Stan

Oh....Here's the site.    http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 27, 2010, 12:23:18 AM
Stan:

i think you are suffering from what is known as
"scenario fulfillment syndrome"

i am thinking after this all comes to light they will have to come up with another classification
for the syndrome to cover mass hysteria or multiple/group scenario fulfillment syndrome.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 27, 2010, 01:09:18 AM
I am Sparticus.....

Are you guys board of this yet.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 27, 2010, 01:16:29 AM
:)

bored???

NEVER!!!

lol

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 27, 2010, 03:01:21 PM
I'm not a boarder, I'm a skiier.  I was riding up on the chair lift yesterday with a young snow boarder and he asked me if I had ever tried snow boarding.  I told him Nope, I can still ski, maybe when I get older and can't ski anymore I'll try it.

He didn't talk to me much after that.  I wonder why?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 27, 2010, 03:05:52 PM
Unrealated to the subject but it reflects how I feel about this.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TRAVELOCITY#p/u/0/cjjYopci7Aw

A blind womanl at the old folks home where I did a job yesturday told me she started surfing uin her 60s and only stopped when her eyes went. Then she switched to a boggey board....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 27, 2010, 05:48:04 PM
Cute doug...I've got a cute one too, read on...

Bob...Scenario Fulfullment syndrome?  where ever did you get that one? 

What I'm talking about is "Who do you trust".  Now I know you aren't going to believe me, rightly so because you don't know me from a hole in the wall.  But people here have quoted the London Daily Star, which is similar to the National Enquirer here in N. America. 

Most of my research into the "global warming hoax people" have all led back to a 2003 speech by senator James Inhofe in the US who is a certifiable loony of the first order.  Constantly making incorrect and wild assertions such as comparing tree huggers to Hitler.  I mean come on, lets insert a little common sense here.

When it comes right down to it, I figure I'd trust the data and interpretation of that data to the five major neutral scientific organizations I mentioned in a past posting to anyone, any day, anywhere,  especially people like Limbaugh and Gingrich and Inhofe.

I do think that the London Daily Star does have a couple of good points however in this url.... ;)    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/starbabes/5055/Jodie-Star-Babe/

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on January 27, 2010, 06:05:45 PM
I do think that the London Daily Star does have a couple of good points however in this url.... ;)    http://www.dailystar.co.uk/starbabes/5055/Jodie-Star-Babe/

Stan

God  I love this thread!!

But now stan  lets not drag this  porn in here or t19 will have to have a talk with you!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 27, 2010, 07:24:56 PM
lmao!!!

the one and only time i take a look at a link that Stan puts forth and i am met with this!!!

too funny!

there is an old saying, "follow the money"

and somehow the the end of the trek is a naked woman?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 27, 2010, 07:59:08 PM
Follow the money.....

AH HA!!!!!

I know who is behind all of this.
Only the repsonsible maney managers of The Crimson Permanent Assurance can save us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX61PUZ3xkI
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 27, 2010, 08:59:10 PM
"Climategate" Should Trigger Reset
Andrew Weaver, Canada's leading climate scientist, is calling for replacement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership and institutional reform. Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, and told Canwest News yesterday that there has been some "dangerous crossing" of the line between climate advocacy and science at the IPCC

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/26/387156.aspx
http://www.windsorstar.com/technology/Canadian+scientist+says+global+warming+panel+crossing+line/2487264/story.html
"There's been some dangerous crossing of that line," said Weaver on Tuesday, echoing the published sentiments of other top climate scientists in the U.S. and Europe this week.

"Some might argue we need a change in some of the upper leadership of the IPCC, who are perceived as becoming advocates," he told Canwest News Service. "I think that is a very legitimate question."

Weaver also says the IPCC has become too large and unwieldy. He says its periodic reports, such as the 3,000 page, 2007 report that won the Nobel Prize, are eating up valuable academic resources and driving scientists to produce work on tight, artificial deadlines, at the expense of other, longer-term inquiries that are equally important to understanding climate change.

"The problem we have is that the IPCC process has taken on a life of its own," says Weaver, a climate-modelling physicist who co-authored chapters in the past three IPCC reports.

"I think the IPCC needs a fundamental shift."

Weaver's comments follow a series of recent revelations about the scientific credibility of the IPCC's work.

The panel admitted last week that its 2007 report wrongly asserted that Himalayan glaciers likely would melt by 2035. That alarming claim created concern across southern and eastern Asia, whose major rivers are fed by the glaciers.

While the content of IPCC reports is supposed to be rigorously checked by a scientific, peer-review system, those rules weren't followed in this case. The glacier-melting claim was kept in the report even though some glacier experts considered it preposterous.

The claim originated with an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, who works for a research company in India headed by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman.

British newspaper reports say Pachauri's company used the false glacier claim to win multi-million-dollar research grants from the U.S. and Europe.

The scientist responsible for the Asia chapter in the IPCC report also told a British newspaper that he included Hasnain's glacier claim for political purposes.

"We thought," said IPCC author Murari Lal, according to The Mail on Sunday, "that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

The damage to the IPCC's credibility caused by the "glaciergate" affair, and by last December's "climategate" scandal, have provided months of fodder for critics who have long been skeptical of the IPCC's warnings.

Weaver says Pachauri, the panel's chairman, should resign, not only for his recent failings but because he was a poor choice to lead the IPCC to begin with.

Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ont., and a well-known IPCC critic, says the panel's scientific failings, and its willingness to cross the line into advocacy, will eventually percolate into the policy arena.

"The halo has come off the IPCC," he says. "At the time of the 2007 report, there were very few politicians willing to question statements from the IPCC. Now, as this plays out, people will start to be embarrassed to cite the IPCC."

Weaver says the vast majority of the science in the IPCC reports is valid, and that the glacier revelations —"one small thing," in a 3,000 word document, as he calls it — shouldn't be used to discredit other parts of the report.

"There is not a global conspiracy to drum up false evidence of global warming," he says.

But Weaver admits the IPCC needs to change, for the sake of climate science, and for its own credibility.

He also says the IPCC must stop producing huge, all-encompassing reports on every aspect of climate science and instead re-organize itself into a series of small, highly-focused groups, each tasked with examining a single specific scientific question and none required to publish their conclusions on quick deadlines.

And he says IPCC officials must cease being "over enthusiastic" in pushing for policy changes.

"Nobody should be using particular pieces of information to advance an agenda," says Weaver. "The IPCC cannot be an advocate, because it's not tasked to do that."

On this point, Weaver and McKitrick agree.

"The IPCC is not going to be able to recover from this unless there's an honest attempt to reform their procedures," says McKitrick. "They need to start doing what they've always claimed to do — to be balanced, and open, and scientifically rigorous."
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 27, 2010, 09:14:56 PM
Yes Andrew...I agree with both you and the guy from U. Vic.....The protocol at the ipcc broke down and someone made a mistake and didn't do the peer review on that bogus story out of India that was reported by right wing press around the world.  No one is arguing that the peer review process is the ONLY way to get accurate data and data interpretation out to the public.  That has been the main point that I have been trying to make for weeks now in this thread.

The unfortunate part of the article in the National Post (a very right wing publisher) is that they paint the entire scientific community as bogus because one editor didn't check his/her facts and let a story slip through.  If we thrashed ourselves into a frenzy every time that happened in a newspaper, we'd all be nervous wrecks long before puberty!

Quit reading only ultra-right wing press Andrew.  Broaden your horizons.  Swivel your head around a little to the left and see what the other side is saying, some of it might even make some sense.  Hey, I read several of James Inhofe's speaches, which I admit were quite funny, especially his speech in the US senate about "not having had any homosexual experiences in his family"........  ::)

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 27, 2010, 09:16:06 PM
lmao!!!


there is an old saying, "follow the money"

and somehow the the end of the trek is a naked woman?

bob g

Isn't there always?  :-[
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on January 28, 2010, 12:13:07 AM
lmao!!!


there is an old saying, "follow the money"

and somehow the the end of the trek is a naked woman?

bob g

Still looking for mine....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 28, 2010, 12:57:19 AM
I'm armed with a banana....

Give me your wallets or I'll shoot you full of potassium...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 28, 2010, 01:11:02 AM
When I was young I realy wanted to join the RCN.
Bloody cold war, peace broke out.....

I can still dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlN4Sh06po
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2010, 03:00:34 AM
I read the Toronto Star everyday, its just left of Pravda

Unfortunately based on the emails leaked, even the peer review process has been corrupted by a few through pressure and withholding of funds and access to journal publication

Stan, maybe you dont see it with your rose coloured glasses, but big oil is not the only bad guy.  People like Maurice Strong are out to destroy the West and he was one of the first to get rich on Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 28, 2010, 05:21:57 AM
Are we back to the leaked emails?  Here's what I think of that debacle. 

First of all, the people who hacked into private computers should be convicted of theft.  I someone had hacked into yours or my computer, I think both of us would feel the same.

Second of all, these emails were heavily censored and altered by deleting portions before they were leaked to the press.  Here's how that works.  A few weeks ago I went to see the movie "New Moon" with my wife, as she had gone to see 2032 with me.  I was describing the movie to a friend of mine and described the muscular native boys running around not wearing shirts cause they ripped them off when they became werewolves.  I described them in highly descriptive and sarcastic terms saying things such as they were sure pretty boys with lots of muscles etc. etc. etc.   If anyone had hacked into my computer (or my buddies) and took a couple of those sentences out and published them in the press, I would have looked really gay to the rest of the world.  (I'm not by the way, just happy  ;D

Most of the supposedly damaging stuff that I read could have been taken any number of ways, since they were private communications between these guys, maybe having a bad day, maybe pissed off at someone for stealing their data maybe just having fun... etc. etc. etc.

So please don't hold these so called "damaging emails" up to me as proof that they dispel all the work of thousands of bonifide scientists over decades collecting and correlating this data, cause I can see more than just one side of it.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 28, 2010, 05:26:20 AM
If you really want to read something funny, twisted, erroneous and downright scary in it's "cow logic" sense, read Senator James Inhofe's speech to the senate on  MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006.

(pay close attention to the part about "Polar Bears Look Tired....what a scream!)

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Stan

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2010, 12:33:20 PM
Stan
Give it up.  To many people have had access to those file.  If your story was correct, then why have those involved be placed on leave while all their actions are being reviewed?  If it was as simple a case of taken out of context or bad editing, then they could just produce the original and it would have ended...

Come on Stan it all about Money and prestige... money from research grants and prestige from doing research and getting the money.

Just look at Dr Suzuki, he is rich from Carbon, he was famous from the Nature of Things, but that has been off the air for years, yet he can travel around the country in a bus and live the good life.  Yet he will not debate the science.  Whats he got to fear?


Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 28, 2010, 03:50:41 PM
Ok Andrew I'll answer your points.

The scientists that got their emails hacked and edited and taken out of context broke a very important rule followed at universities around the world.  Don't screw up and let the public perception of you look bad.  That's how you lose tenure.  Just like in politics, you should be good, but most importantly the public has to think you look good , whether you are or not doesn't matter.

next...Yes, lets follow the money.  The more I look at this, the more it appears to be an orchestrated propaganda effort on a large scale.  Inhofe started his speeches in 2002/3 and hammered 6 or 7 points hard.  Every single speech he's made on the subject ever since has been a carbon copy (pun intended) on the same points ever since.  Every "news" story on the topic of climate change hoax that I can find, has contained the same points.  All of these main points of Inofe's are either totally fabricated, or contain just enough of a glimmer of truth to attempt to convince the unenlightened without telling "the rest of the story".  OK< here's the money trailInhofe has collected nearly half a million bucks every election from big oil.  More comes from other big business sources but there's your trail.  His seat in the Oklahoma senate has been bought and paid for by big oil.

Next....Suzuki....personally I can't stand the man, have met him a couple of times and he's an arrogant jerk.  But he made his money on patents for genetic research at UBC plus his fat pension which is more than I ever made as a teacher.

Did you read Inhofe's speech especially the part on the tired polar bears?  Let's examine that part in detail.  He is either unaware of the intensive polar bear research that has been going on for years or he deliberately attempts to ridicule the people who have been freezing their butts off doing the reasearch.  They dart bears, pull a tooth for analysis, collect blood samples, stool samples, measurements, hair samples, weigh the bear, tatoo a number in their ear and much more. All this data has been collected for years and allows researchers to tell if the bears are getting smaller, weaker, sicker etc....

Now Inhofe is either monumentally stupid if he believes all they do is observe the bears and report on whether they are tired or not, or he is maliciously trying to discredit their work.  Which do you think is the case?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 28, 2010, 06:26:46 PM
ok Stan

you got algore, we go inhofe

one cancels the other out quite nicely in my opinion,, however

we still have the emails, we still have the ipcc falling apart and a myriad of other issues surrounding this hoax

the science is "fiction" at this point, because it cannot be replicated, at best it is a hypothesis and does not even rise
to theory at this point.

even as a hypothesis it is so full of holes as to be very difficult to defend, and once you unplug the billions of dollars from
the equation you will see a mass exodus away from it by its supporters as they run behind the next chicken little looking for
the next low hanging tit to suckle from.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
The end of the cold war dried up a lot of science funding. Unethical scientists saw the way forward thanks to hacks like Hansen. Radical environmentalists were the useful fools of climate scientists and progressive policy makers seeking an avenue to initiate social engineering with tacit approval
From what I remember of the times, a lot of this climate change fear, uncertainty, and doubt really got started about the time Reagan was threatening to cut the budgets for things like NOAA and other agencies. Right after that, it was like the grant-whores started worrying about justifying their existence, and all this scare stuff started coming out. One of the first things was the "Ozone hole", and you can see now where they're starting to reverse themselves and acknowledge that the "hole" is a natural phenomena that has nothing to do with CFCs.
Despite all the information you may have read, there is not one shred of supportable evidence that CFCs have found their way 40 miles up above the Earth. No one has ever found any up there because they are roughly five times heavier than air. They are like a brick in a swimming pool. It is not often that you will see a brick floating to the surface of your pool. CFCs are so dense that even as a gas you could fill a bucket with it and pour the contents of one bucket into another. Secondly there is no evidence that they can destroy anything because they are very stable and unreactive substances. Most dictionaries and chemistry books describe them as inert gases.

The other interesting confluence was that the original patents on R-12 were running out, at about the same time they banned it. Convenient, no? A coincidence that they had the new refrigerants waiting in the wings? Hmmmm...

Hate to say it, but after a lifetime of watching reversed studies and botched science, I no longer trust a damn thing I see coming out of the labs, on general principle. How many times have they reversed themselves on the efficacy of the various foods and other substances? It's like you can get whatever result you like, depending on what you pay for.

Latest one? BPA. The Europeans have just decided that it's not really a threat; what did we do? "OMG!!! The sky is falling!!! Ban BPA!! For the children™!!!"

NASA FY2008 actual budget expenditures, aeronautics: $511M
NASA FY2008 actual budget expenditures, earth sciences: $1,237M

NASA FY2012 budget request, aeronautics: $521M
NASA FY2012 budget request, earth sciences $1,550M

Notice that the space part and flying is much less that the study of earth sciences (AKA Global Warming)  Thats a lot of money

If you're willing to make the necessary data adjustments to match the hockey stick, its a lucrative business to be in.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2010, 06:47:38 PM
Now the Telegraph’s James Delingpole reports that another key claim by the IPCC also comes from non-peer-reviewed work by scientists operating out of their field of work:

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:
“Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”
At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications
/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf.

This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.
The WWF is not a university or research center. It is the World Wildlife Fund, an environmentalist advocacy group, one best known here for having an agency that produced and distributed (without the WWF’s permission) an ad that used 9/11 as a way to accuse people of committing terrorism against the planet. Dr. Rowell works on policy analysis, not research. PF Moore isn’t a scientist at all; he’s a “green activist” and a reporter for the Guardian newspaper. And not only is this work not peer-reviewed and not conducted by environmental scientists in a normal research model, Dr. North can’t even find the claim that 40% of the rainforest is at risk over slightly reduced precipitation in any of WWF’s own research.

How did the IPCC come to include this claim in its report to the UN? Supposedly, all of the underlying data is supposed to be peer-reviewed, legitimate research by professional scientists and not advocates. Yet within nine days we have seen two of its major claims turn out to be anecdotal speculation based on nothing at all. It goes right along with those Himalayan glaciers that were supposedly going to disappear within 25 years — at best, speculation that the IPCC falsely presented as scientific research, and likely a large load of carbon-rich effluvium.

Speaking of the glaciers, I Hate The Media has twelve glaciers that haven’t gotten the IPCC’s marching orders yet. Most interesting: the new glacier forming in the concave top of Mount St. Helens in Washington.

Thank God for this rigorous peer review prrocess for the document.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 28, 2010, 10:14:12 PM
I read the Toronto Star everyday, its just left of Pravda

Unfortunately based on the emails leaked, even the peer review process has been corrupted by a few through pressure and withholding of funds and access to journal publication

Stan, maybe you dont see it with your rose coloured glasses, but big oil is not the only bad guy.  People like Maurice Strong are out to destroy the West and he was one of the first to get rich on Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade

Pravda Russian word for Truth.....

I miss Soviet TV


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RpJH5zDmZc&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 28, 2010, 10:34:06 PM
As an old cold war warrior... I miss the old days too :D

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 28, 2010, 10:37:46 PM
I'm growing my eyebrow and ear hair out so I look like Leonid Breznev.....

Its not as easy as it sounds you know.
My wife tries to wax me in my sleep.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 28, 2010, 10:49:00 PM
Andrew
....I think I spoke about "who are you gonna trust" on this issue.  

Well I know one person I wouldn't trust if he were in the last dozen people on earth and it would be your friend, James Delingpole from the Daily Telegraph.

 Not only has he absolutely NO scientific background, but he is their extreme right wing political reporter.  He describes himself as a Libertarian...."One which advocates the maximization of individual liberty and the minimization or even abolition of the state."

These people are the most extreme of all the nut cases.  This particular nut case has evidently written 2 books,  How to be Right: The Essential Guide to Making Lefty Liberals History, and Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work

Doesn't sound like he's apt to approach any topic with an open mind and fair reporting procedures.

Please, before you go to a whole lot of trouble typeing in stuff for me to read, make sure they aren't named "Inhofe" or call themselves Libertarians or stuff like that.  It'll save both of us a lot of work.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 28, 2010, 11:00:20 PM

Speaking of the glaciers, I Hate The Media has twelve glaciers that haven’t gotten the IPCC’s marching orders yet. Most interesting: the new glacier forming in the concave top of Mount St. Helens in Washington.

Thank God for this rigorous peer review prrocess for the document.

OK, despite the "I Hate the Media" 's extreme right wing bias, it looks interesting enough to research.  I've contacted a buddy of mine at the local college and it seems the reference for the Himalaya glaciers story was referenced to a John Shroder "HIMALAYA TO THE SEA: GEOMORPHOLOGY AND THE QUATERNARY OF PAKISTAN IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT John F. Shroder, jr" and they have a copy of his latest book.  I'll get it out and read it.  If there is a statement backing up this story, I'll let you know.
Stan

Hangin out, doin the research cause it's fun  ;D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2010, 01:24:46 AM
this whole thread made more sense when we were getting
"boobs from a boob"

:)

funny how we can't pay any mind to a libertarian, or right wing folks, but i have to choke down
everything hook line and sinker from the lunatic left?

amazing!

Stan, what if your boys are proven wrong?  what will you say then?

will it be because big oil bought them off? or some right wing conspiracy snuffed them out?

or will you be big enough to come out and say, "hey guys i was duped"

just curious

don't throw me that old song of "thousands of scientists say ... yada yada yada..."

because i can show you many examples of mass hysteria taking over the minds of the elites over history
sometimes numbering into the millions, latest example that comes to mind that most everyone knows about
was the nazi movement, ku klux klan, and of course the global cooling of the 70's, and the list goes on.

bob g

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 29, 2010, 01:48:11 AM
I'm a big fan of the boob.
I figuere we should see more of them.

What we need is some fresh perspective about life.
That and we all need to fill in our organ donor cards.

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

And I don't think there are enough people wearing hats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QJvc_SxFQ&NR=1
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 29, 2010, 02:06:27 AM
Perhaps we have been asking the wrong the questions.....

Or the wrong people the questions.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ9myHhpS9s&feature=related


Great balls of Fire!!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 29, 2010, 02:15:31 AM
this whole thread made more sense when...... we were getting mass hysteria taking over the minds of the elites over history
sometimes numbering into the millions. Latest example that comes to mind that most everyone knows about
was the nazi movement, ku klux klan, and of course the global cooling of the 70's, and the list goes on.

bob g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVxM5IBLeU4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 29, 2010, 02:36:02 AM
OMG... now this makes sense.  Stan be careful, this says its not Al Gore that saved the world, its Ronald Ragan and Brian Mulrooney... Stan dont read any more, your heat cant take it  :D (just kidding with you)

 The Ozone hole did it...Hummmmm.
The ozone hole did it Posted: January 09, 2010, 12:41 AM by NP Editor Lawrence Solomon, Climate change, global warming, Wikipedia, carbon dioxide, CO2, carbon, MWP, Climatic Research Unit, Climategate, CRU, East Anglia University, climate change scandal, global warming scandal, UK Met Office, Climate gate New Univeristy of Waterloo study finds CFCs, not CO2, to be the cause of recent global warming

By Lawrence Solomon

Climate change is real and man-made, explains University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, author of a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports.

Professor Lu also explains that the climate change crisis is over. Thanks to an international environmental treaty, the planet is no longer in peril. We have, in fact, begun a long cooling period that will bring Earth's temperatures back to normal.

The man-made cause of global warming is not CO2 and the international treaty that saved the planet is not the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, says Dr. Lu, the true cause of global warming has been CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, a class of chemicals that was once widely used in aerosol cans and refrigeration. As CFC use soared in the decades following World War II, he explains, the globe started warming dramatically. The world stopped warming dramatically when government regulations began to phase out CFCs, an event that culminated in the western world in 2000. Almost immediately afterward, in 2002, the world began to cool as CFCs started to diminish in our atmosphere.

The heroes in this tale are environmentalists and world leaders such as U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who got together to sign the Montreal Protocol of 1987. This protocol was designed to stop the Ozone Hole from developing above the Antarctic by ridding the planet of ozone-destroying CFCs. Little did either the environmentalists or the world leaders recognize at the time, explains Professor Lu, that their actions would also eliminate the threat to the planet of global warming.

Professor Lu, a path-breaking scientist in the field of ozone protection, made his CO2 discovery by accident — he was looking for culprits in the formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica. A chief suspect was CO2: Climate models produced by climatologists showed that CO2 would have devastating effects on the ozone layer, significantly enlarging the ozone hole over Antarctica and dramatically enlarging it over the Arctic. But when Dr. Lu compared the imagined output of the climate models with the actual measurements taken real-time by satellites and weather balloons, the models turned out to be soaring failures.


Ozone hole over South Pole: "Warming on Earth's surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs," says Prof. Qin-Bin Lu. Photo credit NASA.

"I didn't see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008," explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant – "the global warming on Earth's surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs," he concluded. "The models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise."

In contrast, CFCs have long been known to be a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is 10,000 times more potent than CO2. Professor Lu's satellite and balloon measurements showed that factor of 10,000 to have been a gross underestimate!

Had CFCs never been widely used in our air conditioners and refrigerators, Dr. Lu believes, the Earth would not have warmed in the last century. And had CFCs not been banned, he would not be predicting a period of global cooling.

But with the CFC ban, and the subsequent phase-out of this ozone destroying chemical, global warming stopped and, early this decade, a period of global cooling began. This cooling will last "at least 50 years, and possibly 70 years" as the global temperatures return to their pre-CFC levels, he explains, barring the rise of an alternative to CFC, or the introduction of another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

The cooling, he predicts, will be gentle – "after 2010 or so, the globe temperature will experience a small bounce back but a general declining tendency will not change." Neither will the new levels be worrisome – Earth will find itself back at the levels of the 1950s, which themselves hadn't changed much over the previous century.

Dr Lu's study is now published and the reviews he has received to date have been favourable but he may find himself writing a postscript in three year's time. Like hundreds of other scientists around the world, Dr. Lu may have unwittingly relied on invalid data for a portion of his study. His real-time satellite and balloon data, which shows CO2 does not cause climate change, is not in dispute. Not so for the historical temperature data, on which he based his estimates of how much global cooling we face as Earth's temperatures return to their historic pre-CFC levels. "My temperature data comes from the UK – the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University," he reveals when questioned.

As a result of the Climategate Scandal, this temperature data is now in doubt. Investigations into the Climategate emails are underway at East Anglia and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More significantly, CRU's data is so suspect that the UK Met Office, which partnered with the Climate Research Unit in producing datasets for researchers, is undertaking a mammoth three-year investigation during which it will re-examine 160 years of original temperature data to determine to what extent, if any, CRU cooked the books.

Because of all this uncertainty, "I cannot say how reliable their data is," states Professor Lu, who has done his best to reassure himself that all is in order. When the Climategate scandal erupted as his study was being completed, he cross-checked the CRU data to that of NOAA, another prominent organization, and then he cross-checked his data again when CRU's partner, the UK Met Office, released more data. "All of them look similar," Professor Lu says. Professor Lu's cross-checks provide scant reassurance, however, because all these data-handling agencies had drawn their data from the same tainted pool. Although Professor Lu declines to comment on the Climategate scandal, he cannot be confident that his study will not need to be redone in three year's time, when the UK Met Office completes its re-examination.

One calculation in his study that may change with revised CRU data: His 50-70 year estimate of the coming global cooling may change by two or three decades. One calculation that won't change: CO2's contribution to global warming remains approximately nil.

Financial Post


Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...x#ixzz0dwMkMIwZ

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 29, 2010, 02:52:21 AM
I have done my best to derail this thread and drag it off topic because I feel it serves the interest on no one.

friends....

We are fucked not because we can not agree global warming over population and green houses.
Not because the science is bad or we lack the proper information.
Not because we lack the capacity to debate and understand.

We think too small, like the frog at the bottom of the well. He thinks the sky is only as big as the top of the well. If he surfaced, he would have an entirely different view. - Mao Tse-Tung

Then again thats what I think.....

There is nothing more practical than a good theory. - Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2010, 04:54:12 AM
Doug:

for godsakes man,  get with the program!

:)

we go from boobs to chairman mao?

from boobs to Brezhnev?

unbelievable!!!

i for one think we need to go back to "boobs"!!

at least that is one subject most on both sides of this arguement find some middle ground to agree on.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: DRDEATH on January 29, 2010, 09:30:18 AM
I have been watching this post and I guess I really don't know what to believe. Its like any other subject in life. There are extremes on both sides. I do know one thing for certain. All of us have to be responsible for this planet. It have been abused to many years. We have lakes that are toxic because farmers and cities have polluted waterways from actual drainage to water run off from rain. we have water supply under the ground showing up with medication residual from drug companies and families dumping medications down the drains. How would you like to be someone who might be allergic to some form of medication and find out it is in the drinking water. Most of these are one that cannot be filtered out. Our country the US is probably one of the leaders of waste being disposed of improperly. All of this is going to come back and haunt us. The population 100 years ago was so much smaller that it was not such a burden to the planet. We have all got to become more responsible to our world. We have future generations that deserve the chance to live in a world with clean air and clean water.That is my opinion and no one will change it.  Thank you for allowing me to be on my soap box. Mike
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 29, 2010, 10:56:23 AM
you can take the total world population and fit them into the state of texas at the same density per sq/mile
as tokyo japan is today.

not that i want to live there, but it illustrates pretty clearly that we are not over populated, we just mismanage the resources
at hand (as a species)

there is certainly more than enough farm land to feed the population without a problem.

and yes we dirty american's have crapped in our nest, but
we are many time cleaner today than at any point since the beginning of the industrial revolution

sure there are runoff concerns with farms, most of which have been addressed, those remaining do so because of an
ineffective beauacracy that can't get off their lazy ass and go do something about it. i don't tell me it is a funding issue
the epa got a 35% raise last year alone, and will now continue with the same this year and have it locked by obama next year.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 29, 2010, 06:21:05 PM
Bob:

You put the biggest smile on my face with your replies....

You get it.
This is all just a bad joke now because nothing will change.
Or maybe it will change then we will be the joke

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X9hPYGp1Bs&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 29, 2010, 09:30:38 PM
Cute Doug.....Few people in the US remember the line ups they had to "cue" in to get a few gallons of gas in the early 70's.  How soon we forget eh?

Bob, the world food organizations tell us that we used to have 2 years excess food supply on hand at any one time.  We now have an estimated 3 months excess on hand.  This year it's going to be very hard for many US farmers to get the necessary loans to by the seed and fuel to plant crops.  Watch for shortages, especially in 3rd world countries that have to buy most of their food from us.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on January 29, 2010, 11:02:56 PM
The run off from farms that has not been addressed is its topsoil;  most of the high producing land has been losing topsoil. Without the vast subsidy of non renewable fossil fuel input the present agricultural production likely cannot be maintained. Sure there is lots of marginal that could be brought into production but the output would be more expensive than the hungry hords can afford. Maybe this is mismanagement; the present haves should produce at a loss to their environment and farmers to feed high density populations on land that is populated above its carrying capacity.

This new management system is going to require a big attitude adjustment to the present economic system as well at to the possibly hard wired tribal tendency of humans. It also is going to require fossil fuel consumption to continue at the present rate or higher. There seem to be some problematic issues with that scenario too; there certainly are folks who maintain that there will allways be enough of any resource as long as prices are allowed to float and regulate demand. That is a polite way of saying starve. North America probably wont starve for food for a while but oil starvation will have many life changing implications of its own.

I surely do hope that these are hoaxes!   Oil production decline,    global warming,    population above environmental sustainability. Some big changes seem possibly to be in store for humanity and I doubt it's culture is up to handling the accommodation necessary without resorting to war and other harsh means to bring man into balance with his environment - something every living thing must accomplish or perish as others always have.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 30, 2010, 01:05:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lvy2o2r7dw&feature=related

Its a funny old world eh?
Time for anoptyher Brezhnev joke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kbBQ8Il7es&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 30, 2010, 01:18:39 AM
You know YouTube is full of Brezhnev.....

Try and find as much Nixon, or Truedeux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgIpVULKAEI&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: DRDEATH on January 30, 2010, 12:13:40 PM
Bob I would be intrested where you found your information that the world population would fit into the same land mass of Texas with the density of Tokyo? 2nd I would like to know that why is it when you drive into large metropolitan areas in the US at a higher elevation than the actual city the first thing you notice is a huge haze (smog) hovering over those towns? Lastly why is it that we hear that not only large cities are finding the quality of the drinking water is still declining? I do agree that Americans have seen the errors of their ways. The problem is that those errors take decades and maybe even centuries to correct.

Then we still have 3rd world countries still 100 years behind us in how we treat the world. I don't believe that change is to late, I just think we are only in the beginning stages of seeing what the changes will make. The whole world population is going to have to make these changes. The last I heard was poorer countries were still operating factories belching pollutants into the air. These countries are still dumping pollution into the water ways and being carried into our oceans.

I think we are only in the beginning of seeing the damage humans have done to our world.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 30, 2010, 02:41:01 PM
I've never been to texas but I can scale it in my mind, a little smaller than Ontario.

6 billion people is a little hard to scale in ones mind......

but I don't need to fully grasp that number to know what a sea of humanity crouded together would look like.
A living hell on earth. Spread that out and its still too many.

I don't know tha actual population of the USA off the top of my head so I will assume 300 million?
Don't you think maybe thats a but high already?
When one considers the water is already undrinkable in so many places and the air os not so clean?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 30, 2010, 02:51:59 PM
Dr.

well it has been about 20 years since i read about the population density being about the same of tokyo if all
the worlds people were fitted into texas, today the area required could easily be fit in the landmass of alaska
even if it is too friggin cold, or certainly texas, oklahoma and new mexico with a bit of elbow room.

again i would not want to live there, nor would any of you i would assume.

the point being is while our population numbers have been increasing we are in no way taxing the planets ability to support us

what we are taxing is our ability to feed ourselves, for various reasons.

the fact that world food reserves are declining has little to do with the earths ability to produce food, but rather mans ability to screw
up the banking system so that farmers cannot produce food in quantities seen even two years ago.

there are myriad other issues and reasons that we could start a whole nother thread over.

the thing is, mans crapping in his nest is a different discussion to AGW

we can see smog, we can measure it,
we can smell raw sewage in the waterways, and can measure that,
we can test ground water for chemicals and measure the levels
and just about every other thing we do as humans to mess up the planet can be measured
and proven in real time, in real measurements that any reasonable person could make given the proper equipment

that would be in keeping with good science.

as for climate, we can measure today and all the yesterdays and come  up with a trend, but
we cannot measure tomorrow to see if the trend continues, and to promote such is not good science
but rather similar to reading tarot cards especially given that those that do the promoting do not consider
other possible causes of the historical trend but rather simply blame man.

by other possible causes, some of which might be

1. the possibility the trend has been skewed mathematically

2. the possibility that the data was cherry picked so as to skew the results

3. larger cyclic events that the earth normally goes through that we don't understand fully

4. solar cycles

5. fraudulent calculations, or

6. some mix of all or part of the above, and/or possibly many other possible explanations

and this all assumes we truely are in an upward warming period to start with, when there is clear evidence
the reverse is true.

in conclusion none of us wants to shit in our nest, we should all work to be as clean as is economically reasonable.

rather than identify a problem and regulate it out of existence the government should identify the problem, then provide
large tax incentives or grants to those that are interested in developing technologies to remedy the problem.

in the end government doesn't fix, make or do anything other than collect taxes and redistribute money in various ways,
all i am saying is if the government wants to be in the business of identifying problems (epa) then rather than shutting down
what they feel is the source of the problem, provide money to those that can make things to stop the problem

this does not mean that government shouldn't stop obvious, measurable in real time problem operations, such as chemical dumping
in a river due to poor mechanical systems or whatever, and wait for someone to be incentivized to come up with a solution, but

when the problems is such that it cannot be measured in real time, but rather projected such as GW, then there is no reason that
the government cannot provide tax incentives and grants for research of new technologies to effect the changes they are after.

as an example, small diesel generators are thought to pollute, rather than ban their import
why not provide funding to research and develop means of remediating the problem, better injection systems research, particulate filteration,
cat converters sized to suit the need, and various other technologies would result.

rather than banning coal, determine the issue and provide funding to eliminate those issues

we can bail out GM, Chrysler, a plethora of banks, and insurance companies, fight two wars, supply aid to many countries and grow government
by 25% (average increases in budgets last year) and all the while strap our production with draconian regulation???

all i am saying is perhaps the government if they truely believed that AGW was a problem would put at least a quarter of the money they have blown on these other endeavors toward funding research and development of technologies that might have an effect?

had they done that, my bet is unemployment would be far less than it is today and likely what it will be for the next 1 to 2 years.

if i were in charge, no scientist or group of scientist would be allowed to come into my office with some bullcrap like AGW, unless

they clearly outlined the problem and had either a well researched solution to the problem or a request for funding to get that research done.

by solution to a problem i mean a technologically proven mechanism or process that would eliminate the problem, and not an hypothesis

so far that is all they have "hypothesis" they don't even have a "theory" yet, much less a "solution" to any problem.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 30, 2010, 03:07:35 PM
Doug:

the water is undrinkable in some area's for various reasons
many of which might not have been so had the epa got off its dead ass and went out in
the field and checked up on things, rather than sit around much like other bloated beauracracies
trying to make life miserable for the rest of us by dreaming up crap that might happen in the future.

the government should be reactive when it comes to regulation and proactive in funding for solutions to problems
and entities like the epa should be out in the field helping to find solutions rather than just finding fault, writing citations, levying
fines and being what becomes part of the problem.

my example of population vs area, was only to illustrate that we are fairly sparcely populated in the scheme of things, and there
is plenty of this earth to support us provided we use some common sense, something admittedly the worlds leaders seem a bit short on
currently (probably could also be said for any time in history).

like i said, i would not want to live in such tight quarters nor would i expect any of the rest of us.

i do know this, i can live comfortably in 4k sq/ft and surprisingly i have found that i can also live comforably in 235 sq/ft just as comfortably.
and the reality of the latter experiment was i found myself to be happier in the smaller abode, likely because the cost of doing so was a scant
fraction of that of the former.

as a species we will have to adapt, we will be living far differently from what we call mandatory today in perhaps 10 years, perhaps 20 and certainly 50 years from now... and everything will go on just like it always has.

the smart money is determining what that lifestyle might be like in say 20 years (in my case) and make up your mind to adapt to it now
and not be forced slowly to do so over time, which is always more costly and more traumatic in my opinion.

i think most would rather choose to make a change rather than be forced into the same change.

this goes whether there is global warming, global cooling or global normal.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on January 30, 2010, 04:52:48 PM
It is all the governments fault. They are the figurehead anyways, but supposedly they are an extension of the peoples will. If they are not then there is a structural problem in the system. However it is questionable that the majority granted their explicit wishes would make wise decisions. Only a very small percentage will actually engage in delayed gratification for themselves and certainly not to benefit future generations or humanity at large. I think that on the whole, people only act when forced or manipulated. Buckminster Fuller claimed that fewer than 2% of the population will do any critical thinking. They would rather be entertained by Bingo or organized sports.

Our present political system gets no reward for benefits payable in the future. Its payback must be graft or votes groomed to get re elected so it is basically instant gratification too or at least limited to advantage gained within the term of office. That needs addressing but the ones with the power for change have a vested interest in status quo. Political strategy tells them they better not be the bearer of bad news.

 When it comes to prescribing strong medicine for the population, a dictatorship government has some distinct advantage over democracy. I am not promoting dictatorship by any means, but both democracy and socialism have some weaknesses like dithering forever about whether to pull the bandage off quickly or prolong the pain! Trying to achieve concensus or even majority can have disastrous results on some occasions when time is critical.

Bob, I think only a very, very, few people have willingly downsized before they were forced to. It would be far the wiser choice for us to collectively do so, instead of forced moves after a system collapse. There is much that can be salvaged if we know that a physical construction or a cultural institution must be either abandoned or greatly reworked to avoid collapse. Little can be saved from the rubble.

Basically I think we would be better to assume that there is much truth in the forcasted dangers than to act like the opposite is true. Personally I have never been sorry about being prepared for bad things if they failed to appear. Yes lots of current legislation is personally inconvenient. Undoubtedly special interest groups are always pulling in opposite directions and government is a difficut act. Governing is done by humans and you know how weak minded they are. Still I prefer it over anarchy.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 30, 2010, 05:49:24 PM
I was at a forum last night here in KImberley on sustainable living.  They set up a huge screen in our auditorium at the local school and teleconferenced with 4 of the most influential sustainable living experts in the world.  Great forum, they all gave an overview of what they are doing internationally, and then they took questions from the audience and they were in turn, discussed. 

Lots of issues discussed around downsizing.  Concensus has it that we here in N. America and Europe will have to decrease our standard of living by around 40% and the (so called) 3rd world will have to curb population growth dramatically for us to have a chance in keeping anywhere near a comfortable level of technology assisted living.

Some excesses discussed were the fact that the average N. American family living in the suburbs takes 9 trips per day to various places averaging 11 miles one way in a vehicle that has 4 empty seats.  ???

Lots of discussion on how waaaay too many people live in houses with waaaay more square feet of living space than they really need.

We sure are a society of excesses.  Kind of glad I live now, and not 100 years ago, or 100 years from now.
Stan

btw  Bob, the Canadian National Building code is currently being completely re-written in light of the proven aspects of global warming and how it is now affecting buildings here in Canada (and presumably in the US).  Seems like most of our government here is going ahead with preparing for climate change despite our not-so-esteemed prime minister's views on the subject.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on January 30, 2010, 06:49:59 PM
 I think that such references to "reduced standard of living" imply a great deal of suffering and unhappiness. That does a disservice  to the cause of examining the waste in a lot of our ways. It just scares a lot of people into denial; makes people close their eyes and cover their ears! I think more emphasis should be put on dispelling the myth that quality of life must equate with per capita energy consumption.  Actually I think a lot of our drive for possessions and our busy-ness looking after them contribute a lot of angst. Many things other than symbols of money spent can be an ego stroke. I can remember back to times when being a good step dancer, square dance caller or fiddle player practically made you a hero in the community.

I dont think we need to experience hunger or uncomfortable housing to achieve much smaller environmental footprint but some things like flying refrigerated strawberries in from Brazil  or having 500 hp cars will have to cease. My mother in law was in England during the last war and described what a source of pride it was to be economizing and contributing to the common effort; being flauntingly wastefull was no longer a badge of status. So much is in the perception and that is a great part of what the first moves must be to initiate change; change peoples perception.

Presently I see our mass media and our cultural value system as being some of the greatest hindrance to change. That and the economics of consumerism; the belief that wealth comes from growth, certainly needs a shake up too, and that wont come from within the present establishment except under the fear of eminent and total collapse! That could motivate them out of self interest to initiate a livable alternative to consumerism. The media and major cultural establishments could then quite quickly create a paradigm shift in peoples habits.

It needs more than schemes of compulsory wealth distribution (which would be too destructive anyway). It would only take about 6 months for it to back in the same or similar hands. Perhaps a change in perception might take the glamour out of flaunting wealth and environmental disregard. We are certainly going to have to find some less oil energy intensive means to fulfillment or else be awfully unhappy campers if growth and supply go in the present projection.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 30, 2010, 10:30:46 PM
Any link sot that building code thing Stan?

I better bone up if I am going to be wiring the homes of the future...
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 30, 2010, 11:13:07 PM
Doug

The guy's name is Dr. Lee, and he's in the Architecture school at the University of Calgary.  I think the National Building Code association of Canada would be the research key. http://www.nationalcodes.ca/ccbfc/index_e.shtml   I haven't looked at it myself, just talked to the guy last night and again this afternoon (about the new generation of small scale fast breeder reactors, fascinating machines).  He really knows his stuff all right!

Tijean.  I agree that is going to scare a lot of people and there are 2 camps in that regard.  Camp 1 says go slow and use a lot of education, similar to the campaign to decrease smoking which made it "uncool" to smoke.  Camp 2 says we are running on borrowed time already.  Global warming is approaching critical mass, and may be already past the tipping point.  The best remedy would be to scare people because it is a scary thing.  You takes your pick of which camp you ascribe to.  Some like James Kunstler (google his blogs)  say what we do doesn't matter anymore because it's probably already out of our control (at least the economics of it) and all we can do is close our eyes, hang on and try not to scream like a little girl and wet our pants.  :-\

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 12:09:48 AM
Gee Stan, what has our PM done that is so bad?  Restored Pride in our Canadian Military?  Acted decisively to assist Haiti with the large Cargo Jets(full of supplies, Rescue helicopters etc) the Liberals dithered about for 20 years and the Commies..er... NDP said we did not need?  Was it the tax cut in the GST that you did not like?  Maybe it was his stacking the Senate today so that he can get laws passed without getting everything watered down by the Senate or stalled, or that now that he has control, introduce Term Limits and Elections for our Senate??  Maybe you don't like the fact the G20 and the IMF point to Canada as an example of how to conduct business with Banks that are strong and not crippled like in the US, or the EU?  The PM may not be Dr Susuki on Global Warming, and frankly that is a good thing. 

BTW Stan, you should point out the building Code is being re written not because of Climate Change, regardless of what those in Lotus land are preaching.  Seems that Part of Free Trade calls for the harmonization of many codes, building codes being one of them.  This makes for the easy passage of goods between the two countries.  Canada had just adopted into our building code, word for word the American Standards on Seismic codes.. not because US ones are stronger or weaker... we did not have any. BTW the Americans are looking at adopting many of our banking codes to make sure they don't have the issues they had earlier.

Where do you get the past the critical path stuff?  Even at Copenhagen they said we had time if, and that was a big if, the predictions were right, but it seems all the predictions cant seem to get the story right
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 12:27:42 AM
Andy is talking politics again....

Do i need to slap you with more Brezhnev?

good read from the economist ( ya those left wing socialist pinkies lol )
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15404916&subjectID=423172&fsrc=nwl

Reading the sudbury star this evening look at some pictures and reading the details.

100 years ago this place was called St Anne of the pines for all the stands of white pine ( that were chopped down and burned in open roasting pits or milled and sold as lumber ). Next the town I knew as a boy blue clouds of So2 and smog. Then the green revolution of the 80s that turned Sudbury in Finland ( birch trees and poplar choke cherry ). Then the interesting bits. Wind speed since 1970 has dropped 15%, average temperature has risen 1 to 2 deg. Predictions for the next 20 30 years. 30 days less frost wild apple, cherry and peaches. Also more rain less snow ( more water in general. More violent storms heat waves and sever droughts.

In short in my lifetime my home town will have changed from a moon scape, to Finland and will finally morph into the republic of Georgia ( more soviet humor ). Down side summer smog will drive the people from Toronto north.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2285272
Time to start looking at building that off grid Datcha someplace secure far away from those roving bands of Tornot yuppies lol
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 31, 2010, 12:30:31 AM
Hey Doug:

if Stan's side has their way about it, the new building electrical code will be very easy

there will be no wires over #28 awg, and we will all get two AA batteries to live on from month to month!

of course you will have to recycle your old ones to get two new ones each month.

:)

thank god for led lights, and they better get even better than they are now, lest we all be sitting in the dark!

of course this is where those on the AGW side of things want us, that is sitting in the dark.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 12:39:47 AM
Personally I think I would prefer to move toStanistsan that stay here in Dougladesh ( where things are going hell ( brazil specifically  ).

However if you send me a map of Boblevakia I would be inclined to visit sample the local game and culinary practices.

Stan the man from Stanistan has become infatuated with gas light ( thanks to me lol ) the new building codes there will require all homes to use the Coleman hollow wire system and burn alcohol like Finland in the 40s .
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 31, 2010, 06:38:23 AM

Where do you get the past the critical path stuff?  Even at Copenhagen they said we had time if, and that was a big if, the predictions were right, but it seems all the predictions cant seem to get the story right

Andrew, you know very well that was politicians talking.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 04:08:45 PM
No, did not see many politicians talking (the stench of scandal was in the air), did see some scientists on panels ...

So you never answered the questions about what it is the pm has done that is so wrong?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 05:40:15 PM
Where are the politicians talking?
Harper put a stop to that.....

The only good Torry is a Suppository
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 31, 2010, 05:41:31 PM
could it be that the islands are just sinking?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/6803669/Could-islands-be-swamped-because-of-sinking-land-and-not-by-rising-sea-levels.html

what has the PM done that is counter to Stan?
the pm is conservative?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 06:18:02 PM
He Did put a stop to them talking?  How?  I still see Taliban Jack Layton and Iffy on TV.

Now that he has stacked the Senate lets home he can get something done.  (yeah prologue of Parliament means all the committes in the Senate have to now be recast... with a Conservative as chair and Conservative majority of members.)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 06:35:28 PM
Well I saw this online in the.... Star today (lefty paper)

All the Greenies have been saying that green jobs is the place you want to be... but as many have pointed out here in this forum, green is not a money maker

ll we know about this deal, negotiated in secret and announced as a fait accompli, is Samsung obviously thinks it’s going to make a heck of a lot more of our money than the $7 billion it’s investing, through (a) the heavily-subsidized rates we will be paying for 2,500 megawatts of wind and solar power (2,000 wind, 500 solar) at 13.5¢ per kw/hr for wind, 44.3¢ per kw/hr for solar (b) a $437-million performance bonus and (c) whatever it makes from selling wind turbines and solar modules in Ontario and elsewhere.

McGuilty claims this deal will create 1,440 permanent manufacturing jobs and 16,000 jobs in all — most temporary — for a mere $1.60 per year more on the average electricity bill, part of his plan to provide at least 50,000 new jobs through his Green Energy Act.

Is any of this remotely credible? Who knows? We don’t even know if these 50,000 “new” jobs are “net” new jobs — meaning beyond those that will be lost in the traditional energy sector.

We do know that in Spain, considered a world leader in renewable energy, a study by economics Prof. Grabriel Calzeda Alvarez of Madrid’s Juan Carlos University found it lost at least 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy for every green one created, that only one in 10 green jobs was permanent and the estimated cost to taxpayers for each one was 571,138 euros ($850,000 Canadian). For wind, over one million euros ($1.49 million Canadian.)

Ouch, say its not so!!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 07:11:52 PM
http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15211377

Blaw blaw blaw blaw.


I Hope the rain forrest in Brazil and Indonesia turns into a smoky bonfire and savan by next spring

I realy don't care anymore bring on the heat and fire.
Ballance the equation....
Let the chips fall....

I realy want the world to got hell now bring on the 4 horsemen.
We get what we deserve ( I just hope those I dislike the most reap the most )
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 31, 2010, 07:21:22 PM
No, did not see many politicians talking (the stench of scandal was in the air), did see some scientists on panels ...

So you never answered the questions about what it is the pm has done that is so wrong?

Plain and simple..He's subverted democracy.  Remember democracy Andrew?  That's not just what one dictator thinks is right.  For all you Americans reading this, our prime minister has twice proroged (cancelled) all government actions, and sent all the elected representatives home so that he doesn't get shot down in flames. 

I wonder what the people in the US would do if their president shut down congress and their senate and sent all the elected representatives of the people home so he could rule all by himself.

That's just as bad as any tinpot dictator proclaiming himself leader for life.  But we all know what happens to those guys.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 08:35:51 PM
What Stan is talking about is a parliamentary procedure called "Prorogue".

Its intended to be used when all the work is done. The PM gets off his ass and goes over the governor generals house and asks that Parliament be prorogued because all the business has been attended too. Then after a short break the government returns and a new thrown speech outlining the next Parliaments business will be is announced and everyone discusses until blue in the face and passes some bills.

This Government has twice used this parliamentary rules to avoid a non confidence motion ( if they loose a vote on an important bill the government falls and an election is called ) and this January to close up all committees asking questions about torture of Afghan prisoners and to kill some embarrassing private members bills that the government would force the government to answere some questions they wish to avoid.

Harper is so arrogant he call the governor general on the phone rather than meet her in person to ask to prorogue. No PM has ever been so arrogant they always formally made an appointment and asked in person addressing the Gov Gen as if she was queen since she is the queens leagal representative in Canada and signs bills into law ect.

For the sake of clarity the governor general is a person chosen by Parliament to be head of state. A sort of president with no real power other than ceremonial stand in for the queen. She can legally dissolve Parliament and call elections, refuse proroguing etc but that would not be democratic

This will explain a little of whats going on and why people like me are mad as hell at the Tories.
GET BACK TO WORK YOU BUMS!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Canadian_Parliament

If you really get down to a Canadian Conservative party is not all that conservative . Republicans in the USA would call them liberals . But what they are  in the eyes of many Canadians like me is self serving and sneaky more interested in staying in power than good governance. I'd rather have a Quebec separatist as PM at least he's honest about his intentions.

Hey look Steven in his office caught on film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJOuoyoMhj8
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 09:54:55 PM
Doug, just some corrections to Canadian Pol Sci 101

Just to be totally Correct, Private Members Bills are not effected by Porouge.  So that bad Long Gun Registry will die.

Governor General is recommended by the PM, the Queen picks her GG.  She can put whomever she likes in the post, but has gone along with the PMs recommendation since the 1930's.

Since 1867 we have Porouged Parliament over 140 times.  The Last Liberal PM did it twice when he had a majority of votes in the house, the last one to stop the Auditor General from releasing a report on the Sponsorship Scandal.... yet there were no protests.

This PM Porouged last year to stop the Three Amigo's from taking over the Govt where you would have a Socialist and Separtist calling the shots ... yet Doug and Stan seem ok with that.  This year the opposition were upset over the torture of one, yes one TALIBAN with explosive residue on his skin, who was beaten with a shoe by an Afghani Police officer... which is a cultural custom in the middle east.  The PM also wanted to change the Senate to stop them watering down a number of bills, which now will get through Parliament as written and passed by a majority of MPs and not some Senators playing politics.

As for the phone call, the GG was not in residence, check the calender Doug, she was out of town on other business.

Her role is a follows from her web site
Quote
In 1947, letters patent signed by King George VI redefine the powers of the governor general. These letters patent “authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Usin respect of Canada”. Since then, the governor general has daily and fully exercised the duties of the Head of State, not only in Canada, but also abroad. As per the letters patent, the governor general is also the commander-in-chief of Canada.

The governor general represents Canada during State visits abroad and receives Royal visitors, heads of State and foreign ambassadors at Rideau Hall and at the Citadelle of Québec.
Quote
The Canadian Constitution (Constitution Act, 1867) places executive power in the Queen. However, in practice this power is exercised by the prime minister and his ministers. The governor general acts on the advice of the prime minister and the government, but has the right to advise, to encourage and to warn. As such, the governor general offers valued counsel to them.

One of the governor general’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament. In addition, the governor general holds certain reserve powers, which are exercised at his or her own discretion.

The governor general presides over the swearing-in of the prime minister, the chief justice of Canada and cabinet ministers. It is the governor general who summons, prorogues and dissolves Parliament, delivers the Speech from the Throne, and gives Royal Assent to acts of Parliament. The governor general signs official documents and regularly meets with the prime minister.

Quote
Heads of mission sent to Canada are received by the governor general at an official ceremony, where he or she presents a document signed by their respective countries’ head of State, informing the governor general that the head of mission has been accredited and is authorized to represent that country in Canada. These documents are referred to as credentials.

Furthermore, the governor general accredits Canadian heads of mission by signing the diplomatic letters accrediting them before they leave Canada.

And that ends todays class.  There will be a quick test in the future

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 10:03:13 PM

Hey look Steven in his office caught on film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJOuoyoMhj8

Dictatorship is nothing to make light off.  All the Three Amigos have to do to stop PM Harper is vote non-confidence and appeal to the GG to let Iffy form a govt. or put it to the people to see if we feel like you... but that has not happened,  That means the PM in a minority Govt cannot be a Dictator unlike PM Chrietian or Trudeau who held majorities and could do as they please... can you explain how this is better than what we have today? (National Energy Plan, Constitutional Repat without Quebec, National Long Gun Registry, Wage and Price Controls)  just some of the draconian measures used by the Liberals... oh yeah the War Measures Act for a Kidnapping.... compared to what??

And yes the winters get long here, and politics and Hockey are what Canadians talk about :D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on January 31, 2010, 10:04:38 PM
The difference now of course Andrew is that Stephen Harper doesn't have a majority in Parliament.  That means that far less than half the people in the country want him there.  

He has been fudging things for the last 3 years, combining bills when something was important and had to be passed with a lot of crap bills to do nothing more than line the pockets of the big businesses that supported him with bribes (campaign contributions).

Don't think that the word bribe is unacceptable because the last conservative prime minister admitted accepting $250,000 in cash,  in a brown paper envelope from a representative of big business only 3 days after he stepped down as prime minister.  AND HE'S STILL NOT IN JAIL.

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on January 31, 2010, 11:11:22 PM
Your right Harper is not a dictator, but he is a dick.....

I am tired of this, no flexability this thread is as hamstrung as everything else.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on January 31, 2010, 11:22:41 PM
i keep telling everyone that wants to help establish Bobistan, that we will view waterboarding as an olympic sport!

you wanna be a terrorist on board bobistanairlines, fine!  expect all passengers to be armed with billy clubs and knives
and when the passengers have had their way with you the pilot will descend to 10k feet and at which time your carcass
will be pitched overboard.

there will be no trial, same rules will apply as there are with a captain of a ship in open sea's, if he chooses to make you walk
the wing in lieu of a plank, so be it!

keel hauling might be problematic though, have to think about that for a while,, hmmmm

nope, just club em and pitch em out!

he who has the pair of ears of the terrorist will get a new set of tickets anywhere bobistanairlines or any of its travel partners as well.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 11:50:17 PM
The difference now of course Andrew is that Stephen Harper doesn't have a majority in Parliament.  That means that far less than half the people in the country want him there.  

He has been fudging things for the last 3 years, combining bills when something was important and had to be passed with a lot of crap bills to do nothing more than line the pockets of the big businesses that supported him with bribes (campaign contributions).

Don't think that the word bribe is unacceptable because the last conservative prime minister admitted accepting $250,000 in cash,  in a brown paper envelope from a representative of big business only 3 days after he stepped down as prime minister.  AND HE'S STILL NOT IN JAIL.

Stan

Stan, the fact he does not hold a majority should be a good thing to people of your ilk, so acting like a dictator is OK with a majority, and governing with a minority is bad?

Stan, thats how a Parliamentary govt works, ask our Republican brothers and sisters about add on to bills before you want to tear our house down

And this is the second time you have made unfounded acusations of criminal wrongdoing with nothing to show for it, I can understand your support of Climate change now... its not the facts that matter, just perception.

And the Liberal PM that followed him WHILE IN OFFICE had the government invest in HIS golf Course, which he then sold at a profit, had the RCMP build a road to his private cottage, and of course had people in his party and working for him go to jail over bogus advertising... WHILE IN OFFICE.  At least Mulrooney waited till after leaving office before finding other sources of work, and after millions of dollars spent by the Liberals, paid him $1 Million in appology money and never found a smoking gun of wrong doing.

So Stan, in short you like the Liberals because they get caught breaking the, and you hate the Conservatives because they have not been caught, which means the police are stupid when it comes to the Conservatives or the Conservatives are law abiding and that pisses you off? 

Wow I knew the West Coast had strange ideas.  So who is your hero??  Taliban Jack or Iffy?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on January 31, 2010, 11:52:02 PM
Your right Harper is not a dictator, but he is a dick.....

I am tired of this, no flexability this thread is as hamstrung as everything else.

Doug, at least your being honest... but the other guys are less dick or dickless??  lol
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 01, 2010, 12:16:29 AM
whats wrong with "hamstrung"?

i only wish our government was more "hamstrung" and less so controlled by the socialist/progressive movement
wearing democrats clothes.

and yes the west coast is "whacked" when it comes to politics, not sure how bad it is in BC
but down here in the peoples republic of western washington it is really bad.

its so bad that the tree huggers will keep hugging a tree as it is falling over or so it would seem.

what with spotted owls, tree huggers, AGW alarmist's, PETA, sierra club, vegetarians, and a plethora of other left wing
nut jobs, it is hard to find clean air to breath.

( you know vegan's have to eat beans for protein, and we all know what beans do to most folks)

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 01, 2010, 12:55:56 AM
NO NO NO.
Its the basalmic republic of Boblevakia.
The concrete and timber capital of the west ( even the windows are wood and concrete ).

Land of the cement ships and wood sails.

Where the men are men and nearly indistinguishable from the ladies.

Oh to live in such a land......
Next to sweet rivers and streams of Stanistan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 01, 2010, 01:54:39 AM
Doug:

i would have to tell you straight up front, we would likely have to declare war on Stanistan
take over his country, in order to save them from themselves, then start a full on re-education
of the populace.

you know, pretty much as it has been between clan's since the beginning of time,

unless of course his women are hairier than ours???  if that is the case, he wins!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 01, 2010, 02:58:24 PM
Hmm.
You bring up an interesting point Bob.

I think we would need to do a scientific studdy of the pelts on both.
In any event I think its a non issue when seen through the Boblevakian concrete looking glass.

I have no time for this. Since Dougladesh adopted the leaf as our currency we have a slight inflation problem that can only be fixed by setting fire to all the trees. We have some burning to do....

Good thing we can poke fun at ourselves eh?
The rest of this thread leads no where.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 01, 2010, 05:11:25 PM
Bob, unfortunately you'd have to come up with some evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" out west here, and since the Feds have moved all our army bases out of here into Alberta, you'd be best to look around Ottawa for them.  That's where all the money has been spent on the armed forces in Canada. It's of course just a coincidence that Stephen the not-so-great is from Alberta, and his throne is located in Ottawa.

Andrew, I believe it was an arms dealer that gave Mulroney his bribes wasn't it?  I also believe you once said if you want to find corruption, just follow the money?  Could it be that Stephen isn't building up the armed forces because he likes them, rather he likes the "residual fallout" that comes from promoting spending to big, and yes foreign arms dealers?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 01, 2010, 11:38:45 PM
Stan, you really must remember the headlines from Canada's Pravda..er.. the Toronto Star. the Scandal was for Airbus, which the mounties and a Royal Commission found no fault. That money was not a bride, never was, the PM was out of office, therefore could not influence anyone.  Carl Hienz Shriver is the man you are thinking about, and he was working for a German Tank/Armoured Car company that wanted to get a contract for the LAV2's and 3's we were eventually bought from GM.  According to the official record, Mulroney did not call the Minister of Defense, or the Liberal one that soon followed the defeat of the PC government.  There that is following the money, you are just spouting Liberal Propaganda that is lies, innuendo and a drive by smear.  BTW Mr Shriver said afterward, about 9 months ago here in Ottawa, that Mr Mulroney was not worth the $300K... but then again Canadians already knew that LOL

The military bases in BC were closed by Paul Martin, as Finance Minister in a Liberal Gov't.  As for Ottawa, our base here has closed.  Petawawa has gotten a lot of money, but then again it is a Combat Arms base that trains for the Sandbox.  Trenton has received money for those new C17 Jets that are flying in needed supplies to the poor people of Haiti.  Wainwright Alberta looks like Afghanistan and is a completely electronically monitored training area for the Sandbox...  BC has had a mess of money spent on it for Op Podium, that starts in 2 weeks.

You could always feel safe knowing the BCD. BCR.s and the Rocky Mountain Rangers (All highly decorated units in the CF) would be there to defend Stanistan... if they decided to stay.  And the Huge Naval Port in Esquimalt would protect your sea lanes with 1/2 the Canadian Navy and our only sea going sub.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 01, 2010, 11:39:33 PM
Back on Topic,

The Chinese 'get it' on climate change
John McLaughlin
The blogsite IceCap includes a fascinating article by a Mr. Li Xing published in China Daily under the headline "Do three errors mean breaking point for IPCC?".

Mr. Xing recounts his attendance at the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. He writes of attending a panel featuring various skeptics concerning work done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He came away particularly impressed by a talk given by Dr Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, who, as Xing reports, "challenged the IPCC findings with his research data."

Xing tells of meeting with IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri and others about skeptic views and seeing those views brushed aside without serious appraisal. He also inquired why IPCC reports included very little data from Chinese researchers.

    China is not a small country. Its landmass spans several climate zones and includes the roof of the world. I have to wonder how data from China would affect the IPCC's findings.

    Several Chinese scientists who have gone over the IPCC report believe that the IPCC may have overstated the link between global temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

    In a paper published in the December issue of the Chinese language Earth Science magazine, Ding Zhongli, an established environmental scientist, stated that the current temperatures on earth look normal if global climate changes over the past 10,000 years are considered.


Xing then cites the recent revelations of significant problems in the IPCC work. These include how "some scientists had favored data which supports the case for ‘global warming' in order to enhance their grant proposals," the announcement that an IPCC claim of total glacier melt in the Himalayas by 2035 was based on "sheer speculation" -- not peer-reviewed scientific work, and revelation that the IPCC had misrepresented an unpublished report linking climate change with an increase in natural disasters even when the report's author, Dr Robert Muir-Wood, a researcher in risk management not climatology, had explicitly stated the opposite.

Mr. Xing concludes:

    I am particularly troubled by the fact that top IPCC officials do not seem to take these revelations seriously. Interviewed by the BBC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the IPCC, dismissed the matter as a "human mistake".

    Ancient Chinese considered three a breaking point. They could forgive two errors, but not a third. Now that the IPCC has admitted three "human" errors, isn't it time scientists gave its work a serious review?


It is amazing that Chinese media examine what has recently come out revealing IPCC "mistakes" and conclude more serious examination of its work is in order. Yet the American mainstream media brush aside such concerns seeking to keep an obvious political agenda alive.

John McLaughlin
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 01, 2010, 11:47:07 PM
Save the Rain-forest!!!

Oh wait.....

From the Times OnLine (via "Best of the Web"):

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise. (lead paragraph)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7009705.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7009705.ece)

I am shocked I tell you... shocked!!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 02, 2010, 01:01:11 AM
Save the Rain-forest!!!

Oh wait.....
global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest
I am shocked I tell you... shocked!!!

A man can dream.....
I'm biased however because I don't like Brazil, even More than I dislike Japan.....

Hey did you read this?
Actually this IS a good idea

http://www.thestar.com/business/article/758625--knock-on-wood-biomass-power-is-coming

I don't think I can convince you that this is good for the earth but it is good for Ontrio and everyone down wind. Combined with the closing of the Kidd Creek Met site this spring ( not so good for the People of Timmins ) and we might all breath a Little easier
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 02, 2010, 04:47:34 AM
Doug, this country grows trees really well.  If we could combine our pulp and paper and lumber resources with using their waste for biomass power production... I would be very happy.

I am in favour of any plan that puts it to the Arab oil extremists... I would like to see them choke on it, but happy to know they are drowning in it :D

and if it good for the planet... hey thats a bonus

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 02, 2010, 05:20:49 AM
Save the Rain-forest!!!

Oh wait.....

From the Times OnLine (via "Best of the Web"):

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise. (lead paragraph)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7009705.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/envi...icle7009705.ece)

I am shocked I tell you... shocked!!!

Actually Andrew you've been duped again by only reading part of the story.

I read it today and the real researchers have stated that they have no problem with the data or the findings.  The report that the ipcc quoted however was one printed by the "greenies" and taken because it was written in simple terms so the layman could understand it.  The scientists who did the study only wished they had been quoted themselves instead of the "green" organization as they knew that people who didn't know any better would be suspicious of the source.

"Authors of some of that research are not happy that the IPCC chose to reference WWF rather than the basic science itself.

Dr Simon Lewis from Leeds University, who co-authored a paper on the Amazon in the journal Science, says the forest is surprisingly sensitive to drought.

He told me: "The IPCC statement is basically correct but poorly written, and bizarrely referenced.

"It is very well known that in Amazonia, tropical forests exist when there is more than about 1.5 metres of rain a year, below that the system tends to 'flip' to savannah.

"Indeed, some leading models of future climate change impacts show a die-off of more than 40% Amazon forests, due to projected decreases in rainfall.

"The most extreme die-back model predicted that a new type of drought should begin to impact Amazonia, and in 2005 it happened for the first time: a drought associated with Atlantic, not Pacific sea surface temperatures.

"The effect on the forest was massive tree mortality, and the remaining Amazon forests changed from absorbing nearly two billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere a year, to being a massive source of over three billion tonnes."


Here, read "the whole story"....  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8488395.stm

btw..I was in the Amazon last fall and saw first hand the huge bare areas both from the plane flying in and from the river going upriver to the camp we stayed at.  The destruction makes the forest rape in BC look puny in comparison.  I have no doubt from first hand knowledge that the rain forest is being destroyed.  When were you down there?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 02, 2010, 11:31:53 AM
a bit more on the glacier melt,,

what this???   not by 2035 but maybe as much as 300 more years?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

is the times a rag newspaper?

bob g

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 02, 2010, 03:17:16 PM
Is it peer reviewed?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 02, 2010, 07:31:23 PM
Did some thinking going up the chair lift on the ski hill this morning.  Beautiful day, not nearly enough runs with enough snow on them but those that do, are great.

This whole Himalayan glaciers thing illustrates exactly what I've been trying to get across for awhile now, and it's this.

Don't bother referring  me to any publication that has advertising, or isn't peer reviewed.

The reason for this is that any of the publications that advertise have to sell that advertising and that means sensationalizing the story to get more readership.

I don't give a rats ass how the glaciers on the Himalayas are doing cause I don't know anything about them.  The reason I don't know is that I haven't been able to find any, zero, zip, nada, bonifide, published, scientific reports on the subject.  I have no doubt there will be in the coming months/years cause, as I've said the peer review process takes a lot of time.

It could very well be that the glaciers are going to melt in the next 25 years, or it could be they will still be melting 2500 years from now, the point is I don't know.

Any time you, Bob, or you Andrew point me to some so-called scientific publication, the story is always "Some reporter was talking to someone else who said that there were some scientists somewhere that found out that we are plunging into an ice age"   Well, I'm sorry, but that is called "hearsay" and isn't even recognized in judge judy's court.  :D  (I have a friend that is fanatical about judgeJudy, and I hasten to say I've never seen the show).

Real scientific publications that publish peer reviewed reports, are very small, have no advertising, are only read by scientists in the same field and usually can't be accessed on line, or at newstands.  I have access to them at my college because they can have them sent up from any one of 3 major universities here in BC and as an ex-instructor I have library privileges.

I don't believe anyone, not even the ipcc unless they reference bonifide peer reviewed publications.  I'm surprised that you Bob even bothered to mention all the hooferaw about this Himalayan Glacier thing  because you say you know about the peer review process and because of that you should have said to yourself, "are these guys really serious, referencing a report by a reporter, who talked to an Indian scientist, who said.......blah blah blah"?

That's what I'm talking about.  Lots of unsubstantiated BS without any proof, or at the very least the "weight of proof" (which is a different subject for another day).
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 02, 2010, 09:52:41 PM
as long as you will cater to the same rules, i am hip!

see the point is simply, the peer review process has failed or broken down seriously when
it is applied to this topic.

the problem is "climatology" is in it infancy and the so called peer review is populated with so called
scientists from all sort of backgrounds that are looking only at their specific area of expertise or interest.

it comes down to the the "total being greater than the sum of its parts",  peer reviews of each segment
without the ability to peer review the total is problematic, and to find a group to peer review something as complex
as climate change, let alone AGW is even more problematic,, the group is too small, the range of data so large, the
temptation to skew for dollars/grants/fame so great, that it should be obvious that a simple mistake if you will can alter
dramatically the outcome of the equation.

when the ipcc or algore or anyone else parades out movies to shock the public into action and uses flawed science
such as this hymalaian glacier thing, things can get way out of control in a hurry.

besides it is not encumbent on me or Andrew to disprove your case, it is up to your side to prove the hypothesis
and then develop a theory.

you can't do that with faulty science, political hacks involved, mega billions at stake, and email problems...

it just stinks to high heaven,

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 02, 2010, 10:15:47 PM
Fautly Science....

Fawlty Towers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM&NR=1
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 02, 2010, 10:46:48 PM
Stan,
Most people would agree that peer review would be the way to go.... To bad thanks to the emails leaked out, it appears the peer review process was attacked to make sure is was stacked with like minded people, and not those dedicated to proper scientific methods

And if the peer review is made up with people who have bought into the faked data ... well now you see why we skeptics are the way we are
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 02, 2010, 11:10:34 PM
And now for something completely different...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JTlgVAK6FE&feature=PlayList&p=7F74F4830F6C7030&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

( good time for a green hopuse gas emission )
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 02, 2010, 11:23:06 PM
I see people actively grasping at the merest apparent contradiction and claiming it as proof that the whole concept is dishonest; that the environmental alarm raised is merely a self interest group. For them there is a double standard in what constitutes adequate proof.

Kind of like the claims by smokers that they know someone who is 90, still healthy, and smoked since he was 6 y old. Since they dont want to face their own addiction they find much more pleasurable, the literature put forth by the tobacco companies and lobbied politicians of the tobacco states.

Global warming is only one of many symptoms of a much greater problem. Arguing about whether or not man is 100% the cause wont change much the experience of it. Quibbling seems like a deferral of making painful decisions. Anyone want to put forth the idea that we can continue to extract and consume non renewable energy at the same rate?

It seems to me that far too few pointed questions are being asked of those with obvious vested interest in resource extraction.  Whether that is their prime occupation or their investments are in resource and growth industries, their words to me are suspect;  it sure is not hard to get their peers positive reviews though!. Sure looks to me like a bunch of smokers who are denying any need of quitting!

 The general population is still hoping that after this recession is over that we can return to "normal". Normal being the continued growth in energy consumption, continued population growth and continued growth in per capita personal and national debt. I am sure there are not many who will seriously say that resources are infinite so I see some problems here with the math!

The ones who are blowing the whistle on general environmental degradation are having their hands held to the fire while the message of consumerism is being openly embraced. The whistle blowers are heaped with derision. Time will tell!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 02, 2010, 11:40:48 PM
Doug that is ... strange... very strange

So how did they get out, did that guy fart??  AHAHA

Real Global Warming !!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 02, 2010, 11:51:02 PM
Bob...As far as I'm concerned, the thousands of scientists worldwide who have been quietly working for decades have proven to me that global warming is happening, it's caused mainly by man's degredation of the forests and more lately burning of fossil fuels, and it's going to make the earth much more unfriendly for humans in many ways.

It all started approx. 8000 years ago and has only recently speeded up dramatically.  I also believe in the concept of the tipping point, (see my previous posting on light switches and electronic hysteresis) and am halfway convinced we have already passed it.

The relatively few so-called scientists who for the most part are only parroting Inhofe's oil industry written speeches of the early 2002/3 as well as the host of very loud reporters trying to increase readership by sensationalizing anti-climate change stories do not constitute in any way shape or form a "weight of proof".  A couple of cool years, or a snowstorm in Texas don't outweigh the indisputable fact that the last decade has been the warmest on record, world-wide.

As the old commercial said "where's the beef".  Show me a viable, credible series of scientific investigations that have been peer reviewed and not presented in a commercial publication that proves the world is not warming up, that it is not caused by man and that a warmer world will be friendlier to mankind and I'll switch my views.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 03, 2010, 02:21:52 AM
Here's a thought totally unrealted to things or is it?

The power output of all the cars in Canada is roughly 5 to 7 times our total electrical generating capacity.....
Less than 1% of the energy put into a car is used to move the occupant.

How do we go electric with an equation like that?

Then apply it to 3 billion Chinese and Indians

And yes Andy those Germans are very interesting people
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 03, 2010, 03:07:17 AM
Stan
You have an interesting ability to ignore what does not sit well with your view of the world.  Show me one example of a PEER reviewed report on Global Warming that connects it to humankind... that is not tainted by the research scandal.  You cannot because all the peer review was tainted
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 03, 2010, 04:06:07 AM
Oh it seems a PEER review of a non commercial journal, the British Medical Journal the Lancet.  Seems the main DR was on a payroll of an advocacy group, and was best friends with the editor... ummm startlingly familiar to the whole global warming mess

===========================
The prestigious medical journal, The Lancet medical journal has formally retracted a flawed paper that drew a link between autism and the childhood vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella.

The decision Tuesday comes 12 years after British doctor Andrew Wakefield suggested in the sensational study that the combined vaccine, dubbed MMR, appeared linked to autism and bowel disease.

The finding has since been widely discredited, and last week, the General Medical Council, the body that licenses doctors in the U.K., ruled that Wakefield and two researchers acted unethically in conducting their study.

The Lancet said Tuesday in its short statement that, in light of the GMC ruling: "It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect... Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record."

After Wakefield's study appeared, many in the medical community criticized the research, noting that the study looked at only 12 children, a sample size too small to assess statistical significance. They also worried about "selection bias" and noted the study did not include a control group.

But the paper caused a huge sensation and led to thousands of parents refusing to give the vaccine to their children. That has been followed in recent years by a worrying rise in measles cases and childhood vaccine refusal rates in the United Kingdom.

Doctors say the study damaged parents' faith in vaccines.

"This has damaged the culture of vaccination for children, which is one of the greatest health advances in the last century," Dr. Evdokia Anagnostou of Bloorview Kids Rehab told CTV News.

While health experts say 95 per cent of children need to receive the MMR vaccine to confer "herd immunity," take-up rates in the UK stand have not budged past 82 per cent in recent years. In 2006, a 13-year-old boy who had not had the vaccine, died from measles, the first measles death in the U.K. in 14 years.

The Lancet issued a partial retraction of the paper in 2004, accusing Wakefield of a "fatal conflict of interest." The journal said it didn't know at the time of publication that Wakefield was being paid as a consultant to lawyers who wanted evidence to sue MMR vaccine manufacturers on behalf of the parents of children with autism.

Wakefield was reportedly working with lawyers on the lawsuit two years before journal published his paper.

Around the same time, 10 of the study's 13 authors renounced its conclusions and dissociated themselves from the paper.

Tuesday's full retraction from The Lancet goes further, noting that the research was fundamentally flawed. It noted there was a lack of ethical approval and fundamental problems with the way the children's illnesses were presented.

The General Medical Council launched an investigation into Wakefield's study practices in 2007. Last week, in a 143-page ruling, it decided that Wakefield had broken research rules and acted unethically in his study method.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 03, 2010, 05:07:27 AM
Stan:

i don't even know where to start with you, apparently you are cast in stone on this topic, while others of us
are only asking to see more proof.

if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, at some point you have to accept the possibility
that it is indeed a duck.

now i realize that can be turned around my direction as well,

this illustrates the need to take another look at this whole issue, and particularly this CO2 as a green house gas

certainly CO2 is something plants have an affinity to, and yes they pump it into green houses to accelerate plant growth, so
why would it not be reasonable to think that an atmosphere that is higher in CO2 would not promote plant growth, which in turn
captures the carbon?

sure they are cutting down the rain forest, and i like you are very concerned about its loss, but
have you taken a walk in a rain forest lately?

the only thing that grows under the canopy well is moss and mold spores, and i suspect most of which put off methane as well.

you cut down the tree's and what happens?  all of a sudden there is a huge proliferation of plantlife that could not survive before for
lack of sunlight.  not only tree's lock up carbon but so do lessor plants as well, some of which lock it up as they become peat moss
over the years.

this ecosystem we have the luck or by design to live on, is a robust and self correcting system, that is able to correct for a multitude of
sins of man and nature, chernobyl taught us that if we learned anything it was nature can reclaim even a badly damaged environment in
relatively short order.

while it might well be true that the earth is in a warming or cooling period, things on the rock are dynamic and thankfully so, otherwise
this place would have died and became sterile eons ago. living on a dynamic planet means we must adapt, as we always have
to an ever changing system,  if it begins to flood with regularity we must either move to higher ground or use stilts to perch our hovel on.
if the land becomes arid, we must move to more useful land or work to improve what we have,  if it gets too damn cold we will
either learn to insulate better or live in smaller places and we will become shorter and thicker bodied just like we always have.
if it gets to hot, we will have to relocate and we will get taller, thinner and darker or find ways to keep cooler artificially or dig into a hillside.

man is adaptable, that is the only thing we can control, we cannot control our environment in any meaningful way other than very local.

the sooner man figures out he is not the center of the universe, but only a passenger on the journey, the sooner he can figure ways of living
comfortably given what he has to work with.

this idea that we are the center of the universe and in control of everything is absurd and an exercise in futility, save for those that have figured
how to game the system.

speaking of gaming the system

everyone on the left picks on big oil, some of it is deserved but you are missing the point
big oil has positioned itself over the last couple decades to win not matter what happens with the AGW debate.

they know we cannot wean ourselves off oil overnight, so they are set to continue making billions,
they also know there is a huge movement toward AE, so they have bought into solar, wind, tidal, and every other facet
they can as well, so they stand to make billions on that play as well.

so they are sitting back laughing all the way to the bank because we are too stupid to do anything about it, and truth
be known they are probably at the root of the AGW movement to start with!

when you think about it critically it makes perfect sense

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

and make millions and billions of dollars in the process!

it may take 20 years or more, but i will bet a C note that big oil is behind the AGW bullshit, and somewhere down the road
it will come out.

who stands to gain the most from AGW?  big oil!

do you really think big oil did not see this coming way the hell back in the 60's?  they didn't fall off the tater truck yesterday
and they have the resources to pay vast numbers of folks to run all possible scenario's out to their logical conclusions, they
figured out in a hurry that AE was a money making sonofabitch and bought into it in a huge way.

why would they have done so?  because they were running out of oil???? no!!!

they operate on margins, a profit margin that makes it so which would you rather sell to
a market that is 30 dollars a barrel at 10% margin or a market at 90 or more dollars a barrel at 10% ??

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

in this case you get the masses thinking we are running out of oil, the prices escalate, and they make 2 or 3 times the profit
you start pitching AGW, they sell more AE because it is in demand, they make more profits.

follow the money, who has the money to buy algore and all these AGW scientists?

the problem with you Stan is you think this is a simple problem with a simple answer, it is not a simple problem and there will never be
a simple answer.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on February 03, 2010, 01:01:41 PM
M bob

Great thinking, but you know Stan will never give you one bit of credit for what you just wrote as you are not a scientist with a bazillion degrees on the wall and 100 more over educated guys doing 1000S of man hours of peer review standing behind you PERIOD.

What you theorize about big oil sounds possible! Remember DuPont when there patent got close to running out on refrigerant 12 they helped fund the tree hugging environmentalists to get r12 condemned by the government man and the the poison called 134a got the nod as the safe refrigerant of choice. My guess is that r12 is safer than 134a ever was.

Billswan

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 03, 2010, 02:36:03 PM
Stan:

i don't even know where to start with you, apparently you are cast in stone on this topic, while others of us
are only asking to see more proof.

if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, at some point you have to accept the possibility
that it is indeed a duck.

now i realize that can be turned around my direction as well,
 

This little observation to suggest you are not totally blinded!

this illustrates the need to take another look at this whole issue, and particularly this CO2 as a green house gas



sure they are cutting down the rain forest, and i like you are very concerned about its loss, but
have you taken a walk in a rain forest lately?

the only thing that grows under the canopy well is moss and mold spores, and i suspect most of which put off methane as well.

you cut down the tree's and what happens?  all of a sudden there is a huge proliferation of plantlife that could not survive before for
lack of sunlight.  not only tree's lock up carbon but so do lessor plants as well, some of which lock it up as they become peat moss
over the years.

Bob you better go back and do a quick study of soils in high rainfall andl high temperature conditions. Especially where the nutrients wind up and how long the surface fertility lasts. How it affects the ground water retention, how well the soil stands up to direct impingement.

this ecosystem we have the luck or by design to live on, is a robust and self correcting system, that is able to correct for a multitude of
sins of man and nature, chernobyl taught us that if we learned anything it was nature can reclaim even a badly damaged environment in
relatively short order.

Does this not sound like excusing himself from guilt for doing any and all damage because mother nature is invincible? rather convenient for those engaged in the most harmful environmental disrupting. Take a fly over FT McMurray Alberta tar sands extraction. I have and also have worked there a number of years.

while it might well be true that the earth is in a warming or cooling period, things on the rock are dynamic and thankfully so, otherwise
this place would have died and became sterile eons ago. living on a dynamic planet means we must adapt, as we always have
to an ever changing system,  if it begins to flood with regularity we must either move to higher ground or use stilts to perch our hovel on.
if the land becomes arid, we must move to more useful land or work to improve what we have,  if it gets too damn cold we will
either learn to insulate better or live in smaller places and we will become shorter and thicker bodied just like we always have.
if it gets to hot, we will have to relocate and we will get taller, thinner and darker or find ways to keep cooler artificially or dig into a hillside.

man is adaptable, that is the only thing we can control, we cannot control our environment in any meaningful way other than very local.



the sooner man figures out he is not the center of the universe, but only a passenger on the journey, the sooner he can figure ways of living
comfortably given what he has to work with.

Absolutely! He is not the chosen one or guaranteed milk and honey. He better sooner than later learn to live with what he was given because what he has around him is all there is! There is no bailout and as far I know man is not guaranteed exemption from bankruptcy.

this idea that we are the center of the universe and in control of everything is absurd and an exercise in futility, save for those that have figured
how to game the system.

I dont know exactly who you indentify as we. There certainly are those in the worlds population that have managed vey well financially who have not been kind to the planets resources. They take a huge share as their own because they claim to be smarter. There is the other we that have enabled the damage. Of course if mother is invincible we should not consider that damage I guess. Not sure where you are going with this but lots of conspiracy angst.

speaking of gaming the system

everyone on the left picks on big oil, some of it is deserved but you are missing the point
big oil has positioned itself over the last couple decades to win not matter what happens with the AGW debate.

they know we cannot wean ourselves off oil overnight, so they are set to continue making billions,
they also know there is a huge movement toward AE, so they have bought into solar, wind, tidal, and every other facet
they can as well, so they stand to make billions on that play as well.

so they are sitting back laughing all the way to the bank because we are too stupid to do anything about it, and truth
be known they are probably at the root of the AGW movement to start with!

when you think about it critically it makes perfect sense

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

and make millions and billions of dollars in the process!

it may take 20 years or more, but i will bet a C note that big oil is behind the AGW bullshit, and somewhere down the road
it will come out.

who stands to gain the most from AGW?  big oil!

do you really think big oil did not see this coming way the hell back in the 60's?  they didn't fall off the tater truck yesterday
and they have the resources to pay vast numbers of folks to run all possible scenario's out to their logical conclusions, they
figured out in a hurry that AE was a money making sonofabitch and bought into it in a huge way.

why would they have done so?  because they were running out of oil???? no!!!

they operate on margins, a profit margin that makes it so which would you rather sell to
a market that is 30 dollars a barrel at 10% margin or a market at 90 or more dollars a barrel at 10% ??

"create the crisis, provide the solution"

in this case you get the masses thinking we are running out of oil, the prices escalate, and they make 2 or 3 times the profit
you start pitching AGW, they sell more AE because it is in demand, they make more profits.

follow the money, who has the money to buy algore and all these AGW scientists?

Wow! now I am sure it must be a conspiracy but a very complicated one with double agents and you cant tell the good guys from the bad guys and they both are manipulatating the poor we's; It is so complicated we may as well throw our hands in the air!

the problem with you Stan is you think this is a simple problem with a simple answer, it is not a simple problem and there will never be
a simple answer.

It sure as hell is not going to be a simple solution and one of the first things must be to identify that there is a problem and get to the table without all the adversary bullshit. It is going to need treating as if it is everyone's problem. Man is so broken up into private interests and short term interests it is going to take some serious smacks to make him see the need to put that aside untill he sees that the very place he lives is badly threatened.  Like everyone else involved with the birthing of an idea contrary to a lot of priveledged interests, he has to buck a head wind. Yes Stan is one big pain in the arse to the main proponents of our "normalcy"
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 03, 2010, 05:37:31 PM
Tijean:

let me start over and restate my personal position on GW and a few other somewhat related topics

1. i am dead set against polluting the planet

2. i am all for nuclear power

3. i am for clean coal, as it can be done properly with the proper technology

4. i am for clean auto emissions, and for electric cars for commuter purposes, with a few caveats

5. i am for a downsizing of living quarters, smaller homes make sense to me

6. i am for wind, solar, tidal, and even veggie fuels, with some caveats as well

7. i accept that we may have just experienced a warming period

8. i accept that the sun goes through period of increased output and decreased output
and is cyclic by nature.

9. i love tree's probably more than most folks, because i came from kansas where they don't do well

10. i firmly believe in working with nature rather trying to beat her into submission, working with her
always pays off, working against her always ends in disaster.

as for me being a conspiracy nut? ok call me whatever you like, however
i could call your side conspiracy nuts as well over the AGW thing.

i can prove my case, in real time

oil companies have bought huge if not controlling interests in veggie bio fuels, solar panel production, wind farms, tidal generation
etc etc, and they continue to buy up other related technologies such as batteries, heat/cooling components etc.
none of which has anything to do with their core business.

now that sure looks, sounds, walks and talks like a duck to me, call me a conspiracy theorist? fine,
you call me blind to your reality of AGW, and i will call you blind to what truely is reality.

i don't have to have computer models, fancy programs and 1000's of so called scientists to build a hypothesis, and try to hammer
out a theory, all i need to is look into the oil companies annual reports or other SEC filings and there it is proof positive that they own
these other technologies.

then it comes down to who has the money to influence things?  well lets go back and take a look at those annual reports, everything on
the planet is in the dumps financially except for who?  hmmmm there they are again "Big Oil"

you call this a conspiracy, i on the other hand see it as nothing more than good business.

anytime you can capture the market in such a way that you can make money on both sides of the equation, you are  a very good business man.

companies with billions of dollars in profits have the wherewithall to buy the best minds on the planet to lay awake nights, working 24/7/365
to stay ahead of just about anything any of us will ever hope to think of.

its not conspiracy its reality

btw, who stands to make bank on carbon credits?

if one wants to see change it has to be done proactively and not reactively, you don't regulate things out of existance you make them
less attractive by making what you want done more attractive. the government has done this with surprisingly good effectiveness in the past
however it takes time and there is little political capital to be gained, because it takes time and no one remembers who initiated what.

on the other hand if you mandate and regulate things out of existence, everyone remembers who did that.  you make massive bucks
now and you gain the political capital as being the forward thinker, that is if it works out and your hypothesis is proven out.

getting back to what i can control, that being myself and how i interact with mother nature

i chose my home site to take advantage of proper siting so that i would not cook in the summer or freeze
in the winter, and the size of the home will be quite small by modern standards, i choose to use natures products
strawbale and clay render, and a rammed earth floor, i will be using solar heat gain in winter and natural convection
in summer,

i will be offgrid and will not be using a listeroid because it is my belief that the changfa is a more efficient and cleaner burning
engine, as well as it will attain the require temps to fire a catalytic converter. my exhaust will be buried where my plantlife can
benefit from the byproducts of combustion.

i will put up ice in the winter, plant tree's that will do well on that rocky hillside, build more ponds, and effectively leave that 10 acres
better than it has been since the white man came along,

that 10 acres was badly scarred by open limestone quarrying a bit over a hundred years ago, back when they stripped what they
wanted and then just moved one, so my improving the lot should speak to my philosophy.

bottom line is this, you can call me whatever you like, conspiracy nutjob? thats ok with me.

when its all said and done my bet is i do more personally than 99% of others will do to make what i can control a better place then
when i found it. and when i am gone they can come in and have a sale, then dozer it all into a pile, set a match to it and return it to the soil
and no one will ever know i was ever there.

that my friend is living proactive and not being reactive, i make my choices and lead by example not by force or by regulation.

my bet is if government spent even half of what they spend on regulation on incentives to promote this sort of behavior we wouldn't have
these problems.

even if they are proven to be real problems somewhere down the road.

bob g



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 03, 2010, 05:50:30 PM
i am going to take one more, perhaps bolder step into this quagmire

if you AGW guys truely believe this stuff, then i would assert you are at best disingenuous
and at worst , well you fill in the blank

if you believe man is the cause and it is carbon that is the problem, then why on earth are you
using  lister and listeroid engine's, have no plans of improving them with catalytic converters or particulate traps,
no plans of mediating the remainder with things like underground plant bed exhaust systems?

my bet is damn few of you are seriously planning and working toward a smaller highly efficient home, electric car,
or any of the other stuff that would be doing your part to offset the AGW problem you are so convinced is reality.

i don't believe AGW as it is presented, but i am the guy that is actively working toward those goals, on the other
hand we have the AGW crowd that sit around wringing their collective hands wanting more regulation on the rest of
us all the while not making any moves of their own.

you guys talk a good talk, but when it comes to walking it???

there is a fundamental difference in those that can and will do for themselves vs those that expect or demand that government
force others to submit to their ideals.

i guess it take all kinds to make the world go round?

probably part of gods grand design in order to keep this place a dynamic one on all levels.

hard for me to see the reasoning, but i will accept without proof that it makes sense on some grand level.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 03, 2010, 08:34:10 PM
Hey Bob, I see conflic resolution is not your big stroke either! Personal attacks lend nothing to your argument, actually the opposite (The problem with you, Stan)

 Go back and look at all the things you are in favor of and see how few of them are being promoted in general by the broad category of global warming deniers and general promoters of continuing in environmental deficit. The NASCAR mentality.

I follow the threads that I am aware of on your experimenting in the mechanical and electrical field and find it very interesting. You certainly bring a lot to the table in that field. You speak condescendingly that I am not putting all these systems to work on my Listeroid, however it fills my need for standby power to keep my freezers going. I garden a lot and that is my direction towards not having resources wasted bringing me calorie negative food. I cut my own wood and heat entirely so. Just finished a modification to my system for heating my water also with wood.

I am afraid that the available supply of used veggie oil will dry up and virgin oil is likely more valuable as a food source. I am not fixated on global warming or the exactitude of its every prediction. We have more serious problems with simply over consumption and in the process of addressing that would likely be beneficial to reducing our green house gas emissions. Depleting the available potable water is becoming an extremely serious problem for a lot of highly leveraged population areas. We have destroyed the source of that water. What it also did toward decreasing surface temperature is maybe not of equal importance but gets cured by the same treatment.

You argued for the planets capability to support the present and higher levels of population yet that would most certainly make more difficult to pursue or preserve the list of things you love. You seem to have more faith in technology to solve the problems man is creating.  I on the other hand think it will be considered very irresponsible to have allowed the degradation and overpopulating. All the established institutions have encouraged both in population and consumption and you cannot tell me that that is all good; the more the merrier, ya, sure!  I don't think we have to worry about making a conscious decision to cut back though; (sarcasm) That will be forced upon us but I will be in a much better position to accommodate that than the majority who refuse to even consider it happening.

Like you I have no faith in the establishment especially our current economic model being in our best long term interests. It serves an elite who for the most part are, or feel, insulated from its most damaging aspects. Don't worry about a few of the most radical GW alarmists overpowering the agenda. I cannot think of the exact title of it but I remember reading a book a number of years ago about "the economy of ecology" and how not to get hung up on persecuting the present purveyors of waste if you can convert their organization to further  the agenda of conservation. Do not think that whoever does the amelioration work is going to do it without making expenses and some profit. I think some of the ideas being put forth are extortions of gullible green weanies. I have not much use for flaming brainless questionable do gooders either. Usually workable solutions to a problem  come from the middle and the extremes from either wing do more harm than good. No question that the present big oil, big steel, chemicals, etc. are starting to hedge their bets. They will do as little as possible in the new direction to serve the overall best interest unless controlled with carrot or stick! They bear watching for sure.  I want to see the same level of proof and volume of propaganda equally applied  to both industry and environment concerns though it boggles the mind to see that they should be at loggerheads. Just a side note, see how the big tobacco companies have diversified; they saw the writing on the wall, but while still continuing to deny the nastiness of their product they prepare for another way to squeeze the cow!  Milk it while you still can but get some new heifers lined up.

Bob, I think you are making a whipping boy out the the flaws one can easily cherry pick out of the abundant literature on global warming awareness. That is not critical thinking; that is emotionalism!  I think your hard drive has swallowed a trojan. I see you doing much  more critical thinking on mechanical systems than in philosophical ones; there you seem to be a bit on the knee jerk side, Lol! Anyways, I am going to be more concerned with our future from the machinations of consumerism than that of the folks who are drawing attention to the global warming issue. I guess we all get to choose our personal demons.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 03, 2010, 10:33:12 PM
Bob....As a matter of fact I walked in the Amazon rain forest last year, (I believe I posted that not too long ago).  I asked the biologist that ran the camp in virgin (protected) rainforest, that we stayed in about 3 hours by boat up river from Puerto Maldenado.  (well it is a tributary of the Amazon as just about all the rivers down there are), this question.

How come, everyone is complaining about the rainforest being cut down?  Wont' it just grow back up again?

He took my wife and me out into the jungle with a shovel and dug down a foot or so in the ground making a clean cut on one side of the hole.  As he pointed out, there is maybe 1" of topsoil on top of the grungiest looking clay and gravel subsoil you've ever seen.  "This is virgin rain forest, never cut" he told us.  You'd imagine that with the amount of leaves and dead stuff falling on top of the soil, it would rot down and become great topsoil.  However, every year, in the rainy season, just about everywhere there isn't a hill floods heavily, to a depth of several feet sometimes and all these leaves and branches wash down into the river.  Now the river bottoms are very fertile, and the last few miles of swamp by the ocean in Brazil is very fertile, but very little of anything grows once the forest has been cut down and the rains come the next year.

Huh, who'd have thunk it would ruin a rainforest just by cutting it down?  I'd bet you wouldn't find that out in the Star or the Tribune?

Lots to learn about in the environment that you can't know until you actually go there and see for yourself isn't there?
Stan

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 03, 2010, 11:03:02 PM
Sorry Bob, I just re read your post (whew, you make long postings) and realized I didn't answer another of your statements.

No, I'm not fixed in my opinion!  I formed an opinion after reading and studying many scientific reports, and also by weight of evidence.  (the 5 most prestigeous scientific organizations representing most of the scientists in Canada studying this phenomenon).  When they all unanimously say global warming is not only happening it is accelerating, it is most certainly caused by mankind, and very soon it's going to become very uncomfortable for mankind on this planet in a variety of ways, I believe them.

If you can show me by that amount of weight of evidence, I'll most certainly change my opinion.

Where's the beef?
Stan

btw...I'm going to run Penelope on WVO mostly, and I drive a 48mpg (highway) vehicle and not very often at that,  I heat mostly with wood pellets and abhore natural gas as a supremely dirty fuel,  so don't tar me with the "disingenuous" label.  I'd match my carbon footprint with yours any day!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 03, 2010, 11:41:22 PM
I want to leave my foot print on Titto Martin's ass.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 12:17:24 AM
Tijean:

perhaps i take too harsh a stand for most folks?  perhaps i am not making myself clear?

i suspect you and i agree on far more than we might disagree on, and of that we disagree, it is
probably measured in degree's rather than direct opposition.

it may also be the fact that i have lived long enough to have been sold a lot of BS that turned out
to be truly a steaming pile or crap, have been lied to about just about everything imaginable, and am a bit
too skeptical for some of my friends of opposing view?

it just seems to me, and i may be wrong, god knows i am frequently wrong and admit to it easily, that

if this science was so damn good, why would anyone at the core of the issue need to skew or cherry pick data, delete emails
or do any number of other less than honorable moves to cover the issue?

i have a problem with any group of climatologist forecasting 20,30 or 100 years out, when they have trouble forecasting the weather
for next week?

if i have learned anything over the years, if something doesn't feel right, maybe it needs a second hard look?

maybe the second hard look is going to take a while, the AGW crowd has been working on their modeling and programs for what
10? 20 or more years?

maybe the reason we don't see a lot of "peer" review stuff that contradicts the AGW model, because it will take a bit of time to produce
the science?

and that too i have a real problem with!!

where is it encumbent on the opposition to prove the AGW side wrong?  from my background it is encumbent on the side that makes the assertion to provide the proof and it needs to stand up to scrutiny,, even though it has been peer reviewed, things change over time and
the assertion will be required to reprove itself again.

this is not something new is it?

Stan:

yes i realize that rain forest dirt is rather poor quality, but things to start to regrow there given a chance, don't they? they do around here
and we have rain forests in western washington.

your friend in the amazon?  who pays his freight?  how does he afford to do his work? could it be some left of center organization?

DON'T GET ME WRONG HERE

i am not in favor of clear cutting rain forests, or strip mining, or dumping pollutants in the river, or anything like that

i just really think both our sides are being played against the middle, and both of us end up paying for it, neither of us
will benefit from it, and nothing real is going to change, except...

for what we can effect change on ourselves as individuals.

maybe we are closer together than either of us thinks, just have very different views on how best to address the issue?

who knows maybe your side is right? maybe man is crapping in the nest? maybe it has reached the tipping point?

i sincerely hope you are dead wrong, because there is no way to correct the ship now, we are on a collision course with destiny, so

some hard decisions will need to be made, and the sooner we as individual make those hard decisions the better it will be for
each of us.

waiting for a bunch of elite's, scientists, politico's, big business and big government to fix the problem is very much the definition of
insanity.

"doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result"

as for being derogatory to any of you on the other side of this issue, my apologies
i wish you and yours well, and if i have any advise?

don't live in the valley, near the sea, or start building on stilts.

:)

bob g

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 04, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
Bob, I just had a birthday today; officially a senior citizen. I agree that llots of different interests actively trying to pawn something off on us that is solely for their benefit. The old saying caveat emptor is as true now as ever. We have professional mind changers at work upon us. (Vince Packard, The People Shapers) I know what it is to be skeptical and I think I have fairly sensitive antenna for manipulation but somewhere out of all the chaffe we have to get our nourishment. If you get suspicious of everything and try to look ever deeper for the flaw, you make life too mean.

My suspicions are more about someone trying to coerce me into action that fills their dreams meanwhile wasting my life force. An old book that you would enjoy I am sure, is Thorstein Veblens book about conspicuous consumption. How we are goaded to give up our life force to mimic the privileged. Man are we ever manipulated with symbolic trivia. I have not watched 3 hours of television total in the last 25 years as I detest the insult of the obvious traps and bait and the mindless portrayal of people going through life without spending a days worth of thought into what they were really doing here. Just the sound of the canned laugh line raises my blood pressure.

It is my considered opinion that most of the medicine prescribed to treat global warming is what would be good practice towards weaning ourselves off the present tailspin dependency on non renewable energy so I am attracted more than repelled.

 I disagree that the great mass of people can be expected to make wise decisions of their own volition. Obviously a few have but I dont think they are representative of the whole, by any stretch of the imagination. For one thing, they are too prevailed upon by the managers of Madison Avenue who wish them to be nothing more than good little consumers spending back the whole of their weekly tokens. Self sufficiency is what I call "talking back money" and the establishment arranges  that doesn't become too prevalent. You can be sure that their will be some false flag moves within the green movement but that does not, to me, invalidate the need to prepare for some great adjustments.

I am sure you are not one of the ones who will buy Honeywells new roof top wind generator that is supposed to save the environment and maybe the whales too, and by their maketing peoples calculations, have a 5 year pay back while independants see real life average conditions best case scenario being more like 35 years barring mechanical failure. Lots of luck!

Lots of theives will jump on various bandwagons but thats no proof that that the dire need of much cleaner energy production production is total hoax hatched to fleece the world. I wince at a lot of the rhetoric of the green movement and pretty wll disassociate it from serious critical environmental research. The media focuses on what ever creates the most lines of print and advertising dollars and they play both sides. Pure whores. I will be keeping my eyes on global warming issues but so far connecting their dots seems more in line with physics than the way the handmaidens of big oil connect theirs.

I guess all we can do is prepare for the worst and hope for the best!


Frank

Tijean is a nickname I picked up during a few years at a lumber camp.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 04:31:13 AM
well now, happy birthday Frank!

you made it to senior citizen status, that will get you a free breakfast at Denny's i think?

:)

sadly i have to agree with most of what you said, not sad we agree but rather sad about the subject matter.

few people are critical thinkers, fewer can build anything or worse have a desire to, even fewer could survive a serious problem.

in the interim though that means millions of folks that would be a real problem should times get really rough.

if this AGW thing is real, and if it came to pass by 2035 or so, god help us all!

i will be too old to fight off the hoards, even if i wanted too, and perhaps worse
there is very little time to get  a handle on the issue and effect any real change,

by change i mean changing attitudes and radically changing lifestyles, not the environment.

i don't think we could alter the environment in any meaningful way no matter how much money we threw at it,

what we can do is change how we live, but that is likely going to be a personal choice some will make and the majority
will fight till the last dog is dead.

people like big houses, 4x4 four ton suv's, they like big pools, motor boats and cold air in the summer and enough heat to
effect the eco system directly at the flip of a switch.

we have a culture in place that is going to be very difficult to change, and likely there is vested interest by big government not to effect
those changes

if everyone abandons the big houses in favor of small, we have a massive bubble in mega houses that collapse, sucking down the economy
small houses don't command the taxes large ones do, so government gets hit twice, economic bubble collapse and the dramatic reduction in tax base,

that is just one example

how do you tell the next generation that they cannot have a big house, with 4 car garage, pool and guest house? how do you tell them
they cannot drive a monster truck?  how do you tell them they can never have a boat, racecar, expensive vacations, etc etc.

what gives us the right to tell them anything?

what give our government the right to tell them anything of the sort?

talk about getting screwed!!!

when you take away a man's dream, you either cut out his heart or bring him to bear arms.
either prospect is an ugly one.

even if the AGW guys are right, how do you sell this one?
how do you rewrite recent history?
how do you reeducate the next generation?
how do you make them forget what was before they matured?

how do you tell them, your lifestyle will be less than that of your parents?

and if you are successful, how do you control the decline?  how do you motivate folks to strive to do better when
there can no longer be "better"  (as currently defined, and certainly defined by the younger generations as better)?

this is just such an enormously complex multi factored problem the likes of which make the manhatten project seem like
a junior high science fair project.

and what about the law of unforeseen circumstances?

quite frankly i would not put it past the next generation to basically put us in for recycling, rather than deal with us
in our old age, after all we will be seen as the "problem" the ones that stole their "dreams" and "future"
the ones that rewrote the history of the last century, changed the educational system, brainwashed them into believeing
that big houses and big suvs were horrible,, etc etc. basically lied to them.

how is that for a bleak scenario?

me? i would rather just fight the AGW thing, and make changes on a personal level,
perhaps lead by example another generation into the understanding that there is a difference between "wants" and "needs"

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on February 04, 2010, 01:23:08 PM
Bob

You said            "how do you tell them, your lifestyle will be less than that of your parents?"

Well the free market is telling us and it will tell them threw the price of crude oil!!

I think that you are you are aware of the term peak oil.

The oil wells that have served us so well since the beginning of the  industrial revolution started are slowly sputtering empty.

I belong to another forum where someone very in touch with the oil patch says that we have reached the point where we can no longer drill oil wells faster than the old ones are going dry!!

The problem is that the old easy to find oil is gone and what is left is so deep and  that the costs of drilling are so high that the new oil wells in say north Dakota will return only a little better than ethanol!

In other words the economic return for economic investment is not so great as it was when we were pumping from some of the say Texas oil fields where the return was a 100'S  times better.

So unless there is some great breakthroughs  in cheap energy we are all doomed to cut back weather we want to or not. If the free market is left alone it will price fuels so high even the wealthy will be forced to cut back.


So the people that believe in AGW may get there way even though some of  us may not believe it is real.

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 02:12:40 PM
Bill:

its pretty clear to me that we are likely on the other side of the hump when it comes to peak oil, or should
i say the down hill side?

in that regard the AGW thing will be self correcting to a large extent, and yes we will be forced to cut back.
or more accurately those that choose not to cut back now will be forced to later?

cheap fuel is a thing of the past, moderate priced fuel can only last so long, and high priced fuel is coming sooner than later.

so i guess in that regard we won't have to explain anything, the next generation will have it told to them at the pump and in their
utility bills.

i also wonder if those kids having grown up in the big houses, having seen mom and dad both work themselves to death, commuting/wearing out
cars, stressed all the time, might decide on their own to live a more modest life?

it is pretty obvious kids today seem drawn more toward honda cars rather than muscle cars of yesteryear, partly because there are
more honda's available, but i suspect there is more to it than that.

i guess we shall see how this whole thing plays out.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 04, 2010, 03:25:48 PM
Bob.....your statement "i have a problem with any group of climatologist forecasting 20,30 or 100 years out, when they have trouble forecasting the weather
for next week?" shows that I should clear up that point.

Climate is the long term average of weather which is a day to day, or hour to hour condition of the atmosphere.  Meteorologists predict day to day changes in the condition of the atmosphere, climatologists assess the long term, sometimes very long term condition of the atmosphere.

Climatology is much more accurate than meteorology.  No one can say with much accuracy what the weather is going to be next July 4th in your town.  It could be rainy, or cloudy or sunny and the temperature could be a whole range of numbers as well as wind etc.  However I can say with fairly good accuracy that it will be warmer than it is now, and if I had historical data, I could even predict whether it would be dryer or wetter than now.

It's even more accurate when looking at thousands of years of data, and when trends are identified, extrapolate those trends thousands of years into the future.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 04, 2010, 05:02:28 PM


I dont think you will have to fight the hoards bob. Your knowledge will be too valuable to have you killed for meat and they would need you to run your machines for them cause they certainly couldn't. I think you are secretly making them complicated to guarantee your indispensability, Lol! Nobody went around killing the village blacksmith that made everything from door hinges to wheelbarrow wheels. They would kill for money or food but knowledge is one of the few things that is hard to steal

How do you tell  people they will have less? 99% of that is attitude. In so many ways once, the notion starts to take hold in a group, less can be seen as much more. Presently so much of our activity is chasing possessions as a means of self validation by comparing your heap to someone elses. You get ahead one move and they up you one, and you are forced to scramble some more. Richer is the man with the fewest wants, not the most goods, but presently our whole cultural system is locked into adoring the one with the most toys at the end of the game.  Don't take away the mans dreams, Bob, show him another more attainable one. Become a Martin Luther Bob! "I had a dream".

What right do we have to tell folks what to do with their lives and the environment? This right, Bob; self protection of shared resources. It belongs to me and you, our children and theirs. If they are about to destroy shared resources they have lost their right to autonomy. I have strong feelings about the right for free will to trump that of responsibility to the common good. Far far too much emphasis on the sanctity of free will without any demand of responsibility and accountability to the whole.

As you say Bob, we are not going to suddenly turn the world around all by ourselves but it is amazing how quickly attitudes can change once the critical mass is reached. The fancy term "Paradigm Shift" can happen once the masses identify with some charismatic character or most often when focused by dire need. You and I certainly are no Ghandis ( a little bit too acidic perhaps) but I seem to have been able to pass on my fathers attitudes to my sons of not getting into the rat race. Wilderness camping  and whitewater canoeing is big with them along with cross country skiing. Their friends are more into pot luck suppers and calaigh music. By common standards they have some strange friends but not much of the tinsel or pop culture.

Wendell Berry is an interesting character to study as was Masanobu  Fukuoka. The Australian Bill Mollison is another man too that bucked the conventional thinking and believe me they have planted a lot of seed that could germinate very quickly when the conditions get right. I agree with you Bob, throwing money at a problem is not nearly as effective as putting our minds to work. Changing attitudes is the easiest way and getting to the children before their minds are molded by our mass media is a lot more efficient than trying to impose an attitude adjustment to the brainwashed masses. What is that saying about never underestimating the ability of one man to change the world.

I despair at times too that we will all fall into a hole of violent collapse if things are allowed to get too desperate before embracing a new mentality of change. I dont see it necessarily being an armageddon of misery if it is approached with the right mindset. If we go into it dragged backwards and lamenting, it will be much worse. Violent collapse also destroys much of what is still good in the system. So far most of those calling for change are bucking the momentum of the present system.

Yes I believe their is a vested interest by government in denying the need for mending our ways. Money talks and politicians listen; politicians talk and we listen. There is that structural flaw in government that locks it to maintaining the established economic system. That is a whole other field of endless discussion but I feel that the popular growth based economic system is based on a fatally flawed premise of essential growth that came very very close to causing  social and economic collapse a year ago. Measures taken may have been only a stop gap. Changing to a more stable system is very difficult. Like having a computer you would like to change to linnux to spite microsoft but then a lot of your entertainment software would be incompatable and also the production plant wont except change on the fly! Progress to something ultimately better sure can be traumatic and seemingly a step backward until the new system is adapted to.

I think there are many critical tipping points in physics that are in many ways eventually unavoidable controlling factors in our  environment, economy, social structure, energy consumption, etc. The mere approach of a tipping point usually gives no clues unless we have experience something similar. We base so much of our individual decision making on the basis of past experience and if it felt good in the past and has continued to be mostly painless for a long period of time, we tend to assume that it was sound practice and can be continued forever. The truth in the meantime may well be that the whole thing was a bad premise with a long delay fuse. In other words the longer it has been going on deadens our perception totally that an impending  end is a more logical prediction. Smoking is the classic example. Fossil fuel consumption another. I believe population growth to be another but that is debatable. I like lots of personal space so I am biased. In most things, reaching a tipping point cannot be backed away from gracefully and possibly never, as the results destroy so much of the environment that allowed us to get there in the first place. Social collapse would be disastrous and I can see a lot of people who feel entitlement to resources with out expending any effort, could become a serious problem calf to wean. Like I said, I am no Ghandi and not known for being the most empathetic, so you better keep me away from that department, Lol

A lot of our system seems to be justified on the premise that we can continue to grow and exist by devouring our tail. Government funding by the present system of taxation is reaching some hard limitations. The mobility of the mega corporations makes them slippery and collectively they have more power than any one government. Government is their handmaiden like it or not but there is a growing population looking for favors that cannot be fulfilled and who are putting a lot of countervailing force on the system. Our growing national debt and unfunded social liabilities may not be a viable system projected ahead. Lots of things point to climax ahead. Whether or not democracy is fatally flawed is a whole nother field of debate.

We sure do live in interesting times!





Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 05:40:11 PM
Stan:

i am not at all sure i agree with your assessment that climatology being an exact or precise science
more so than meteorology??

if climatology is so precise, when did it become so?

it sure as hell wasn't back in the 70's when we were all going to freeze to death in a coming iceage!

so basically climatology is a relatively new science, has not been proven yet for forecasting the future.

i don't see how you can argue that point,

surely we can look back at ice cores and search back in history, and much like a monday morning quarterback
claim this or that, but no body knows what the outcome of sundays game is until it is played, and certainly
no one knows who will win the superbowl in 2030 based on archealogical evidence  or score (cores) from the previous
40 odd superbowls.

we might project trends and think the the steelers will win in 2030, but there are too many variable that might change
everything including the teams name and location,,, who knows they might be the "twinfalls taterpeelers" by 2030
and playing in last place.

good science is sometime that can be proven in a lab "now" or within a reasonable length of time.

an hypothesis on the other hand can be just that forever, and even if it were to progress to being a theory (which it really cannot
by definition just yet) that also can be forever,,, but "science" or "fact" or "scientific law" must be able to be proven in a replicable
manner by any qualified experimentalist anywhere on the planet.

the experiment is still running, and we don't have all the data points yet to draw a conclusion.

we might show a trend?  and it might be trending up? and then again it might be starting to trend down? and it might just
be there are other factors that have not been included? 

sun cycles maybe?  they seem to correlate quite nicely with the temp trends, save for times of other dramatic influence such as astroid impacts
and volcanic episodes.

can you direct me to a widely known, peer reviewed report that shows that the experiment has proven that man is to blame, that includes the sun solar cycles?

i am serious, i would like to see it!

most every scientific report i have read has a summary, in that summary the author recaps his hypothesis, all the step in experimentation,
his conclusions based on the experimental data, "and" other possible explanations for how the results might have been caused by other
factors. (usually he will also make a serious effort to list all other possible explanations that might explain his results, what he has or has not done
to account for them, etc)

can you direct me to such a report?

don't get me wrong, i am not the sharpest tool in the shed, it might take me a month to read, reread, study, look up big words, and get a handle on some high education concepts, but...

i will take the time to educate myself and to understand the paper.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 04, 2010, 06:22:48 PM
Bob, I went back and re-read my posting and I am positive I didn't use the words "precise" or "exact" anywhere in the report.  What I did say was "accurate" and "more accurate" with regard to the parameters for climate that I mentioned.

No one will argue that climate uses much more general and broad parameters to describe the characteristics of "climate" vs that of weather.

As to the peer reviewed, scientific publications that add up to overwhelming "weight of proof" (if not 100.000% proof) I have already recommended that you read the book, "Plows, Plagues & Petroleum" by Rudiman......His book contains a whole raft of peer reviewed, scientifically sound publications that prove many aspects of climate change and global warming.  He's one of the worlds leading experts on paleoclimatology and references just about all of the existing people in the field in his book.

Rudiman proves in the first part of the book, the science behind proof of global warming is sound, and then takes a huge step when he makes a very controversial hypothesis about when mankind first began to affect the climate.  Very very interesting.

Here's a synopsis from wikipedia about the book but I highly recommend you read the entire book as it not only is very well written, but it is done in a non-sensationalist manner.  It's probably in your library, that's where I got the copy I read.  Pages and pages of legitimate references in it also if you care to research further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plows,_Plagues_and_Petroleum

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 09:13:40 PM
ok Stan, i will get the book

and i will read it, reread it, and study it thoroughly

it had better follow standard scientific method and conventions
and i had better find some reference to other possible causes and how he has answered those possibilities

if not you will likely hear more from me!

of course you knew that already didn't you?

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 04, 2010, 09:17:40 PM
ok i got a copy coming from amazon.com
maybe i will have it in a week?

not sure as i have been waiting over a week for two other technical books for over a week now!

good thing the post office has nothing to do with climate change, we would all be doomed!

more of that government being the solution and all...

lol

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 04, 2010, 11:47:52 PM
I know you will enjoy it Bob....Some fascinating stuff especially on the "ice age cycle" and how we should be falling into one right now.  I sure learned a lot anyway, 22,000/44,000 year cycles are a little hard to wrap my mind around, but it is worth a second or even third read.
Stan

btw...there's a new edition coming out March 21st, so I'll be ordering that one to see how it has been upgraded from the old one.  It says "The book concludes by looking to the future and critiquing the impact of special interest money on the global warming debate."  which seems to be new so I'll be interested in his ideas on that topic.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 05, 2010, 04:32:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sNJhX0x7yI&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 05, 2010, 04:54:35 PM
Frank:

while i might not agree with everything you posted, completely
for the most part we agree close enough that i have no interest in arguing the finer points.

thats probably saying something?  :)

the more i think about it, i think my biggest problem with the whole issue of AGW, or specifically Global warming
is not whether or not it is happening, but rather the so called science it is based on.

i am going to admit to the following

coming of age in the early '70's and living in central kansas in an old stone motel building where my new forced air heating
system never shut off 24/7 for about 4 months of each winter, and even then never got over ~55 degree's...

i bought into the so called science of the day the declared the impending iceage was upon us, we were all to freeze to death
in a solid block of ice.  the world people were going to starve to death because of massive crop failures due to frost, late and earlier
than usual snows and dramatically shorter growing seasons.

i read all the science of the time, they based their conclusions on ice core samples, glacier rates of growth, and pretty much all the same
claims of documentation and peer review that the new generation are using today.

once bit twice shy!

fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me!!!

then there is this

back in the early '80s i happened upon an estate sale and picked up an old antique short wave radio, having been all into that as a kid
i bought it.
took it home repaired it and tuned in radio moscow (because it came in very strongly)
good old "joe animov" was reporting the world news with commentary, with  a decidedly communist spin of course...

i listened to him very very carefully, and contrasted his take on world views with those from our evening network anchorman

joe was just as convincing as walter cronkite ever thought of being, even though i knew he was full of crap his presentation was flawless

which got me to thinking

how do i know my guy is telling me the truth and old joe is lieing?

how do i know my guy is not lieing to me?

then there is this

i grew up in what is called the "flint hills" area of kansas
there is flint everywhere!
we got a new science teacher in 7th grade, he taught us about hypothesis, theory, laws, scientific method and the differences of each

he then wrote on the board, "there is no flint in the flint hills"

how can this be?  thousands of people well over 150 years new you could pickup flint everywhere, it was in every rock outcropping,
it looked like flint? it sparks like flint when struck against steel, the flintlock rifle boys used it,, this guy was clearly full of crap!
all of my peers reviewed his assertion and concluded he was being provocactive or really didn't know what he was talking about,after
all he was new to the area.

well after 9 weeks of picking up, digging up, climbing to retrieve samples, and then bringing them back to test,,, guess what?

he was right, there is no flint in the flint hills

there is what appears to be flint, it works like flint, but it isn't flint
it is a mineral called "chert" of the quartzite family, apparently a cousin of flint, but not flint.

now i realize this is a terribly simplistic example of how beliefs and peer review can be fatally flawed, sometimes peers accept as fact
without proof, most especially if it follows standard beliefs or conventions.

what i worry about is this

the AGW thing requires the combined work of all sorts of disciplines, paleontologist, archeologists, ice/glacier scientists, statisticians, mathematicians
and probably a hundred others, all working in concert to come to any conclusion. the group develops a hypothesis, and publishes a report
and then there is a peer review

the problem then becomes how the hell to you come up with enough peers that have a fantastically broad level of knowlege needed to properly review each facet of the report?

anytime you have a multifactored problem, you have as many ways to enter flaws either by action or omission, and then it is up to a peer review to sort it out?

look how long it took for the peer review of einstein's theory of relativity?  and the peer group were math and physics experts, reviewing something concrete and finite as a formula.  if he needed the input of paleontologists, archeologists, ice/glacier scientists, statisticians, and a hundred other disciplines "and" did not have an experiment that could prove the assertion, we might still be reviewing his work and not have a theory of relativity yet.

he could not get it past peer review until he came up with an experiment that would prove the concept, and it had to be proven by direct observation by others from other parts of the globe,,,he had to wait for a full eclipse in order to prove the hypothesis.

an hypothesis, an experiment, direct observation by independant sources, then peer reviewed, leading to the theory.

in AGW we have an hypothesis, very limited experimental capability, no direct observation in real time, by independent sources, so
the peer review process has an incomplete data package to review, so therefore there can be no theory,, yet.

what is needed is for the AGW scientist to work out a hypothesis, that states clearly that by 2020, the earth will warm X degree's
by 2030 it will raise to X+ degree's , 2040, 2050 ...etc.
then we need to run the experiment, independent scientist need to follow the experiment, take the measurements and document
to see if the hypothesis comes true.

of course this is not going to happen and we both know that

so maybe now you can see why i am conflicted on this subject, i expect science to be precise, provable, observable, and well documented

maybe i am asking too much?

bob g

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 05, 2010, 06:48:20 PM
Well, it sure appears the colder predictors were not reading from the same page as the present predictors. I dont remember what they were basing the reasoning on, perhaps that all the haze and particulate matter would shade us out. I would like to know whether the "science" behind that was even a fraction as sophisticated as what is being brought upon it now. If they are not even comparable then it is not logical to suggest that the past error invalidates the peer review process per se.

I dont think it is possible to get an exact figure for a given period of say 10 years because of there also being so many random short term oscillations. The trend is the only telling issue and the time frame selected so important. What makes the whole damn thing so difficult is all the many faceted imputs and effects you mention  so much a part of it. The multi disciplines and the fact that so many effects do not have a linear input and can actually change from positive to negative affect.

Not related to climate but one you are probably familiar with is the reversal of metals reactivity with temperature. Another hard one to predict easily is whether climate induced ocean currents will out influence the effect of surface temperature stratification, which beyond a certain temperature, tends to stop bottom to top circulation. Whether or not such a phenomenon has a tipping point effect could be crucial.

Like the butterfly effect, it is hard to predict whether on not some small random effect may trigger a huge chain of events. I can understand how you visualize many things that could be affecting unbeknownst the accuracy of the predictions. I think it comes down finally to be a cost/benefit analysis. If the costs of taking perceived avoidance measures are small in comparison to taking your licks, that is a factor. If a given direction once taken is not reversible that puts a lot more wrinkles into decision making.

My personal feeling is that most of what is to be demanded sacrifice would defer depletion of endangered oil, then if we were wrong headed we would still have the oil. If they were correct, and we continue to burn off the oil, we have the resulting problem as well as an empty oil tank and the need then for crash weaning. 

I know you are looking at the economic effects. If we assume global warming as predicted and take the steps seen necessary to possibly stop its progress, then we may well trigger an economic collapse. Since we are in competition with other nations and we effectively handicap our own position while they do not, then that will be a game changer. It is a pretty shaky house of cards and all the spin offs you mention are quite real possibilities. If it were all to humor a whimsical notion it would make some interesting history.
I think various predictions of the end of the world are hilarious. I am concerned though with our present situation. Looking at the energy consumption and population charts would make any reasoning man nervous. Usually what goes up must come down. Whether or not we use global warming as the boogey man we are going to have swallow about the same medicine eventually.

I dont really believe in the boogey man anymore but I still dont like to go where they told me he hangs out! Ill err on the safe side if it looks scary!

Frank
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 05, 2010, 07:14:04 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgAThGrCV4A&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on February 05, 2010, 08:08:41 PM
Sorry Doug, that won't do it either.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 05, 2010, 10:59:28 PM
Gee Doug....What do you think a Canadian electrical inspector would do if he saw that in someone's back yard.  Do you think they would ever be able to get the "stop inhabitation order" lifted?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 05, 2010, 11:07:56 PM
Here's a new study on the Arctic that looks good (despite the alarmist language (Italics by myself) inserted by the reporter who broke the story).  I'll wait for final opinion on seeing some of the peer reviewed papers coming out of it, but the initial summary seems to be in line with many other reports already completed.

The weight of proof increases!

Stan

Warning for the south

"It's an early indicator of what we can expect to happen further south," Barber said at a news conference in Winnipeg. "We can expect things to happen faster here, too."
Barber said the human impact on climate is being superimposed on the natural variation in climate and temperature.
The result is more variability in the climate: warm spells are getting warmer and the cold spells are getting colder.
The researchers also found that storms have become more frequent in the North as the sea ice thins.
"There are more storms now because there's more open oceans and those storms are having a dramatic impact on the sea ice," said Barber.
The storms drop precipitation, mostly snow, on the sea ice and the snow insulates the ice, keeping it from growing thicker.
Barber said much of the research undertaken on the Amundsen involved measuring the effects of changing climate on the Arctic.
"We know we're losing sea ice. What you're not aware of is … what the consequences of this change are," said Barber.
'Sea ice breathes'

Barber compared the impact of losing sea ice in the Arctic to the loss of trees in a tropical rain forest.
The Arctic sea ice isn't just a cap on top of the ocean, Barber said. "The sea ice breathes," he said. "It pumps carbon dioxide in and out."
The researchers also found pollutants in the sea ice.
"The Arctic is not as pristine as you would like to think it is. It's actually a dumping ground for a lot of contaminants," he said.
The Circumpolar Flaw Lead study was not only the largest climate study ever undertaken in Canada, Barber said, but the biggest study conducted during the International Polar Year.
The Canadian government provided $156 million in funding for the research during the International Polar Year from 2007-09.
The expedition involved 10 science teams, studying every aspect of the Arctic environment, from microbes to mammals to weather systems.
Barber anticipated that each one of those teams would have at least 10 papers published in peer-reviewed journals.
Barber also emphasized the role that traditional aboriginal knowledge played in the research, especially in mapping the edges of sea ice.
Barber said it's now up to governments to find solutions for climate change.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 06, 2010, 12:59:58 AM
Climate is the long term average of weather which is a day to day, or hour to hour condition of the atmosphere.  Meteorologists predict day to day changes in the condition of the atmosphere, climatologists assess the long term, sometimes very long term condition of the atmosphere.

They can, only in retrospect.  It's impossible to predict future climate, any more than it's possible to predict what a 600 mile car trip tomorrow will be like.  There could be an accident (Volcano eruption), road work (supernova 10 light years away) or any of a dozen things that change the outcome.   
 
But the person that can do it, should make a killing at the racetrack.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 06, 2010, 02:34:37 AM
You are right to a degree but two things tend to make climatic predictions with adequate history more accurate and that's inertia and the laws of physics.  Change happens slowly in proportion to the energy put into it, that's why global warming has taken 8000 years to get to this point, and only the tipping point phenomenon is speeding things up now.  The laws of physics thing is just that, immutable laws (at least in our universe) that make many things predictable. 

I know it doesn't mean that a large asteroid can't ruin your day pretty quickly though.  :'(
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 06, 2010, 06:29:57 AM
Pray for warmth. - East Coast.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 06, 2010, 03:30:42 PM
Be careful what you wish for.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqkWnnPjzv0



But I am still holding out for that Brazillian Savan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 06, 2010, 04:32:45 PM
It's interesting that globally, January 2010 was the warmest month in recorded history.  Haven't seen the data yet but that's what the reports are so far.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 06, 2010, 05:34:00 PM
recorded history only goes back some one hundred years, as i recall?

certainly was a warmer january here in western washington, and i am thankful for it.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: billswan on February 06, 2010, 06:43:37 PM
Well NOT HERE in southern Minnesota it has been one snow storm after another and have had LOTS of 0 and below 0 F. weather :( :(

Billswan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 06, 2010, 08:15:36 PM
That's the whole problem trying to convince people that what we are screwing up our world.

What's the story of the blind men who were trying to get a picture of an elephant by describing the part they were touching?  One, who had hold of it's trunk said it feels like a huge snake.  The other with his hands on it's leg said no it looks like a big tree trunk.  etc. etc. etc.....

Someone on here once said that we couldn't possibly be affecting the immense atmosphere of the world with our itty bitty engines, and coal fired generating plants.

 I always showed my students some of the first pictures from the space shuttle of the horizon from space.  It shows the blue of the atmosphere as a tiny shimmering line on the horizon, hardly thicker than a piece of printer paper in thickness relative to the earth's size.

I relate it to the Lister engine.  It's made of of several systems.  The fuel system being one of them.  If you shave a minute amount off of the fuel pump plunger, maybe a microgram of metal compared to the 400 Kilograms that the whole machine weighs, what happens to the performance of the engine???

Sometimes it doesn't take very much to screw up a finely tuned machine, no matter how big it is.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 08, 2010, 03:35:26 AM
Well this is an interresting read in the Toronto Sun today... talks about the issues going on around the world that the North American Press is not reporting... because they are embarrassed that they have been shrills and not reporters...

==============

One of the most common questions I get from readers these days is why are the Canadian media ignoring the growing global controversy over the credibility of climate change research and in particular, of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?

For example, unless you read the international press, especially the mainstream U.K. newspapers such as The Times, Telegraph and Guardian, you probably haven’t heard much about any of the following controversies in recent days.

(1) John Sauven, director of Greenpeace U.K., until now one of the strongest allies of IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri, has called for Pachauri’s resignation, saying his judgment is flawed and a new IPCC chairman — the most important climate change job in the world — is needed to restore public confidence in climatic science.

(2) That the reason for this is increasing controversy over the credibility of the IPCC and Pachauri himself, related to the contents of its last major report released in 2007, including, but by no means limited to, a bogus claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — as iconic an image of the potential consequences of man-made global warming in Europe and Asia, as was the (inaccurate) one of polar bears stranded, starving and drowning on melting ice floes in North America. Worse, when the Indian government pointed out the glacier prediction was nonsense, Pachauri accused it of peddling “voodoo science,” before being forced to admit the IPCC was wrong and had ignored repeated warnings it was wrong.

(3) In the wake of Climategate, the U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office concluded officials at the world-famous Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia — the most prominent academic institution on which the IPCC relies for its science on man-made global warming — broke the law when they refused requests for their raw data under the Freedom of Information Act. They can’t be prosecuted due to a technicality — the complaint occurred more than six months after the violations.

(4) What had been billed as “gold standard,” “robust” and “peer reviewed” scientific research in the IPCC’s 2007 report, released to massive media publicity at the time, has recently been revealed to have relied, in some cases, upon such things as an article in a mountain-climbing magazine, a student dissertation using anecdotal evidence from mountain guides, and the unvetted claims of environmental groups.

(5) The U.K. government’s chief scientific advisor, John Beddington, has acknowledged some climate scientists exaggerated the impact of global warming and called for more honesty in explaining to the public the inherent uncertainties of predictions based on computer climate models, adding: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper skepticism.”

(6) China’s senior climate official, Xie Zhenua, has called for “an open attitude” towards “the alternative view” to man-made global warming. That is, that climate change is mainly “caused by cyclical trends in nature itself.” Considering no global climate deal is possible without China — the world’s top greenhouse gas emitter — Xie’s statement that these views should be incorporated into the next major IPCC report in 2014, has huge implications for the future of climate science.

I’ve chosen half-a-dozen examples above of controversies now engulfing the IPCC and climate research. I could have mentioned others about the now-disputed basis for IPCC claims regarding the impact of global warming on the Amazon rain forest, hurricanes and floods, and new questions about the reliability of weather station data used to make some IPCC claims.

Plus, there’s a growing public perception the IPCC has abandoned its proper role as a dispassionate presenter of scientific research to policy makers, to become just another environmental group preaching warmist hysteria.

None of this disproves anthropogenic global warming, or proves mankind’s influence on climate is a scientific hoax. But it illustrates the absurdity of the radical warmists’ claim the debate is over, the science is settled and we must all immediately take a vow of poverty to “save the planet.”

Why have Canadian media largely ignored this growing controversy? Perhaps the best answer is embarrassment. Having shilled for warmist hysteria for so long, having dismissed any questioning of man-made climate change orthodoxy as equivalent to Holocaust denial, they don’t know how to climb down, or cope with the tidal wave (pardon the pun) of controversy now hitting climate science all over the world.

Thus they remain paralyzed, desperately, frantically, pretending no controversy exists.

Except it does. And it’s growing.

lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 08, 2010, 04:02:17 AM
Andrew.. You've been listening to those people again.  Here's how Lorrie Goldstein is being described in the press, and probably just as legitimately as the Toronto Star article.  You see, I have quit trying to research the legitimate data first, because first I to a bit of research on the writer.  It's often easier to obtain, and much more entertaining than wading through raw data.

Headline..."Lorrie Goldstein Lies Again".   "I was getting all set to debunk the latest lies from rightwing hack Lorrie Goldstein when I discovered Deltoid had already done the hard work by debunking another rightwing hack’s screed. Since Goldstein’s column is nothing more than an excercise in intellectual plagiarism, Tim Lambert’s post, with a few alterations, works for it too."

It seems Lorrie has plagerised a work written by a right wing hack sometime in the past, just changing a few words to match the more modern circumstances.  I didn't look any further into it, because of the reputation of the writer.  Now maybe I'm wrong, maybe Lorrie Goldstein isn't a right wing hack that plagerizes other right wing hacks work, but it's enough to stop any further need for investigation on my part.

Now don't get me wrong!  I believe there are significant problems in the IPCC and certainly many of their big wigs should be fired.  That, however doesn't detract one whit from my central argument that neither you nor I should be listening to anything said on the subject of global warming unless it is said by reputable, trained, experienced scientists published in peer reviewed journals.  (which is NOT the Toronto Sun by the way)

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 08, 2010, 04:40:53 AM
Now don't get me wrong!  I believe there are significant problems in the IPCC and certainly many of their big wigs should be fired.  That, however doesn't detract one whit from my central argument that neither you nor I should be listening to anything said on the subject of global warming unless it is said by reputable, trained, experienced scientists published in peer reviewed journals.  (which is NOT the Toronto Sun by the way)

Stan

Stan, Goldstein is nationally respected writer/columnist who has been honoured by his fellow journalists.  I did a CANOE and Google search on your headline, all I found was a leftwing blog site.

In this article, he just put out the facts that in the international media stuff is happening... and in Canada you dont hear anything about it.  As he points out, many who have been PEER reviewed got it from student papers and mount hiking guides... not really science is it.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 08, 2010, 04:48:46 AM
Stan:

your use of the term "right wing hack" is getting old...

as hard as a try, i do a pretty good job of not referring to those that support your position as "left wing lunatics"

is there no opposing view that you would accept as valid?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 08, 2010, 03:39:19 PM
Gentlemen, let me advise you on some primary examples of how to recognize sensationalism in reporting.  Consider the two examples recently quoted, one in reply #357 from the canadian scientist and the other #366 by our friend Mr. Goldstein.

The subject is "sensationalist, emotionally laden vocabulary".  Now the reason for inserting sensationalist, emotionally laden vocabulary is to grab the attention of the general public, which aids in increasing sales of the publication.  Any time you see this type of vocabulary, think "right/left wing hack exaggerating/lying and obscuring facts".  Not what we want in a scientific debate, right?

There is one example of this type of vocabulary in #357 and it is the word "dramatic".

In comparison here is paragraph #2 from reply #366 as reported.

(2) That the reason for this is increasing controversy over the credibility of the IPCC and Pachauri himself, related to the contents of its last major report released in 2007, including, but by no means limited to, a bogus claim Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — as iconic an image of the potential consequences of man-made global warming in Europe and Asia, as was the (inaccurate) one of polar bears stranded, starving and drowning on melting ice floes in North America. Worse, when the Indian government pointed out the glacier prediction was nonsense, Pachauri accused it of peddling “voodoo science,” before being forced to admit the IPCC was wrong and had ignored repeated warnings it was wrong.

I've put the emotionally laden, sensationalist vocabulary in italics to assist you in identifying it.

I repeat, any time you see emotionally laden, sensationalist wording in a publication, IGNORE THAT PUBLICATION, because it has no scientific value.  It's only value is in attracting the general public who have a limited knowledge about the subject, and increasing sales of the newspaper/magazine etc. etc..

It's like a 5 year old that comes running in to Grampa yelling, "Grampa there's a huge black spider on the porch and it's eating up all the cats and dogs on the block, come quick and see".  Well, you'd go and see because he's your grandson, but you wouldn't put much credence in the sensational language would you?

I hope I've been of some help in this matter.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 08, 2010, 06:12:03 PM
Stan:

oh yes, i understand ....

it like the use of the term

"right wing hacks"

or my use of

"Stan, the problem i have with you"  (which i got called to task for, but which is not derogatory by nature)

this is a classic move used by both sides, and if you are critical enough, you will spot the same coming from
the left wing lunatics as well

actually some of the scientific reporting while not using the word dramatic per se, will use a more palatable
word that pretty much means the same thing, and is viewed as so by the scientific community.

:)

bogus claim, should have been "unsubstantiated claim"

the balance of your examples could be repackaged in scientific terms that basically mean the same, and it is fair to note
that had it not been for those that packaged the original reports, made the film clips not used each of these examples perhaps
there would have been no need for such verbiage to start with?

those that oppose AGW were not the one putting out films of polar bears, from an interesting camera angle, showing them floating
on drift ice, captured after they come out of hybernation, when they look half starved, and not showing that the drift ice is within
an easy swim back to the main ice pack, where after they cut off the film the polar bear and its baby manage to swim to easily,

i mean for the love of god man!  wake up and realize that while your side may have a few good points, it also has some serious snake
oil salesman in the pack.

and yes that was sensationalized i realize, but is it really?
or is it an accurate description of a number of the so called scientists that go on about AGW?

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 08, 2010, 07:40:18 PM
Stan
So if it is reported using plain english to describe how members of the Warmist side mislead, miss-communicated, subverted the peer review process and deliberately and knowingly distorted facts, you are suggesting that we ignore it??  But if the so called scientists claim the glaciers are melting, that polar bears and thin and living on Ice flows, that the Rainforest is shrinking, that ... well you get the picture, we must believe that be cause it has been through a broken peer review process?

Stan, nobody is saying climate does not change.  It does, it has and it will.  Its the extent to which they claim its mankind fault and show inflammatory pictures and reports to back that up that has people skeptical

Now if we ever get back to something like polution that will have some true effect on our daily living, well till them its the Climate Change fiasco
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 08, 2010, 11:30:27 PM
Bob....I fully understand in any group of humans, there will be "snake oil salesmen" as you call them.  My point has always been that when true science, reported in peer reviewed journals is considered, the weight of evidence for global warming caused my man's activities is overwhelming.

The few snake oil salesmen are insignificant when considered alongside the thousands of hard working, non-aligned scientists that have been collecting data for decades.

I figure you have used an apt term to describe virturally every publication you and Andrew have pointed my toward.  Just remember "if it sells advertising, don't believe it".
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 09, 2010, 01:18:23 AM
Stan:

i got your recommended book in the mail today, and here are a few preliminary impressions

i first looked at his reference section, to see where all his charts and graphs came from

51% come for previous works or published papers of this author, that raises a bit of suspicion in my books.

(i am not about to go out a buy all his previous works to find out where he got the info that he brought forward into this book)

the term "adapted from" also presents a problem for anyone that is critical in thought.

why adapt? why not bring forward a reference in its entirety or explain how it was interpreted or adapted?

James White, Science: " if you are not familiar with Ruddimans hyphothesis, you should be..." 
(taken from the back cover of the book, apparently placed there by the publisher as a critique of the book, which clearly places this
work in its proper context,,, that being "hypothesis, and not up to the standards of theory, or law)

chapter 18 is interesting, where the author admits the problematic nature of the global warming issue, where true scientist often take
both positions, such as "on the one hand" and "on the other hand"...

this book lacks serious scientific convention in my opinion, it is not well documented, no citations, and for the most part an interesting read
however it lacks just about everything i have come to accept in a scientific or engineering text.

the authors careful use of wording also is problematic, and he is artful in his choice of and placement of words,  many of his assertions would never
stand up to legal or scientific scrutiny without much more documentation that presented in this book.

perhaps this book was not meant to be one for a researcher or fellow scientist, but rather the casual reader a step above pulp fiction?

in fairness i will now take the time to read carefully what this author has to say, i will also take notes so as to follow his assertions and see if he provides documentation to back them up.

when he provides only 37 sources to cite from and 19 are earlier works of his own, i don't expect much solid supporting documentation, but rather just another book following a similar cookie cutter approach to this subject that was used in algores "inconvenient truth"

so yes i am skeptical, but i am not yet ready to use the pages as toilet paper,, just yet.

i will say however Stan, as passionate as you are on the subject of AGW, i would have expected you to put forth something a bunch more substantive than this book.

maybe there is some nugget buried in its pages that will provide irrefutable evidence of AGW? 

we shall see.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 09, 2010, 03:02:53 AM
You are absolutely right on that one Bob, no bonifide scientist will ever admit to 100% proof on anything.  If you go back in time most if not all great scientific discoveries have been amended or altered in some way when new discoveries are made.

I don't mind the fact that 19 of his citations are from his own work.  If you look up his background and qualifications and training you will see he has a lot more than most experts in his field.

When you get to one of the last chapters you will see his disclaimers on how he is NOT funded by big business or governments.

There may only be 37 bonifide sources that he cites in his work, but that's 37 more than any reporter for any magazine or newspaper on the subject that I have ever seen.
Stan

btw...Man that was fast service.  It takes me over 2 weeks to get a book from Amazon or Chapters here in Canada.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 09, 2010, 03:07:15 AM
Stan:

in all honesty, it will take me a few days to get up the energy to read fully this book, and here is my reason

1. i do not read fiction,

2. i do not read tabloids,

3. about 99.9% of what i read is techical papers, research documents, text books, engineering text and legal matter.

so...

trying to fit your book into catagory 3 is going to pose a serious compromise on my part, and i think you will understand what the problem
i have with this if you could lay your hands on a copy of 1491

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_4?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=1491&sprefix=1491

whether you ascribe to the conclusions of the author is beside the point but the difference in presentation is stark, where your book recommendation is almost without reference (almost so given the importance of the topic) 1491 will bury you in references.

the more i look at this "plows, plagues and petroleum" the more i am reminded of the "divinci code" in factual content.

i guess i would have expect and certainly hoped for something much more substantive from you Stan, while i plod my way through this book
perhaps you can find another source that is up to a reasonable standard?

the peer group that might review this book (and sign off on it), to me probably would have all the look, feel and credibility of a star trek convention.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 09, 2010, 04:46:14 AM
I told you he "takes a huge step when he makes a very controversial hypothesis about when mankind first began to affect the climate.  Very very interesting."

I am curious as to which aspects of the hypothesis that you find "science fiction" like?  And which postulates he makes that are not common sense?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 09, 2010, 07:35:47 PM
Stan:

i was careful not to liken his work to science fiction, but rather remarked that any peer group that would agree to review
that book on its own merits might well look very much like the same crowd that would frequent a star trek convention.

i have made it through about the first page or two of the first chapter and have found his rhetoric nothing less than ridiculous

it is quite obvious why he has no attachment to a funding source (supposedly) it would appear he is more motivated to cover and
protect his earlier works, so as to not be relegated to the "round" file of history.

that alone is a much more powerful motivator than is money, most especially to a retired man in the twilight of his life, looking to establish
or maintain a legacy.

he may very well have been a professor, but he is no scientist, at least in the classical sense.

his writing style is more in keeping with propaganda than following scientific presentation, and you of all people should know this Stan.

i am going to continue to read this book, and i do hope that over the course my perception of both the book, its subject and particularly its
author change to a more positive one.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 09, 2010, 10:13:04 PM
He doesn't really hit his stride until after he has covered the grounds for a case to prove global warming, somewhere around chapter 4 or 5, and then he starts on his "new" hypothesis which will stretch your brain.

I differ from your opinion on his writing style Bob.  He has a very smooth and accurate way of building up to his conclusions, and therefore you have to be patient and allow him to go through all his arguments before you pronounce judgement.  Don't be too quick to do that just because you already figure you don't agree with what he is saying.  Keep an open mind and allow that his system of proofs, as backed up by most of the worlds genuine scientists, just may be correct.   ;)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 10, 2010, 03:07:59 PM
OK, here's some good news regarding climate change.

Climate change will make the world more fragrant.
As CO2 levels increase and the world warms, land use, precipitation and the availability of water will also change.
In response to all these disruptions, plants will emit greater levels of fragrant chemicals called biogenic volatile organic compounds.
That will then alter how plants interact with one another and defend themselves against pests, according to a major scientific review.
According to the scientists leading the review, the world may already be becoming more fragrant, as plants have already begun emitting more smelly chemicals.
"The increase is exponential," says Professor Josep Penuelas, of the Global Ecology Unit at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain.
"It may have increased already by 10% in the past 30 years and may increase 30 to 40% with the two to three degrees (Celsius) warming projected for the next decades."

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 10, 2010, 06:51:53 PM
> Climate change will make the world more fragrant.
> As CO2 levels increase and the world warms, land use, precipitation and the availability of water will also change.

Cool !  I wonder if we will get 4' long dragonflys too ?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on February 10, 2010, 07:46:44 PM

Cool !  I wonder if we will get 4' long dragonflys too ?

I'd say chances of that are about equal to AGW being true ..... :D :D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 10, 2010, 08:02:39 PM
I've read that higher CO2 increases plant growth but the nutrient value drops because the speed of growth is acellerated.
Broad leaf plants make better use of it than grasses.
Grasses and savana lands are said to be partly the result of lower CO2 levels today.

The increases evaporation will result in more rain but in the form of storms and hurricns rather than an even distributed fall.

The places that need the rain the most are the ones that will not get it so the droughts in the dry regions like the Western US will get worse but when it does rain expect too much at once.

ME I am suposed to live in an Area that will warm and wet down more. Net result probably smog.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 10, 2010, 08:33:38 PM
The back-pedaling begins:

========= =

http://tinyurl.com/mini-ice1

Professor Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, the principal
author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
last two five-year reports, and a leading climate modeler, now predicts
a "mini ice age of up to 30-year duration" and says the Earth
has been cooling...

============ ========= ========= =

http://tinyurl.com/mini-ice2

The next ice age could begin any day. Next week, next month, next year,
it's not a question of if, only when. One day you'll wake up - or you
won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all
part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns
like clockwork every 11,500 years, and the last ice age ended almost
exactly 11,500 years ago...

============ ========= ========= =

http://tinyurl.com/mini-ice3

Analysis of the sun's activity in the last two millennia indicates that,
contrary to speculation about man-made global warming, that we could be
headed into a Maunder minimum type of climate (a Little Ice Age).

The probability is high that the minima around 2030 and 2201 will go
along with periods of cold climate comparable to the nadir of the Little
Ice Age, and La Niñas will be more frequent and stronger than El
Niños through 2018 (Landscheidt, 2000).

We need not wait until 2030 to see whether the forecast is correct,
however. A declining trend in solar activity and global temperature
should become manifest long before then. The current 11-year sunspot
cycle 23 with its considerably weaker activity seems to be a first
indication of the new trend, especially as it was predicted on the basis
of solar motion cycles two decades ago. As to temperature, only El
Niño periods should interrupt the downward trend, but even El
Niños should become less frequent and strong.

============ ========= ========= =

http://tinyurl.com/mini-ice4 

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the
start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last
for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world's most eminent climate
scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water
temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of
the global warming orthodoxy's most deeply cherished beliefs, such
as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado,
Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per
cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming
activists do not dispute this.

So a short ice age seems in order, and then we can zoom back to warming.

( glad that stops at ice4   Ice9 is bad stuff )
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 10, 2010, 09:05:46 PM
damn!!!

whats it going to do????

hot? cold? hot? cold?

for the love of god, can they make up their minds????

here i am suffering through this nicely packaged propaganda piece recommended by Stan, and now
i gotta get my head around an impending iceage???

"I AM SO CONFUSED"
(in my best steve martin)

:)

bob g

oh,, well i guess its gonna be time to throw another tire on the fire?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 10, 2010, 11:42:38 PM
Mike....That's exactly what the book that Bob is reading explains.  There's a 44,000 year cycle that is a combination of the sun's activity and the earth's orbit's perturbations.  We "should" be (if all that long paleoclimatology is correct) going into the lower portion of the earth's temperature range, resulting in glaciation (ice age to the general population) starting in N.E. Canada around Baffin Island.

Why are we not going into this glaciation period?  Why is the earth in fact warming up instead of cooling down?  (no, I won't get into an argument about the warming trend, there is ample proof out there, search for it if you don't believe me)     Read "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" by Rudiman.  He's got a new edition coming out in March so get his old one from your library and read it first to see how the new edition answers the arguments against his hypothesis.

Fascinating.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 11, 2010, 04:23:03 AM
i am about half way through the book, had to stop because i got another that is much more interesting

"pyrolysis oil"

not to worry though, i will not be buying his next edition and would not read it if it were given to me.

and i will tell you why when i finish with it.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 11, 2010, 03:11:55 PM
Come on Bob....open up your mind.    Did you see Stephen Colbert last night?  His skit on global warming was hysterical.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Stan

Hmmmmm....pyrolysis oil....what's it's net energy output vs the energy to produce it?   In the book "Stupid to the Last Drop" the big oil companies have admitted that they can use the waste oil sands products to generate the energy they need except that the canadian government sells them natural gas so cheaply they haven't bothered.  ???
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 11, 2010, 05:53:12 PM
Todays  AGW tidbit:

 Facing record snowfalls, Time is reporting: "Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change." But do not confuse this headline with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s column from two years ago claiming that global warming was causing "anemic winters" in the Washington region.

No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame. That is the whole reason the movement made a deliberate decision earlier this decade to stop calling it "global warming" and start calling it "climate change." That way they could expand the universe of terrible things they could plausibly blame on global warming. One British citizen even maintains a comprehensive list of everything the enviroleft has tried to blame on global warming including: Atlantic ocean less salty, Atlantic ocean more salty, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning faster, fish bigger, fish shrinking, and (most importantly) beer better, beer worse.

Leave The Beer Alone !!  :D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 11, 2010, 09:36:58 PM
more fun stuff

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Another+Ice+Age/article10630.htm

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 11, 2010, 10:11:11 PM
On an almost exactly the same scenario.....

Ok Bob....you win...I officially give up.  I have now seen data that proves NY is plunging into an ice age.  It is irrefutable and not subject to opinion or politics.  The graph in question shows the average monthly temperature in New York city from August to December 2009 as steadily plunging downward.  The perfect polar (no pun intended) opposite of the famous hockey stick graph that shows world temperatures rising. There's no doubt that you and fox news are totally correct.
Stan  ;)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 11, 2010, 10:24:48 PM
Todays  AGW tidbit:

 Facing record snowfalls, Time is reporting: "Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change." But do not confuse this headline with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s column from two years ago claiming that global warming was causing "anemic winters" in the Washington region.

No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame.   :D


Mike....Here's a perfect analogy of the earth's climate system(s).  Take a glass pot of water and put a high temp thermometer in it.  Bring it slowly up to a mild simmer and read the temp.  At sea level it should read 211 or 212 deg F.  Observe the action of the water.  You should see some currents slowly spinning around, and some upward and downward trends.  Use a flashlight to see it better.

Now, turn up the heat!  Bring it up to a good boil.  Read the temp.  It shouldn't be any higher than before on your thermometer, unless you have an electronic temp that is extremely sensitive and then it should be one or two hundredths of a degree higher.  Now, here's the lesson.  Observe the action of the water.  You will see comparatively violent currents, bubbles and action all over the place.

That's what a tiny bit more heat will do to a fluid system (the earths atmosphere acts just like a fluid, don't forget).  You will get hotter hots, lower lows, more freakish activity all over the globe, not just in Washington DC.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 11, 2010, 11:38:48 PM
Stan:

i am so pleased you have finally come to see the light!!!   :)

from your example, the only flaw i see with it is you are working with a substance at the phase change junction
where additional heat input changes things in a non linear manner.

the point i have always made is simply this,
man has effect on his surroundings to a certain extent, usually very local in nature
man is in competition with our sun, which has the ability to outrun us by several orders of magnitude.

you mention the thermal circulation of the water in your pan, with heat input
the jet stream is an example of a large scale circulation on our planet, or rather about it.

the suns solar flairs have dramatic effect on the jet stream among other things,

what fascinates me is the idea that nasa admits "we don't quite understand how the sun affects our climate..."

but we understand beyond any doubt how man is responsible for climatic change???

we can directly measure in real time what our sun is putting out in our direction, and we can measure its effects
to a very high degree of accuracy, something we cannot do with man's input into the system in real time and at any level
of accuracy.

here is a final take on your book recommenation

the author loses all credibility with me when he has to preface  nearly every chapter with verbiage such as
"the science is proven and any credible scientist will agree..." 

that is both arrogant and a tool of a propogandist,

he suggests that anyone that would argue against or provide another plausible explanation for his hypothesis as being not credible??

i would allow him one such reference in the preface or in the conclusion of his book, but i have ran across such verbiage frequently in
the text, enough so that i find him to be nothing more than a sad old man, a has been that is no longer relevant to the discussion
trying as he might to provide support for his theory so that it does not get swept away  into the dustbin of time and him back into
obscurity.

its kind of sad really, because i do think he is an intelligent fellow, but
he of all people should know there is no need for rhetoric with solid science.

anyone that wants my copy of the book, just pm me and i will send it to you for the cost of postage
perhaps someone will get something out of his words that i have clearly missed?

btw, the "pyrolysis oil" book is

"pyrolysis oil from biomass"

it does not deal with cracking oil shales which i would agree seem a bit uneconomical at this time, where it takes
about 85 barrels of oil in energy to process 100 barrels and get a net of 15 barrels from shale,
perhaps that will change when some forward thinking government or industry puts a nuclear reactor above the shale
bed and uses the waste heat of the reactor to drive the oil from the shale.

we both know that is never going to happen, not in our life times.

in conclusion Stan, and other AGW supporters:

i give you props for your passion, and your beliefs, and also allow you your hero's, as we all have all three in some capacity
without which life becomes a rather unbearable plodding day after day.

i don't suppose either side is going to fundamentally change the minds or hearts of the opposing side, and that is ok!

best wishes to you and your side

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 12, 2010, 03:23:42 AM
Don't worry Bob...I'll keep on reading the www.Dailybayonet.com, and "www.Globalwarminghoax.com" just to see how Glenn Beck and Howard Stern feel about the subject.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 15, 2010, 12:53:14 AM
Well Stan, since you called Mr Goldstien's credibility into account, I thought it was only right that we allowed him to tell your sources they are full of hot air... nice list of reading material there too

=====================

Today, I want to answer the warmist lies spread about me for the past three-plus years I’ve been writing about climate change.

I also suggest that whenever Canada’s warmist media lamely defend increasingly discredited anthropogenic global warming orthodoxy, you should ask them — directly — how much they know about the subject.

Contrary to the smears of the “everything I needed to know about global warming I learned from Al Gore” crowd, I’ve never been paid a cent by the fossil fuel industry to write about climate change. Anyone who says I have is a liar.

Everything I’ve written has been as part of my normal duties as a Sun columnist.

No one from Quebecor, the Sun’s owners, has ever told me what to write. Anyone who says they have is a liar.

I began researching climate change in late 2006 for a couple of reasons.

First, a reader told me she’d heard Europe’s cap-and-trade market was forcing hospitals and universities to buy carbon credits, instead of hiring nurses and teachers, while energy companies were making huge profits. She wanted to know if this was true.

Second, I was curious about news reports Canada could theoretically comply with the Kyoto accord by buying billions of dollars of “hot air” emission credits from Russia. How could Russia, I wondered, possibly be “greener” than Canada?

I found out Europe’s cap-and-trade market had not only done what my reader said, it also wasn’t cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Russia, I learned, had billions of dollars of hot air credits not because of any environmental initiatives it took, but because its economy collapsed after the Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. That’s why Kyoto’s main drivers — the U.K. and European Union — retroactively chose 1990 as the base year for cutting emissions.

This meant they could credit to themselves the reduced emissions following the economic collapse of the Soviet Union post-1990, as Soviet satellites were absorbed by Europe. (There are fewer emissions in a recession because people buy fewer things and thus it takes less fossil fuel energy to make and transport them.)

Basically, Kyoto was an accounting trick that did nothing for the environment, aimed largely at hobbling the U.S. economy, and, in the process, ours as well. So I kept on researching.

Below I’ve listed the 23 books I’ve read on global warming, so far. The first 14 would pass muster with David Suzuki. Trust me. I’ve also spent many hours reading government and environmental reports. Not press releases — reports.

That’s why, unlike so many in the warmist media, I actually know what I’m talking about.

(1) The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson.

(2) Heat, How to Stop the Planet from Burning by George Monbiot.

(3) Hell and High Water by Joseph Romm

(4) The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery

(5) The Revenge of Gaia, by James Lovelock

(6) The Heat is On, by Ross Gelbspan

(7) The Suicidal Planet by Mayer Hillman, Tina Fawcett and Sudir Chella Rajan

(8) Stupid to the Last Drop by William Marsden

(9) Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent by Andrew Nikiforuk

(10) Under a Green Sky by Peter Ward

(11) Stormy Weather by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza

(12) Climate Cover-up by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore

(13) Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Mike Hulme

(14) Carbon Shift, edited by Thomas Homer-Dixon

(15) The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon

(16) Heaven and Earth by Ian Plimer

(17) A Moment on the Earth by Greg Easterbrook

(18) Taken by Storm by Christopher Essex and Ross McKitrick

(19) The Emperor’s New Climate by Bruno Wiskel

(20) Climate of Extremes by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling Jr.

(21, 22) Red Hot Lies and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner

(23) Green Hell by Stephen Milloy

Now reading: The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg

Up next: The Vanishing Face of Gaia by James Lovelock
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 15, 2010, 12:54:51 AM
he idea that these clowns would "lose" their life's work, particularly when it's the basis for their grandiose claims for disaster, and their making a call to change the entire world's way of life is clearly insane. I would put forward a far simpler explanation: Fraud. On a scale to boggle the mind. I want this entire crew investigated, and prosecuted if it turns out they were set to profit personally, as Pachauri was. Follow the money.



_____________________
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-organised.html

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010

* Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing
* There has been no global warming since 1995
* Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes

Professor Phil Jones

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0fXP5zMef
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 15, 2010, 12:58:47 AM
Now here is an interesting report.  Looking at Caves off Spain, it appears that 81,000 years ago, the Mediterranean was 1 m higher, when it should have been lower because of the advancing Glaciers.  ummm
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,677613,00.html

Oh and this is a good one, seems there has been no warming since 95. Jones spills his beens
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tugger on February 15, 2010, 01:03:02 AM
Best scientific proof of global warming i have found online.....
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a5/tuginator/globalwarming-1.jpg)
cheers
Tug
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 15, 2010, 01:49:18 AM



http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=f3bb24bf00b55a124ac079d7f5d235bbe999f947&rf=bm&source=hptextfeature
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 15, 2010, 02:59:47 AM
Best scientific proof of global warming i have found online.....
(http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a5/tuginator/globalwarming-1.jpg)
cheers
Tug


Well it is a hockey stick of sorts.. I suspect this is one of the best posts so far
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 15, 2010, 05:25:04 AM
Andrew, if you read the whole text of Jone's little speech on "what I did wrong" he also states that he stands by his data and virtually all studies since then have backed up his original, however disorganized, data.

He also, in the same article challenged the bought scientific community (my label not his) that they should quit trying to discredit legitimate scientists, and simply do what every scientist should be doing and that is "gather their own data, publish it, get it peer reviewed" and use that to prove that global warming is a hoax.

To date, no one has done that.  The hoax people only rely on trying to fix on faults from "the other side" instead of offering their own proof, published properly.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 15, 2010, 01:23:45 PM
Stan:

something you don't seem to understand or are conveniently forgetting

it is not incumbent on anyone to prove AGW wrong!

it is however incumbent on those who promote AGW to prove it!

that is how science works!

anyone can propose a hypothesis, or an opinion, but it is just that and not a fact, theory or law!

all the other side of the arguement has to do is call in to question part of all of the assertion and it is up to
he who made the assertion to prove it, or simply shut up and go away.

and we are supposed to take the suggestion of some goofball that can't find his data?

i suppose the dog ate it??

good lord what a world we live in.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mike90045 on February 15, 2010, 03:15:27 PM
Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.

 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214

**  this has not been peer reviewed

The world is freezing, light the smudge pots !
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 15, 2010, 03:41:05 PM

that is how science works!

anyone can propose a hypothesis, or an opinion, but it is just that and not a fact, theory or law!


bob g

EXACTLY Bob....Those who say the earth is not warming up and it is not due to man's actions should prove it is cooling off, and it is the sun or the stars or something else causing it!  That's how science works.....As Phil Jones said it much more politely, the Glen Becks of the world should put up or shut up!
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 15, 2010, 05:09:05 PM
Hey Bob....I've been doing some reading about the "corrupted weather stations" controversy and it hit me that it's a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

It appears the Exxon scientists fed our friend Inhofe some information way back in 2003 that a couple of dozen weather stations around the world (out of thousands) might have been situated in cities in warmer than "normal" locations.  OK, I've no reason to doubt this.  Quite aside from the fact the senator Inhofe obviously doesn't know how averages are calculated and that a couple of dozen measurements a couple of degrees higher than they should be won't affect thousands of other readings when they are averaged.  So unthinking (or mathematically challenged) people for the last 6 years have been bleating this "fact" out constantly.

Let's take this example of a prime plank in the Hoax camp's arsenal of weapons to "defeat" the dastardly scientific community.

Why don't the Exxon scientists set up their own weather stations all around the world, collect a data set over a few decades and then come back and publish their results including where the locations are, for the whole world to examine for accuracy?

That's only fair isn't it?

And before you say you don't want to wait that long to figure this out, just think about all the brainpower that Exxon has had working for them for decades!  Don't you think that if all those smart people figured they could prove the rest of the world's scientists were wrong by doing exactly what I have suggested, they would have done it by now?

So, "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" (occam's razor) or to put it another way, "if they could have done it, they would have done it" it's a simple as that.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 15, 2010, 05:23:09 PM
Who just wants their life back the way we expected it to be years ago when our problem were local not global?

 
 
http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/mcy/1596168526.html
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 15, 2010, 08:36:45 PM
Stan:

bless your heart, you put of a valiant effort, and for that i applaud you even if i don't agree with your position.

i don't expect you to believe Glen Beck, you can watch Keith Oberman and Rachel Maddow all you like
they need the viewers anyway.

and i don't ascribe to inhoff either, quite frankly i haven't really followed anything he has said.

i understand the problem with making hay over a hand full of weather stations parked by artificial heat sources
not really making a dent in the scheme of things as factored with 1000's of other stations,, "IF"

the guys that put together those reports included all the 1000's of other stations, including those that might be parked
outside of heat pumps in the winter,, that i don't know for sure, and the fellows that compiled this stuff seem to either have
lost their homework or are less than forthcoming with those details.

things like time of day, general weather at the time of measurement, other changes such as a tree growing up and shading the station
or one having been cut down that was providing shade, etc.

also remember this,

it is my assertion that it is not big oil that is screwing with your boys and their work,

big oil has bought heavily into AE on all kinds of stuff, from corn oil production for bio, alcohol for gasohol, solar panels, wind farms, battery, and just about ever facet of that segment, so that they win no matter which way the AGW debate goes,,, also for all i know they have controlling interest in the carbon credit trading as well,

we are not going to quit burning oil, and the oil companies no there is no threat to their bottom line in that regard so why would they fight global warming?  it is in their best interest to support global warming if not blatantly certainly behind the scenes.

as far as i can tell they are the only ones that stand to make bank no matter what happens with AGW

so i don't see big oil as the boogie man you make them out to be, less than saintly certainly, but decidedly not satan either,
and if they are into the AGW debate behind the scenes it is only to find out how to position their holdings to maximize profits
as any good business does if it is to succeed and continue onward.

i think you need to find a different bad guy to blame this on.

the only ones that i can see that will be hurt by AGW legislation is the little people, we end up paying the added taxes, and put up
with draconian regulation and have to pay for whatever regulation cost to industry anyway,, they sure don't pay for it themselves out of
their hip pocket,, yes they pay it and pass the added costs on to us, with a markup for profit attached.

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 15, 2010, 10:20:04 PM

big oil has bought heavily into AE on all kinds of stuff, from corn oil production for bio, alcohol for gasohol, solar panels, wind farms, battery, and just about ever facet of that segment, so that they win no matter which way the AGW debate goes,,, also for all i know they have controlling interest in the carbon credit trading as well,

i think you need to find a different bad guy to blame this on.


I seem to remember reading an article on Shell (one of the biggies) and how they were trumpeting the "green" investments that they were making.  It was an economic analysis of the total expenditures vs the gov't grants and tax write offs because of those investments and it all added up to pretty much zero net investment.

Now I don't expect you to believe me and so I'm going to assiduously investigate and see if I can find the Shell example.  Not that Exxon would be that disingenuous however, but maybe so.  ::)
Stan

Here's one article, don't know the writer, evidently a wall street type.   http://industry.bnet.com/energy/100062/exxonmobil-avoiding-the-worlds-toughest-energy-challenges/

Another from the Center for American Progress, (whatever that means...haven't looked into them yet either, maybe they're left wing)  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/big_oil_misers.html

So Exxon Mobile invested less than 1% of it's profit in green energy at first glance, more investigating in progress.  Pretty stingy I'd say for the top earning company in the world.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 15, 2010, 10:35:12 PM
Who just wants their life back the way we expected it to be years ago when our problem were local not global?

  
http://detroit.craigslist.org/okl/mcy/1596168526.html

Cool, would love to find one of those locally.  I could pay cash for it.   ;D

Only 2 things wrong with our society today.  I was talking to a litigation lawyer from Calgary going up the ski lift the other day and we both agreed on these 2 as the top 2 things to change.

1.) We have trained a brand new generation that they can have whatever they want, whenever they want it, even if they can't afford it.
2.) We have uncounted millions of N. Americans running their own personal ponzi schemes, paying off one credit card with the next new one they get.

No economic model we know of can survive for long when those two factors are running simultaneously.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 15, 2010, 11:24:37 PM
yup but we do it all for the ladies. Hard to pick up a chick on skate board..

It all makes perfect sence.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 16, 2010, 12:05:57 AM
Ok, this is hilarious (more so if you saw the movie and know the real context)

Hitler on climate Change.... Stan, Doug, Bob, regardless of where you see things, this is very funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-PI2vCA9ck
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 12:38:04 AM
Andy did you watch any of the Econnomist videos in my link?

Please watch Thinning on top and Climate change and food.....

<iframe src='http://video.economist.com/linking/index.jsp?skin=oneclip&ehv=http://audiovideo.economist.com/&fr_story=6d6455225c0d26f93e62d1cca6e2b39968fbf3b3&rf=ev&hl=true' width=402 height=336 scrolling='no' frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0></iframe>

<iframe src='http://video.economist.com/linking/index.jsp?skin=oneclip&ehv=http://audiovideo.economist.com/&fr_story=99c9766668c294ad7c6048b444de3785443dd6df&rf=ev&hl=true' width=402 height=336 scrolling='no' frameborder=0 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0></iframe>

Personaly I don't think these guys are dummies.
http://audiovideo.economist.com/?fr_story=f3bb24bf00b55a124ac079d7f5d235bbe999f947&rf=bm&source=hptextfeature
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 16, 2010, 12:51:00 AM
yup but we do it all for the ladies. Hard to pick up a chick on skate board..

It all makes perfect sence.

Not if you're trolling for a skater chick (don't knock em unless you've tried em)  ;D
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 16, 2010, 01:14:29 AM
Hitler talks to his Internet Service Provider because Lister Engine forum is down
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHtzvuk16Xo&feature=related

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 01:32:30 AM
Pruit Igoe by Phillip Glass because somethings are done with the best of intensions and blow up in our faces.....

Minoru Yamasaki's last significant project the world trade center

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t29fgA5M7VA
Life out of ballance indeed....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 16, 2010, 03:31:58 AM
 Lake Erie is frozen over completely for the first time in 14 years!

Meanwhile, Vancouver is experiencing warmest Feb in 115 years!!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 16, 2010, 04:34:10 AM
And it was the warmest month in recorded history worldwide.....Just a few tenths of a degree warmer means more powerful lows sucking moist air up from the South, and more cold air down from the North, mixing over the great plains to make stronger storms and more snow in the midwest US and the East coast of the continent while drawing the "pineapple express" warm air current in from the direction of Hawaii to blanket the South West in wetter wets, and the N. West coast in warm moist conditions.  Mix in a good strong el nino and sit back and watch the excitement in the next couple of years.   :o :o :o :o :o

Easily explainable, just the laws of fluid dynamics in the atmosphere.  Just plain old simple science.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 02:47:41 PM
I'll donate a dollar to buy every Brazilian, and Indonesian kid a book of matches.

Let it all burn Halloween orange and Chimney red.....

Rebalance the equation and I'll grow plumbs and peaches full and ripe with all your essential heavy metals. Its probably too late now so FTW you reap what you sow.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 16, 2010, 03:26:45 PM
so if all the ice is melting from the north pole, where is all the cold air coming from to mix with warm air and get colder
to make for ice storms and snow storms?

damn that ice up north must start melting at about 20 below zero F!

yes Stan, we know about fluid dynamics, but the equation doesn't balance

not unless you canadians are sucking all the heat out of the warm arctic air with your heat pumps before it comes down here

 ::)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 05:38:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKgNgfFUl4E&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 16, 2010, 10:41:30 PM
Bob....it doesn't take -20 deg to make a cold front.  All it has to be is slightly cooler than the air coming up from Alabama to interact and make percip.   If you want it to be snow, you only need it to be -2 deg C and you've got all the snow you want.

I said, global warming makes STRONGER lows and highs, that's what's responsible for the sucking and pushing.

I wonder, have you ever heard anyone that has calculated how many horse power it takes to generate and run a hurricane????   :o
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 16, 2010, 10:49:59 PM
And it was the warmest month in recorded history worldwide.....Just a few tenths of a degree warmer means more powerful lows sucking moist air up from the South, and more cold air down from the North, mixing over the great plains to make stronger storms and more snow in the midwest US and the East coast of the continent while drawing the "pineapple express" warm air current in from the direction of Hawaii to blanket the South West in wetter wets, and the N. West coast in warm moist conditions.  Mix in a good strong el nino and sit back and watch the excitement in the next couple of years.   :o :o :o :o :o

Easily explainable, just the laws of fluid dynamics in the atmosphere.  Just plain old simple science.
Stan


Interesting, for the warmest month in recorded history, we have the East coast frozen and the EU in a deep freeze.  Where did you get your record setting info from... more so as Feb has not finished yet.  Were the temperatures recorded in Mexico?  Texas is in a freeze
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 16, 2010, 11:09:24 PM

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.

And of course to all the above, you can add:

Pachaurigate III: It has been well established that Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, serves on the board of numerous green companies and organizations and is slated to become as rich as Bill Gates on the CO2 schemes being proposed under the guise of global warming. The green is all about greed it seems.

GISSgate: In response to a freedom of information request NASA’s GISS was required to produce a series of emails, which in turn revealed that (a) NASA admits the current warm period is not historically different from the period around 1921-1950, and (cool.gif that there has been no sign of global warming in North America or the US. How is global warming possible when it is not ‘global’?

Coolergate: The real killer is the global temperature itself, which has been cooling since 2000, and not showing any warming since 1995 – according to Dr Phil Jones, previous head of CRU. In addition, Jones admitted there is no data to overturn the long held scientific theory that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today. Jones admits lack of data in other regions was used by Mann and others to make up the idea the MWP was cooler, but lack of data is not the same thing as proxies showing cooler temps!

It is a great list to clobber the few die-hard Al Gore groupies with.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 11:27:18 PM
I'm not complaining its been a nice winter here mild to normal, less snow...
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 11:28:00 PM
I'd realy like to pick this up in 20 years.....

I have 20 bucks on Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: lowspeedlife on February 16, 2010, 11:33:59 PM
If Stan's right we'll all have been broiled long before that but I'll put $ 20.00 on human beings.

  Scott R.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 16, 2010, 11:52:22 PM
Talking all bets here.....

Talking all bets.......

Step right up.....

I'm probably going to get the crap kicked out of me for this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLi2QU3OEOQ&feature=related
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 17, 2010, 12:13:09 AM
Talking all bets here.....

Talking all bets.......

Step right up.....

I'm probably going to get the crap kicked out of me for this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLi2QU3OEOQ&feature=related

I saw a lot of stuff on pollution... not much on global warming
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 17, 2010, 01:58:45 AM
Ya but its all MJ and that fellow makes my skin crawl....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 17, 2010, 03:00:30 AM
Doug:

put me down for 20, and  you know which side i am betting on!

"momma nature", she wins out every time

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 17, 2010, 03:14:52 AM
Andrew, Nice posting, too bad it's straight out of "partial truths to obfuscate the issues"..   Waay too long to critique the entire thing, here's just one example....

"AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported."

Again the partial truth.  Yes the "green campaigners" were quoted in the Times with this story.  BUT (here's the rest of the story) the actual scientific study was done, it's facts were correct, it's predictions are stood by the scientists.  They were actually a little miffed that the Times reported the source was a green environmental group, but in any event its a good study, well done, and well reviewed.

It's too bad the people who make a living by trying to pick holes in the global warming camp don't research a little more in depth into their stories before they report them so the rest of the story can be told.

I'm still waiting for any anti-global warming group to do their own research, publish it and "prove" a) the world is not warming up.   b) it's not being caused by man, and c) its not going to be bad for us.  :-\

btw....the "January 2010"  (not february) global temperature data shows the worlds average temp in January is the warmest in recorded history.  Here's all the data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/04/january-uah-global-temperature-warmest/

Where's the anti-global warming data ?   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 17, 2010, 04:56:12 AM
Stan.... your own link explains the peak... here it is, a direct cut and copy.

Quote
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.

The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February of 1998.

Oh yes Stan, stop the hyperbol, this is only a 32 year record... not the warmest on record, only over the last 32 years

If your going to live by the sword, be prepared for a few cuts :D

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 17, 2010, 02:11:15 PM
I feel like doing some bets....

I feel this spring and summer are going to be warmer and earlier than normal.

If I win Bob and Andrew owe 1 pound of coffee ( must not be of Brazilian origins ). If I loose I will mail you both a  nice shiny rock ( same thing I gave Stan ). You guys work out a fair bet with stan ok?

Can't bet any money Bob, I don't have any to spare....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: wrightkiller on February 17, 2010, 02:41:28 PM
Can I get in on this bet.... ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 17, 2010, 03:30:18 PM
Stan.... your own link explains the peak... here it is, a direct cut and copy.

Quote
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly soared to +0.72 deg. C in January, 2010. This is the warmest January in the 32-year satellite-based data record.

The tropics and Northern and Southern Hemispheres were all well above normal, especially the tropics where El Nino conditions persist. Note the global-average warmth is approaching the warmth reached during the 1997-98 El Nino, which peaked in February of 1998.

Oh yes Stan, stop the hyperbol, this is only a 32 year record... not the warmest on record, only over the last 32 years

If your going to live by the sword, be prepared for a few cuts :D


Again I guess I have to explain to you Andrew because you obviously didn't read the article very closely.  The article refers to the average monthly temperatures recorded of the global-average lower tropospheric temperatures recorded by satellite.  Of course they don't go back hundreds of years!  ::)  Are you somehow thinking they had satellites hundreds of years ago?  There's no other way to measure the lower tropospheric temperatures which are so critical to the earth's climate.

The article states very plainly that..... "[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT's are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]

I don't blame you Andrew for not catching this in the report.  Most of what we read in the newspapers has been "dumbed down" for the average person who only reads the first 8 lines of any report, and then only if it's written in short, easy to understand language.  The climate debate depends upon fairly complex scientific data which cannot be expressed accurately unless complex ideas and language are used.

That is not to say the leftys are any better than Jeff Beck on this.  They know the general public can only sit still for those infamous 8 lines and so they too put their reports in "public speak".  That's one of the reasons quite clearly spelled out in Phil Jone's interview that he is reluctant to issue regular reports to the public because they are often published in quite complex forms and guys like Jeff Beck can neither understand nor is inclined to put the effort into understanding them and so will just report those infamous first 8 lines.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 17, 2010, 03:37:46 PM
thats ok Doug

your credit is good with me!


if i am wrong, there will be no brazilian coffee, it will be a vast desert wasteland
and you will have coffee planation growing up your way

you can be the new spokesman

"Doug Valdez"

lmao

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 17, 2010, 05:09:29 PM
I ran across this today, and it fits my own personal opinion of how the "media" reports what should be plain simple news.  It's a perfect example (fictional but appropriate) of why I don't believe 1/10th of what I read in the public press no matter what affiliation it ascribes too.    Andrew, you'd appreciate this one.
Stan

    A Harley biker is visiting the zoo in Calgary , Alberta when he sees a
    little girl leaning into the bars of the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion
    grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to
    slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

    The biker without hesitation runs to the cage and hits the lion square on
    the nose with a powerful punch.

    Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and
    the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A
    CBC reporter has watched the whole event.

    The reporter addressing the biker says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant
    and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

    The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was
    behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt
    right.'

    The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a
    journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the
    front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political
    affiliation do you have?'

    The biker replies, 'I'm a soldier in the Canadian military and a conservative.' The journalist leaves.

    The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings
    news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:

    CANADIAN SOLDIER ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH

    That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 17, 2010, 10:13:33 PM
HAHAHA I Like that one Stan... fits me to a T...

I remember when I was working for Preston Manning, and one day he was walking his dog along the Canal here in Ottawa.  Preston threw a stick too far and into the water it went.  Much to Prestons horror, a reporter from the Toronto Star was sitting watching the whole thing.  Prestons dog ran up to the water, and proceeded to walk across the water, pick up the stick, and walk back.

Headline in the next days Toronto Star (Liberal Pravda)

MANNINGS DOG CANT SWIM!!!!
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 18, 2010, 03:18:37 AM
I think I told this one before...I investigated a very busy crosswalk and reported for a group of parents to the school board about how busy it was.  I had 8 or 10 specific data points to cover.   Things like "there were 360 cars per hour passing by this crosswalk (or some such).  Remember, Specific points. 

I printed each of the points out on a single piece of paper and photo copied several copies, one of which I gave to the reporter for the local paper who was present.

The next day the paper came out and the reporter had all but one of the points wrong, some of them 180 degrees wrong. 

I've never trusted the press, any press since.

That's why I don't trust the star or the telegraph or the times or scientific american or any of them.  I read the data, research how it was gathered and form my own opinions.  That way if I'm wrong, its me that's wrong, and I will take the lumps myself.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 19, 2010, 09:59:15 PM
WTF?

The Thread that never ends...... Ended........

Or are you boys just waiting for the snow to melt to see who wins the coffee?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on February 19, 2010, 11:44:30 PM
lol Ive been busy freezing my bum in this Warmer weather :D

Cant wait to get the bike on the road
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 20, 2010, 12:39:32 AM
I"ve been busy praying for colder weather and more snow, just like in Vancouver.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That and battling indoor gyprock dust (connection of  said dust to global warming very tenuous but I'm thinking about the ramifications).   ::)

Anyone who has successfully convinced their wife that sawdust and gyprock dust isn't real dirt, please let me know how you did it?
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on February 20, 2010, 01:38:44 AM
plaster dust??

that was the beginning of the downhill slide between me and my ex, that ended in the bloodiest divorce in recorded history

btw, recorded history for divorces go back hundreds of years, instead of a couple decades  :)

i got so tired of hearing her bitch about dust, and covering stuff, which there is no way to  cover stuff good  enough to preclude plaster dust,
that i just quit working on the remodel.

i swear that dust is so fine it can migrate into a can of green beans, sealed in a ziplock bag, stored in a spare refrigerator kept in a detached garage three blocks down the street, upwind, during a rainstorm.

if they ever figure out how to weaponize plaster dust, we are all doomed!


bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 20, 2010, 01:50:12 AM
They make a low dust gypsom plaster now.

I swear by it, all dust falls straight down much less mess....
I have another trick for you too. Only do this kind of work in the warmer months keep all the windows closed except where you are working. Some place else thats clean in your house place a fan outside blowing in ( some card board ducking required ). This will presurize your home and blow the dust out the only other open window in the area where you are working.

And my wife can be a real badger....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 20, 2010, 03:09:21 PM
Yup, I now have a bucket of the "less dusty' stuff, hope it works.  Done the seal the room and put a fan in trick in the summer, and I think I'll do it now, almost summer temps outside.  Had to shut off the pellet stove yesterday, it got too hot inside, just a little bit of sun showing with plus 6 temps and no additional heat needed.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 20, 2010, 10:25:27 PM

btw, recorded history for divorces go back hundreds of years, instead of a couple decades  :)

However, if they ever find a way to detect divorces by satellite, then recorded history by that method will be only 32 years. 

(If that ever happens, we will probably have much bigger problems with our governments than global warming will treat us too.  >:(

Stan



Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 21, 2010, 03:42:15 PM
You know its funny how this thread wanders and now we are talking about dust and divorce.

What I was a boy we used to life near a sand pit/ This was a fairly fine sand too and there was no way to keep it out of the house. My mother would curse my father for buying that house and not considering the sand pit a few miles across the road.
Today they are divorced too.....

My Father in law worked in a dust factory. No joke it has to come from some place.....
Actually it was a fine powder called "Sinter 75", 75% nickle oxide powder  + other stuff ( tramp metals and slag ). It settled in his lungs and never came out and like so many men of his generation he would get a year chest X ray to look for cancer from it. The dust was everywhere from it. It would come home in his close, he would blow it out of his nose and hack it out of his lungs. And the most interesting things about that particular dust was it would stain everything black.
He did not get divorced but his wife got a new washing machine quite often.

The dust of Neelon casting was grey and hung in the air around the foundry. You could taste that stuff. It settled on the cars and and turned and ground and when the rains came it would rust. Get that on you skin and when you sweat it would rust and you could never seem to wash it off. My wife hated that dust because it always made me look like I had that fake spray on orange tan.

Then there was the Smelter fail out from my youth. On a fall out day the stack emissions would leave these little black and yellow specs that would leave a blight on anything green like broad leave plants . And it would burn the paint on your car so you were wary of how and where you parked.
This didn't cause any divorces as I recall but it made a lot of people bitchy and pissed off . People like my Dad who now lives in Florida
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: DRDEATH on February 21, 2010, 05:31:29 PM
I see we are on the subject of dust. The first time I had to have a chest X ray for a job I learned something. We always raised chickens growing up on a farm. The doctor that read the X ray asked if I had ever lived on a farm. When I told him yes he questioned if we had chickens. It seems that the manure of chickens in chicken coups becomes very fine. Then when you go in and clean out it odes become very dusty. These little dust particles settle in the lungs if you are not wearing a mask. At one time doctors thought it was TB until further test were done. So I suppose I am still running around with chicken s**t in my lungs. They ought be fertilized well. It hasn't seem to cause any other problems. I suppose the EPA could have protected me. "NOT" So everyone stay warm. It has not really been that warm here and today it isn't even close to warm. DRDEATH
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 22, 2010, 01:32:03 AM
Something is going to be anounced a a couple of days I guess....
What I do know is they have something on the order of 100,000,000 dollars in venture capital invested and some test fuels cells that apear promissing/
I never believed in a fuel cell system for a couple of reasons the PM group metals and the need for very pure hydrogen and oxygen fuel.

http://www.bloomenergy.com/
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: wrightkiller on February 22, 2010, 12:26:27 PM
http://news.google.com/news?q=bloomenergy&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=vHeCS6ulKcaf8AbSk4GlBQ&sa=X&oi=news_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQsQQwAA
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: wrightkiller on February 22, 2010, 12:28:42 PM
http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/22/bloom-energy-boxes/
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 22, 2010, 03:38:09 PM
It looks great!  I just keep thinking about my grandmother who constantly said "if it looks too good to be true, it usually is".

It'd be fantastic if everything he says comes true, but.....
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: wrightkiller on February 22, 2010, 04:12:47 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228923n
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 22, 2010, 07:31:23 PM
Well I am optimistic Stan.

In the mean time I just applied to work at Grand Cache Coal. Look what they have pushed me too...
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 23, 2010, 12:00:45 AM
Grand Cache....GRAND CACHE!   Wow!  I'm speechless.  That's,  well,  way out there!  Do you hunt?

My buddies are getting back to me on names of human resource people in the mines nearby to Fernie.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 23, 2010, 01:07:41 AM
I google earthed it Stan looks like a god forsaken place.

But I'm running out of choice. I've given up on Vile Inco they are not worth working for and I am going to clear out my tools and quit if GC coal works out. They need electrcians and pay.

You know Sudbury used to be a the last place anyone wanted to be too. In my father's youth Grass didn't even grow here just dust and red dirt.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 23, 2010, 08:27:15 PM
Lots of coal mines at Tumbler Ridge...google it also.  It's out of the way too but then so are most coal mines.  ???
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Tijean on February 23, 2010, 09:47:22 PM
Doug, I imagine you will check out what their expected life span is. I thought I heard that a lot of Tumbler ridge was history. Be careful of getting locked into real estate. We know what happens to prices when mines die. I"m done chasing smokestacks and head frames so havent been keeping track of whats hopping. Have an acquaintance who moved to Dawson Creek and couldnt be happier! Mind you Grande Cache is more in the boonies than that but sounds like a big enough town to have a bit of variety and good outdoors.

Sudbury is not the good old boys club it used to be. Neither is the Sault now, but that comes with selling to Foreign ownership. Just another twist in the age old game between the industrialists and workers. I worked for EB Eddy and they sold out to a large company who was in a better position to play hardball with the union. Like it or not "things is changed" and a lot of the good old times are gone.

Had a buddy who did 5 years sentence in Ft McMurray; he and his wife both worked and they put enough away to come back and make a little gig at home. Unfortunately the big "C" caught up to the cigarettes and asbestos exposure. Game over at 54. Anyways if you aren't having fun anymore go on an adventure trip. Not all change is bad!

Frank
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 23, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
My Grandfather ran the #2 paper machine at the Espanola and some place around here I have his KVP ID badge.
Ya DUMTAR did a real good job of running the wheels off that EB too.

Fuck it I am fed up with Vale, Brazil, AFI spies following me taking pictures.

This country has gone to hell Just hope I can sell my house

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 24, 2010, 03:49:06 AM
Take pictures of them and post them online.  Scares the hell out of them.
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 24, 2010, 06:23:09 PM
Thats already been done. The best thing to do at this point we are told is call the police and tell them they are outside our homes or following us.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on February 25, 2010, 05:15:58 AM
btw...I"ve seen Tumbler ridge when it was just a Planned community.  Paved streets, complete with fire hydrants, curbs, sidewalks, lamp posts, but no buildings.  I just had to drive to the end of the gravel road, through the farmer's field (remembering to close the gates, it's only polite) down 30 miles of logging road, and there it was.

Bet you can't guess what the first building built in Tumbler Ridge was?



The government liquor store  ;D  I kid you not!

Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on February 25, 2010, 03:03:56 PM
Thats typical....

Elliot lake was much the same before the unranium bust. Now its a town full of old retired people.

In many respects thats not a bad thing small planned comunities like that turn out to be very nice places for snow birds with a budget
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: DRDEATH on March 03, 2010, 03:44:26 AM
I just read that the earthquake they had in Chilie caused the earth to shift some on its axis. I wonder what the scientist will have to say about that and the climate??? It said it will affect the length of the days. Just thought I would pass this along if someone didn't see that. Mike  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on March 03, 2010, 04:32:12 AM
 I had a professor once that likened large earthquakes to someone sneezing in a car parked at a drive in movie (remember them?).  It shakes the car but doesn't affect the operation of the vehicle much.
Stan

Ahhhhhhh  the good old days in the 51 chev pickup at the drive in.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on March 03, 2010, 01:54:58 PM
Last time I was at a drive in they were playing Star Wars.

Didn;t notice any sneezing but there was a considerable amount of foggy windows.....
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: DRDEATH on March 03, 2010, 02:20:40 PM
We still have a drive in theatre in dodge. It is a great way to take grandchildren to the movie. They can run around and no one cares. We just pack up a cooler take the lawn chairs and have a great time. It is 12 dollars a vehicle to get in. They always have double feature. Mike
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on March 05, 2010, 04:08:26 AM
Ahhhhh....foggy windows.................that's where the children come from :-[
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on March 05, 2010, 05:25:45 AM
yup shift momma earth 3 ft on its axis, and reduced our day by 1.69 microseconds

they say the quake back in '02 (whereever that one was, i forget) shift the earths axis 6ft.

the results of both time and location won't effect weather or most of us in our daily lives, but
it will play hell with the gps systems and all those satellites in orbit that have to keep every coordinate
spot on,, over time the mapping will shift with ever increasing errors that will have to be accounted for.

so the next time tomtom tells you to turn right, don't get alarmed if you jump over the curb!

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Doug on March 06, 2010, 01:49:53 AM
Ahhhhh....foggy windows.................that's where the children come from :-[
Stan

My sone asked me where he came from and I showed him puppies on Youtube being born and discussed it.
He then said all disgusted I cam out of momies butt?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on March 06, 2010, 02:38:01 AM

they say the quake back in '02 (whereever that one was, i forget) shift the earths axis 6ft.

the results of both time and location won't effect weather or most of us in our daily lives, but
it will play hell with the gps systems and all those satellites in orbit that have to keep every coordinate
spot on,, over time the mapping will shift with ever increasing errors that will have to be accounted for.

so the next time tomtom tells you to turn right, don't get alarmed if you jump over the curb!

:)

bob g

It all evens out, if an earthquake shunts in one direction it moves the earth a little that-a-way, then the next one shunts it the other way.  I wouldn't sweat it.

As for the time, they can't measure time that exactly, they're just guessing.  It might be 1.2 microseconds, or it might be 3 microseconds, who the hell cares?  Oh, I'm tired today, it must be because I got up 1.4 microseconds early?   ;D
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on March 06, 2010, 11:29:17 PM
i dunno Stan,
i come a hell of a lot closer to believing that the can measure the length of a day down to microseconds, and tilt
to a few inches, than the algore crew and AGW

if you cannot measure the length of a day to a microsecond, then there is no way you can predict AGW with any degree of certainty.

:)

(just to get us back on topic)

:)

bob g
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on March 07, 2010, 02:06:37 AM
i dunno Stan,
i come a hell of a lot closer to believing that the can measure the length of a day down to microseconds, and tilt
to a few inches, than the algore crew and AGW

if you cannot measure the length of a day to a microsecond, then there is no way you can predict AGW with any degree of certainty.


What the heck does the ability to measure the speed of the earth's rotation down to microseconds, have to do with keeping records of temperature to the degree C over many decades?
Stan


Edit...I dont' know anything about measuring the speed of the earth's rotation, (and don't really care) but here's a guy who apparantly does.  Taken from the Kansas City Star newspaper so take with a grain of salt.

"Richard Gross, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and colleagues calculated that Saturday's quake shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds. A microsecond is one-millionth of a second.

The length of a day is the time it takes for the planet to complete one rotation - 86,400 seconds or 24 hours.

An earthquake can make Earth rotate faster by nudging some of its mass closer to the planet's axis, just as ice skaters can speed up their spins by pulling in their arms. Conversely, a quake can slow the rotation and lengthen the day if it redistributes mass away from that axis, Gross said Tuesday.

Gross said the calculated changes in length of the day are permanent. So a bunch of big quakes could add up to make the day shorter, "but these changes are very, very small."

So small, in fact, that scientists can't record them directly. Gross said actual observations of the length of the day are accurate to five-millionths of a second. His estimate of the effect of the Chile quake is only a quarter of that span."
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: mobile_bob on March 07, 2010, 08:09:31 AM
in my best steve martin


"well excuuuuuuuuse meeeeee!"


lmao

bob g

ps, i am just waiting for another agw loon to spout off more of their drivel about the earthquakes being due to something
caused by man.

probably drilling for oil and facturing the well?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: Stan on March 07, 2010, 06:04:40 PM
"Loon", that's the name of our dollar coin, the "loonie".  (cause it's got a picture of a loon on the back [or is it the front] of it), so don't you go dissin our money now, I hear they're going to change our paper based money to a form of plastic based money.  Evidently New Zealand has had it since 1990.  It's supposed to last much longer than the paper based stuff.

Anyway, I also hear that quite a few "flat earth" people are among the dedicated global warming hoax people.  ;)
Stan
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: t19 on March 07, 2010, 11:40:38 PM
"Loon", that's the name of our dollar coin, the "loonie".  (cause it's got a picture of a loon on the back [or is it the front] of it), so don't you go dissin our money now, I hear they're going to change our paper based money to a form of plastic based money.  Evidently New Zealand has had it since 1990.  It's supposed to last much longer than the paper based stuff.

Anyway, I also hear that quite a few "flat earth" people are among the dedicated global warming hoax people.  ;)
Stan

FIFY
:)
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: skippytdi on March 25, 2013, 11:06:56 PM
Yes.  Absolutely.  As a matter of fact it would be nice if they cease these upper atmospheric reflective particle tests they are currently performing (at least) in the northeast this spring. 
The sun gets warmer regardless of how cold the air is.  This is not a march sun. 
Anyone else feeling this?
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: AdeV on March 26, 2013, 03:32:50 PM
According to our recently-resigned (retired) Government Chief Scientist, Global Warming (ah, sorry, Climate Change) is real, but now there's a 25 year delay between cause & effect.... so any "warming" we're seeing now is a result of the 1980s. Must be all that hairspray.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: skippytdi on March 28, 2013, 02:58:09 AM
According to our recently-resigned (retired) Government Chief Scientist, Global Warming (ah, sorry, Climate Change) is real, but now there's a 25 year delay between cause & effect.... so any "warming" we're seeing now is a result of the 1980s. Must be all that hairspray.



Confuse the masses with a little math and blame them for all the problems.  Thats very christian of them...
hoax is a the perfect replacement for the word politics.  Now time to get some answers regarding building seven.
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: millman56 on March 28, 2013, 08:10:17 AM
According to our recently-resigned (retired) Government Chief Scientist, Global Warming (ah, sorry, Climate Change) is real, but now there's a 25 year delay between cause & effect.... so any "warming" we're seeing now is a result of the 1980s. Must be all that hairspray.


   Just like the health and safety industry,  the global warming industry has outgrown its reason for being and is a global problem in its own right with an army of self interested charlatans and politicians drowning out the commonsense people.    Of course anyone running a CS on veg oil is to be commended for their efforts to stave off global warming.

Mark.

Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: LowGear on March 28, 2013, 05:52:36 PM
The Tooth Fairy is alive.

The part of the myth I like is that we can try to release all of the carbon and associated heat from around the Mesozoic era but not return to that environment - climate.  Perhaps once the mast ocean algae populations come to life and the oil and coal beds begin to reform the planet will return to a more human friendly place.  So get out there and over fertilize that lawn today.  Save the planet.  Better living through chemistry.

Casey
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: skippytdi on March 29, 2013, 01:01:26 AM
The Tooth Fairy is alive.

The part of the myth I like is that we can try to release all of the carbon and associated heat from around the Mesozoic era but not return to that environment - climate.  Perhaps once the mast ocean algae populations come to life and the oil and coal beds begin to reform the planet will return to a more human friendly place.  So get out there and over fertilize that lawn today.  Save the planet.  Better living through chemistry.

Casey

And technology!  A few years ago i went out and had my 20 year old cast iron boiler with a wall mounted plastic one that saves me twenty bucks in gas a year...  Although it was a tad more expensive, and i need to replace it because they stopped making my particular model two years ago and the parts are no longer available... and i need a part...

http://www.searchautoparts.com/motorage/maintenance-repair/cracking-toyotas-code
Heres a brilliant article showing how your cars brakes and electronics may be blood relatives... Except this guy is so stupid, when his wifes car loses its brakes cause of an electonics failure he doesn't scrap the car, he fixes it...
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: LowGear on March 29, 2013, 04:57:02 PM

And technology!  A few years ago i went out and had my 20 year old cast iron boiler with a wall mounted plastic one that saves me twenty bucks in gas a year...  Although it was a tad more expensive, and i need to replace it because they stopped making my particular model two years ago and the parts are no longer available... and i need a part...


The Iphone 5 uses a different charging/data connector.  Poor Apple Corporation now has to resupply all of the accessories that make the Iphone such a great companion.  So the battery died in my four year old Iphone this week.  Do fix it or upgrade to the 5.  If the battery replacement doesn't work I'll be going to another OS.  Yup, a different battery voids the warranty.  I wonder why it doesn't void the copyrights?  Wait a minute.  Perhaps I should pick up another used Iphone GS for a few dollars, stick my AT&T card inside it and help save the planet. 

The only constant is change.

Casey
Title: Re: Climate Warming a hoax?
Post by: skippytdi on April 06, 2013, 02:41:12 AM

And technology!  A few years ago i went out and had my 20 year old cast iron boiler with a wall mounted plastic one that saves me twenty bucks in gas a year...  Although it was a tad more expensive, and i need to replace it because they stopped making my particular model two years ago and the parts are no longer available... and i need a part...


The Iphone 5 uses a different charging/data connector.  Poor Apple Corporation now has to resupply all of the accessories that make the Iphone such a great companion.  So the battery died in my four year old Iphone this week.  Do fix it or upgrade to the 5.  If the battery replacement doesn't work I'll be going to another OS.  Yup, a different battery voids the warranty.  I wonder why it doesn't void the copyrights?  Wait a minute.  Perhaps I should pick up another used Iphone GS for a few dollars, stick my AT&T card inside it and help save the planet. 

The only constant is change.

Casey

I get in heated debates regarding iphone versus android with an old school chum.  Hilarious, i've used the inability to change your own battery without a screwdriver arguement with him but i forgot his rather crafty defensive reply.
Its quite a shame that humanity hasn't demanded change for the better. 
Perhaps as a species we deserve to get the rather soiled end of the stick.