PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Kevin Bonham
17-12-2007, 10:39 PM
And Angus Friday of Grenada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7156947), who represents small island states, said the "Bali roadmap" was disappointing and could have been agreed by e-mail instead of sending more than 10,000 delegates on carbon-spewing jets for two weeks to Bali.

In my experience, agreeing almost any contentious motion by email is a very difficult and complicated business. Email is only really a good way to have meetings if virtually everyone agrees.

But surely modern technology should not be too far away from the point where this kind of thing can be done by online conference-call.

pax
18-12-2007, 12:58 AM
But surely modern technology should not be too far away from the point where this kind of thing can be done by online conference-call.

Probably not, but I am unaware of any really major international meeting taking place virtually. And I would bet big money that the first time it is tried will involve a number of major technical disasters.

Axiom
18-12-2007, 01:26 AM
Probably not, but I am unaware of any really major international meeting taking place virtually. And I would bet big money that the first time it is tried will involve a number of major technical disasters.
maybe FIDE could do it for them !

Spiny Norman
18-12-2007, 06:05 AM
At least some contrary opinion is starting to be aired in the media:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22938759-7583,00.html

These statements of "there is no debate" and "the debate is over" that pro-human-caused-warming advocates keep trotting out are a desperate attempt to stop a real debate that is happening. There are real scientists who are specialists in this area, publishing in real peer-reviewed, mainstream journals, who dispute the conclusions of the IPCC.

IPCC seems to be a self-serving organisation. If they don't find cause for alarm, they'll be disbanded. They are on the public money gravy train and have no incentive to get off it.

Spiny Norman
18-12-2007, 07:34 AM
My son is hilarious ... every time I mention human-caused global warming, he tells me not to be stupid and blames the lack of pirates (i.e. the statistical correlation between reduction in piracy and the increase in global temperatures since the 1700's).
Here's the evidence:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

What more do you need? We deperately need more piracy ... :idea:

Aaron Guthrie
18-12-2007, 10:00 AM
What more do you need?A plausible mechanism.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 10:41 AM
Probably not, but I am unaware of any really major international meeting taking place virtually. And I would bet big money that the first time it is tried will involve a number of major technical disasters.
But all Bali achieved was America-bashing and promise for more talk, for the huge expense and CO2 emissions that it produced.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 10:42 AM
In my experience, agreeing almost any contentious motion by email is a very difficult and complicated business. Email is only really a good way to have meetings if virtually everyone agrees.
That can be an advantage: people are less likely to be bullied into a "consensus" that way.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 10:44 AM
Of course there is an optimal point. But can you tell me where it is? And can you tell me what the difference in net travel is between that point and Bali?
Multiply this by many thousands for the number of delegates. I'm just sick of these Gulfstream Greenie hypocritical poseurs.


In an overall sense, I'd have thought the optimal point is probably the country that is willing to plant 79 million trees in the lead-up.
So they say, after massive deforestation and CO2 emissions.

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 10:51 AM
In case you hadn't noticed, we live on a sphere. Or are you pushing flat-earth theory now?
No, because the Bible indicates a round earth, and the Church has almost uniformly taught it. I suppose you still swallow the myth that Columbus was virtually the only round-earth believer of his day. See The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html) (Summary by historian Prof. Jeffrey Burton Russell, author of the book Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians (ISBN 027595904X)).

But there should have been a venue that wasn't an ocean away from Europe and America. But a holiday resort was just too good an opportunity to miss for the provenly corrupt US bureaucrats.


You're talking out both sides of your head. Either you want the developing world involved in this, or you don't (again, rhetorical, as you clearly want nobody involved in it).
I want nobody screwing up our economy esp. when it won't make any difference to world temp anyway given that we emit <1.5% of man-produced CO2. Barry Maley points out in Panic the big threat to planet (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22938759-5013480,00.html):


At stake are billions of dollars in new taxes and costs, reduced export income, the disabling of whole industries and investment in them, and fortunes made by the promoters of horrendously expensive energy substitutes. There will be large-scale net costs imposed on the rest of us. More than $3 billion worth of programs are already committed, with additional plans for trashing household hot water systems and billions for renewable energy.

...

Government and media have acquiesced in the dissemination of fear-mongering along with abuse and intimidation levelled at those who have sought to raise a dissenting voice. Eminent and respected scientists and the writers who make known their findings have regularly had their motives impugned when they have spoken out in protest.

...

The more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, the less greenhouse effect it has. Beyond a relatively small concentration, the effect of additional carbon dioxide decreases logarithmically, almost to vanishing point. This was argued in the 1980s by Fred Hoyle, more recently supported by climate expert Richard Lindzen, and recognised in 1990 and later by the IPCC. If true, we would expect an ambiguous relationship between global temperature and increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. That proves to be the case. [Ph.D. spectroscopists like me know this very well: the Beer–Lambert Law: A = αlc, where A (absorbance) = log(10) I(incident)/I(transmitted), α=absorption coefficient, l = path length and c = concentration. This is all about logarithmic dependance of aborption with concentration, as well as exponential attenuation with distance]

And I certainly think that Australia should not commit to anything that omits China, or means that we will have to pay carbon offsets to more polluting but "less developed" countries.


According to this paper by two researchers (http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=are_ucb)at the University of California carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow between 11.05% and 13.19% per year for the period 2000–2010. What does this mean? I hope you are sitting down because you won’t believe this.

In 2006 China’s carbon dioxide emissions contained about 1.70 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (source). By 2010, at the growth rates projected by these researchers the annual emissions from China will be between 2.6 and 2.8 GtC. The growth in China’s emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China’s 2006 total (source). The emissions growth in China at these rates is like adding another Germany every year, or a UK and Australia together, to global emissions (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001295chinas_growing_emis.html).


You asked for 3 million trees to be planted to offset the emissions of the conference, I pointed out 79 million. Do you think 79 million trees would have been planted without the conference?
Again, read the verb tense. They have NOT been planted, but Indonesia has certainly deforested drastically before this, and is a major CO2 emitter.


You have still failed to point out any specific act of hypocrisy on the part of conference delegates.
I have, but you are too blinded by your hero worship of the Gulfstream Greenies to see it.

Spiny Norman
18-12-2007, 11:56 AM
A plausible mechanism.
Indeed! Also meets a basic rule of science: first draw your curve, then plot your data points! :uhoh:

Capablanca-Fan
18-12-2007, 12:24 PM
Answer to hot air was in fact a chilling blunder (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/answer-to-hot-air-was-chilling-blunder/2007/12/17/1197740183601.html)


The air-conditioning system installed to keep more than 10,000 delegates cool used highly damaging refrigerant gases — as lethal to the atmosphere as 48,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, and nearly the equivalent of the emissions of all aircraft used to fly delegates to Indonesia.

Staff from Australia’s Natural Refrigerants Transition Board and the London- and Washington-based Environmental Investigation Agency noticed the stockpiled cylinders of hydrochlorofluorocarbons — a refrigerant likely to be phased out over the next few years because it devours ozone in the upper atmosphere.

In addition, the refrigerant is a potent greenhouse gas, with each kilogram at least as damaging as 1.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Investigators at the Balinese resort complex at Nusa Dua counted 700 cylinders of the gas, each of them weighing 13.5 kilograms, and the system was visibly leaking.

:P :lol: :wall:

Spiny Norman
18-12-2007, 02:05 PM
Oh dear ... someone wasn't reading from the right script ...

Kevin Bonham
18-12-2007, 09:09 PM
What more do you need? We deperately need more piracy ... :idea:

The 17 pirates must have been pretty busy to carry out the 200+ attacks still attributed to piracy annually.

Aaron Guthrie
18-12-2007, 09:22 PM
Indeed! Also meets a basic rule of science: first draw your curve, then plot your data points! :uhoh:Ne'er ye sight a mechanism fer plottin' a treasure map, now ye sight a mechanism fer walkin th' plank!
The 17 pirates must have been pretty busy to carry out the 200+ attacks still attributed to piracy annually.Nay time t' answer this, I`ve piratin' t' do!

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 06:08 AM
The 17 pirates must have been pretty busy to carry out the 200+ attacks still attributed to piracy annually.
Not really ... that's around about 1 attack/month/pirate ... I reckon I could achieve that myself whilst simultaneously holding down a 9-5 job! ... of course, some of those pirates might be incompetant and unable to maintain such a cracking pace ... but then again, there's probably pirates that didn't fill out their census forms correctly, so there might be an underlying rate of piracy (like the underlying rate of inflation), brought on by people who haven't formally been trained as pirates, but are nevertheless performing the work of pirates!

I sense a demarcation dispute. Lets tip those non-pirates the Black Spot!

Aaaarrgghhh!!

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 07:35 AM
The new solar cycle may be upon us:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/14dec_excitement.htm

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 07:44 AM
We know that the earth was a lot cooler back around 300 years ago. We know that its warming up progressively since then. I wonder why?

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

Spiny Norman
19-12-2007, 12:18 PM
Unless I can work in some pirate jokes..
Now you're talking! :owned:

Axiom
20-12-2007, 02:53 AM
NvuhFSJXfZg

pax
21-12-2007, 02:58 PM
If this is accurate, it could be a silver bullet for tackling carbon emissions:

http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071219/1-watt-itunes-solar-energy-has-arrived

Axiom
22-12-2007, 01:02 PM
Oil Baron Al Gore Disses Climate Change Skeptics

Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet
Friday, December 21, 2007

Al Gore didn’t like it one darn bit:

“More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says,” reports the Washington Times. “The scientists — many of whom are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis — cast doubt on the ’scientific consensus’ that man-made global warming imperils the planet.”

Gore, as you may recall, has declared the debate is over on climate change. Like a Soviet bureaucrat, he has testily demanded nobody pay attention to the skeptics and we get busy transforming society in the way envisioned by the IPCC and the United Nations. In other words, it is time to implement Agenda 21. Get ready to be moved off the land into a crowded urban ghetto — for the sake of the snail darters, don’t you know. It’ll be just like a scene out of Soylent Green.

As for the 400 scientists challenging Gore and the IPCC, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider “said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp.,” an accusation rejected by Exxon Mobile.


Gore should not be the one talking about greedy oil corporations. As it turns out, the Gore family “owns at least a quarter of a million dollars’ worth of Occidental stock.” Back in the 1990s, when Gore was in the White House, Colombia’s U’wa tribe had a bone to pick with Occidental. In 2000, Ken Silverstein wrote for the Nation:

One of the world’s hottest battles between indigenous groups and multinational oil companies is heating up in Colombia, where Occidental Petroleum is seeking to drill on land claimed by the 5,000-member U’wa tribe. Early this year, the Colombian government deployed several hundred soldiers to guard workers building a road to the multibillion-dollar project. That led to a clash in February when security forces used tear gas to break up an anti-Occidental demonstration of several hundred Indians. Three children reportedly drowned when they fell into a river as they fled from government troops.

But it is not strictly oil: “In the sixties, the Gores discovered zinc ore near land they owned in Tennessee. Through a company subsidiary Hammer bought the land for $160,000–twice the amount offered by the only other bidder. He swiftly sold the land back to Al Gore Sr. and agreed to pay him $20,000 a year for mining rights. After receiving his first payment, Gore Sr. sold the land for $140,000 to Gore Jr., who has received a $20,000 check nearly every year since he acquired it. Strangest of all, Occidental has never actually mined the land. Al Jr.’s coffers swelled further in 1985 when he began leasing the land to Union Zinc, an Occidental competitor.”

But never mind. It’s not about oil or Exxon Mobile, it’s about discrediting the opposition, as usual.

Everybody naturally hates oil barons.

It doesn’t matter if Al Gore is one.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2008, 01:48 AM
“The stark headline appeared just over a year ago. ‘2007 to be ‘warmest on record,’ BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government’s Meteorological Office, the story announced that ‘the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007,’ surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold... Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn’t turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007’s global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006—and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate—it’s up about 4 percent since 1998—the global mean temperature has remained flat.

That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change. Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: ‘The debate in the scientific community is over.’ But it isn’t. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, ‘the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.’

Climate science isn’t a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming—especially if what’s coming is a global Big Chill.”
—Jeff Jacoby

pax
15-01-2008, 11:46 AM
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23052256-401,00.html

Ian Murray
16-01-2008, 01:37 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/01/15/neely.uk.antarctic.ice.cores.itn

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 02:01 PM
A Hot Spot May be Melting Greenland Ice (http://geology.com/news/2008/magma-may-be-melting-greenland-ice.shtml)
8 Jan 2008

Scientists have found a recently-formed hot spot beneath the northeast corner of the Greenland ice sheet that is possibly responsible for some of the melting there.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2008, 02:01 PM
Gory "Details" [The Gore Chameleon] (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=715) and The Great (?) Debate (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=681)
by Thomas Sowell
October 2000

Yet lefty Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)ones like Pax trust this pompous liar and hypocrite, with no science degree, whose global warming obsession started with a first year 'vegie science' soft survey course offered by many unis to those who want to avoid real science courses. He's also a liar in that in Congress, he demagogued against supposedly greedy oil companies for high petrol prices that hurt the poor, but in his hysterical book Earth in the Balance, he advocated higher petrol prices (cue Chairman Rudd signing Kyoto while whinging about high petrol prices).

Spiny Norman
31-01-2008, 08:38 AM
Lets play "spot the global warming":
http://spaceweather.com/glossary/images/ssn_yearly_med.gif

Basil
31-01-2008, 10:53 AM
No no no - that can't be right. Kiddies (aged between 18-21) will be devastated.

The fact is surely that Peter Garrett is a legend, John Howard is evil and ummm ... that's my argument :eek: Yeah! Right on.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 02:07 PM
So "Earth 'still warming'" (http://www.24.com/news/?p=scitecha&i=811216) even when it's not!:


Climate change is still raising temperatures in the long-term even though the warmest year was in 1998 and 2008 began with unusual weather such as a cool Pacific and Baghdad's first snow in memory, experts said.

But then the alarmists couldn't justify their desire for increased control of people's lives, so have to make up excuses:


Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.

“One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding ”are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints that temperatures might not be rising. “There are some people who would want to find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash,” he said.

Apparently "excuses" include, well, the Earth hasn't actually got any warmer.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 02:36 PM
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
—H.L. Mencken

pax
31-01-2008, 03:14 PM
Climate change is still raising temperatures in the long-term even though the warmest year was in 1998 and 2008 began with unusual weather such as a cool Pacific and Baghdad's first snow in memory, experts said.

Irrelevant. Weather does not equal climate, and statistical outliers do not tell you the direction of a trend.

pax
31-01-2008, 03:20 PM
According to http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003490/index.html, 2005 was the hottest year on record (i.e the last hundred years or so), with 1998 and 2007 tied in second place.

Look at this animation:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003490/TemperatureDifferenceDates30.mpg

.. and then tell me again that there is no warming.

By all means argue the causes, but you've got your head in the sand if you think there is no warming.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 04:25 PM
By all means argue the causes, but you've got your head in the sand if you think there is no warming.
They better tell the IPCC, i.e. your fellow alarmists, so they don't have to explain away the lack of warming since 1998. Proper NASA data showed that the 1930s were warmer as well, esp. 1934 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885). Pax probably thinks that the hockey stick is valid (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html) :lol: :lol: :lol:

pax
31-01-2008, 04:32 PM
Proper NASA data showed that the 1930s were warmer as well, esp. 1934 (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1885#more-1885).
You are incredibly US-centric Jono, you know that? The article you quoted mentions 1934 as the warmest year in the US. In case you hadn't noticed, global warming is a global phenomenon. As for "proper NASA data", I am the one linking directly to NASA data, while your link is to a skeptic blog...

Jim_Flood
31-01-2008, 05:28 PM
Look fellas (and gals), we can simply solve this warming problem by having another Mount Tambora event. Trouble is I don't know how to light the bloody wick to get the darn thing to explode. Some people in the local area might complain but by the time they get around to doing that, they wont exist. Problem solved.

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

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 06:16 PM
You are incredibly US-centric Jono, you know that?
Not at all. I've frequently criticised the USA, and stated my preference for British comedy. But much of the alarmism you love comes from jetsetting American lefties.


The article you quoted mentions 1934 as the warmest year in the US. In case you hadn't noticed, global warming is a global phenomenon. As for "proper NASA data", I am the one linking directly to NASA data, while your link is to a skeptic blog...
Based on NASA data.

pax
31-01-2008, 07:15 PM
Yet lefty Anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)ones like Pax trust this pompous liar and hypocrite...
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, will you Jono.

Rincewind
31-01-2008, 07:22 PM
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, will you Jono.

Of course he won't. In fact, that's his job.

pax
31-01-2008, 07:42 PM
Not at all. I've frequently criticised the USA, and stated my preference for British comedy. But much of the alarmism you love comes from jetsetting American lefties.
What I mean is that most of your examples and most of your data (not to mention most of your right-wing pundits) come from the US, even when it's completely irrelevant to the discussion as in this case.



Based on NASA data.
So this is a curious thing. How is it that NASA can say that there has been a sharp warming in the last 30 years, and particularly in the last decade, and some other guy can say there has been no warming based on the same data? Is it perhaps because some other guy is an unqualified observer with an agenda and an axe to grind?

pax
31-01-2008, 07:57 PM
It's just dripping with irony that Jono of all people posted the article lies, damn lies and 'counterknowledge' (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=181132&postcount=433) a few days ago, as Jono uses counterknowledge on a practically daily basis.

Thompson is talking about exactly the sort of misinformation that comes from bloggers who can put together a plausible looking analysis of data to support whatever particular agenda they are flogging. It doesn't matter that their conclusions are at odds with both the source of the data and the vast majority of scientific analysis.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 08:27 PM
It's just dripping with irony that Jono of all people posted the article lies, damn lies and 'counterknowledge' (http://chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=181132&postcount=433) a few days ago, as Jono uses counterknowledge on a practically daily basis.
Ipse dixit.


Thompson is talking about exactly the sort of misinformation that comes from bloggers who can put together a plausible looking analysis of data to support whatever particular agenda they are flogging. It doesn't matter that their conclusions are at odds with both the source of the data and the vast majority of scientific analysis.
Except that globull warm-mongering is promulgated by politics, and real dissenting scientists are pushed aside by "debate is over" crap. What that means is that they want the debate to be over unless the Benighted hear that there are holes in the alarmist rhetoric. So they denounce dissenters as oil industry stooges; even if true, it's absurd to think that oil money corrupts but government money is as pure as double distilled water.

Capablanca-Fan
31-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Of course he won't. In fact, that's his job.
My job is to defend the truth against misotheistic misology and misinformation.

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2008, 02:25 PM
Winter Weather Warning for Prius Drivers:
Traction control shuts down engine on slippery surface (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/01/prius_winter.html)

By Joe Benton
ConsumerAffairs.Com
29 January 2008


One year after first reports in ConsumerAffairs.Com that the Toyota Prius traction control system can fail to operate properly on a snowy road, Prius owners report the hybrid’s TRAC system is still inadequate on slippery inclines.

One Vermont Prius driver, suffering through a recent January snowfall, described Toyota Prius traction control as "dangerous in mountainous snow country.”

The Vermonter wrote that the “system is flawed and should definitely be modified. In marginal traction conditions, such as Vermont winters, the Prius traction control system will shut down power to the drive wheels and prevent forward movement.”

...

"When my car is on any kind of slick surface that causes one of the front wheels to slip, all power to the drive system is stopped," wrote Christopher of Reston, Virginia.

Traction control failure in the Prius is no longer a isolated event. The continuing failure is producing damaging results.

A Langley, Washington Prius owner told us that her hybrid this month “stopped totally on a medium uphill approach to her driveway and garage resulting in the car falling off (the) driveway into ravine of trees” on a snowy December day.

In Medford, Oregon, Mike is the most recent victim of the reluctant traction control system.

“I am a seasoned driver in the snow. I can drive front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive and four-wheel drive. I am a forester and have been driving in snowing conditions for 28 years, 22 of those years on the job," he wrote. "I just had my first experience driving my Toyota Prius in the snow today. The engine cut out all power anytime the wheels slipped at all.”

"Very dangerous"
Mike said that the traction control failure made driving the vehicle on an uphill climb almost impossible.

“It was very dangerous as you had no control as other vehicles came toward you, and once I lost momentum and could not start again. This was in 2 inches of wet snow on a 6 percent incline. I finally inched my way home and ended up putting chains on to back into my flat driveway with 2 inches of wet snow,” he wrote.

He concluded that the traction control system in the Prius “is absolutely a design flaw.”

“It is just a matter of time before someone is injured, killed or stranded because of the car's performance in the snow. It's too bad because I have really enjoyed the car up until now.” he said.

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Andrew owns a 2006 Prius with the hesitating traction control.

“It has a very serious design flaw which Toyota denies and refuses to fix,” Andrew wrote. “In slippery conditions, if there is any wheel slippage, the car shuts down all power to the wheels leaving you without any control. When pulling out into traffic, power to the wheels just dies if it's slippery, especially in snow and leaves you helplessly exposed to oncoming traffic.”

Capablanca-Fan
05-02-2008, 01:43 AM
The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=368)


...

5. Taxation, price increases and caps on energy are inherently regressive and cause great damage. – Regressive means that it has a greater impact on the lower classes than the upper classes and also effects upward mobility and general quality of life. Increasing the price of energy does not mean simply mandating a price or taxing it directly. Any measures which limit energy production will cause an increase in price due to market forces. This includes carbon taxation and carbon capping without providing a variable alternative. Mandating the use of energy technologies which are limited in output or are expensive will likewise increase prices.

High priced energy is a huge burden on the lower classes to a degree much higher than the upper class. Energy is a fundamental expense to living, both directly in the form of heating, transportation and electricity and also indirectly in how it effects production of all goods and services. The price makes up a much larger proportion of the spending of those with less. Thus, an increase in the price of energy DOES NOT make all people conserve energy in an equal manner nor does it prevent frivolous use of energy.

Joe billionaire still fuels up his yatch and barely notices that he spent five dollars a gallon on marine diesel instead of two [or he pays a carbon indulgence like alGore, to PAx's approval], but poor families go cold because they cannot afford heating oil at twice the price.

...

2. Every little bit does not help. – There is absolutely no point in perusing technologies or methods which do not have the potential for actually making an ecological difference, especially if doing so will expend funds, energy or other resources without any significant return. Even in cases where there is little overall investment, simply harping on the most insignificant overall issues will at least draw attention away from what credible solutions exist.

In the end, it is not really going to matter if there is .00001% les Co2 in the air in a century. Those technologies which have limited potential are best abandoned to cut losses as soon as it becomes apparent how limited they are.

...

1. Sacrificing the needs of an economy for the environment will destroy both. - This is overall and far and away one thing which environmentalists seem to entirely lack any understanding of. There are a lot of claims that sacrifices must be made economically or that “the price of damaging the environment cannot be measured in dollars. We need to consider that cheap power has hidden costs to earth.”

...

The impact on the environment is also effected by this for several reasons. It has been said that “environmentalism is a luxury” and this is actually true in many circumstances. In a poor country cars blow out more exhaust because owners are not as prone to good upkeep of the engine and exhaust system. Recycling does not exist in such countries because the funds are not available and the demand for more raw materials is lacking, thus making it less financially motivating to recover materials.


In general, people become far less concerned with the environment when they see that their own lives and the lives of those close to them are not very good. A person does not buy highly efficient lightbulbs or a hybrid car in such circumstances. If they cannot afford oil to keep warm, they will not insulate their home but rather are more likely to start cutting down trees for fuel. They may even buy a simple stove and start to burn garbage for fuel.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2008, 08:27 PM
The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=368)

Rather good article. I especially liked:


Saying “someone has to start” or “if everyone would do it” or “every bit helps” does not count for much when you know that everyone *will not* do it and “every little bit” helps a very very little bit.

Basil
05-02-2008, 08:43 PM
Without commenting on the the merits of the intelligent discussion on the issue of global warming, it is quite clear that the alarmists and the easily startled have found something else to be terrified about. They've simply disappeared.

The recent mild summer and even more recent wet around Australia seems to have zippled them pro tem. I would have thought that a catastrophic once-in-a-millenium event of never-before-seen proportions wouldn't have dissipated in six weeks :wall:

Igor_Goldenberg
06-02-2008, 08:18 AM
The Top Ten Things Environmentalists Need to Learn (http://depletedcranium.com/?p=368)


4. It is unreasonable to expect the general public will accept major reductions in living standards or comfort and convenience. Simply put, it won’t happen

MichaelBaron
06-02-2008, 09:05 AM
The world we are living in always had, has and will have a lot of problems. I do not think global warming is the greatest one of all! :hmm:

Igor_Goldenberg
06-02-2008, 11:06 AM
The world we are living in always had, has and will have a lot of problems. I do not think global warming is the greatest one of all! :hmm:
Once over the lunch I heard a conversation:
- What is your opinion about Global Warming?
I think the answer deserves a brilliancy prize:
- I am in favour.

Capablanca-Fan
08-02-2008, 12:06 PM
By any means necessary:
David Suzuki says he wants anti-Kyoto politicians thrown in jail. How did environmentalism become this totalitarian? (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=291604)

Terry O'Neill, National Post
Thursday, 7 February 2008

Capablanca-Fan
10-02-2008, 12:35 PM
4. It is unreasonable to expect the general public will accept major reductions in living standards or comfort and convenience. Simply put, it won’t happen
Unfortunately, it can and has happened. Either (or both):

1. It is done gradually, like the mythical frog boiled in water.
2. A crisis is manufactured.
3. A scapegoat is available.

E.g. with the ridiculous water restrictions, they have been increased gradually; there is a crisis (drought) and a scapegoat (greedy homes and business). That way they can deflect blame from previous council decisions to send inspectors around to smash banned water tanks so they would be forced to use the mains. They can also deflect blame for subsequently failing to build needed dams, e.g. the Leftmedia and ineffective Coalition gave KRudd a free pass for cancelling the Wolfdene Dam that would have strongly alleviate SEQ's current drought. And finally, they avoid responsibility for the absurd socialistic policy of setting the price of water too cheaply for consumers to have an incentive to practise self-rationing, so they can continue to hector us about waste.

The tyranny of the Airport Gestapo is another example of incremental imposition of tyranny, e.g. confiscating water bottles and forcing even arthritic elderly people to remove orthotic shoes needed for walking. Here, the crisis is an obvious one.

When the costs of Kyoto are imposed upon motorists (including those who transport food, raising its costs), the government has the crisis of globull warm-mongering, as well as the scapegoat of greedy Big Oil. And here, the sheeple have already accepted the monstrous excise, as well as a GST on this excise which is about the same level as the tiny profit that Big Oil actually makes.

What sort of resistance was there to Turnbull's asinine proposal to ban incandescent lightbulbs, which actually work in dimmers unlike fluorescent ones, and don't have toxic mercury?

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2008, 05:24 PM
“Noble cause corruption” exposed (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/noble_cause_corruption_exposed/)
Andrew Bolt – Thursday, 7 February 08

Professor Aynsley Kellow, head of Tasmania University’s School of Government, may suffer a bit of man-made warming for having dared to write The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science (http://www.amazon.com/Science-Public-Policy-Corruption-Environmental/dp/1847204708/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202372811&sr=1-2).

As Emeritus Professor John Adams describes it:


It explores the hijacking of science by people grinding axes on behalf of noble causes. “Noble cause corruption” is a term invented by the police to justify fitting up people they “know” to be guilty, but for whom they can’t muster forensic evidence that would satisfy a jury. Kellow demonstrates convincingly, and entertainingly, that this form of corruption can be found at the centre of most environmental debates.

And as the publisher puts it:


We are used to hearing that economic interests have corrupted scientific findings, but the possibility that science might be corrupted by noble causes is largely overlooked. This book shows that this danger is real, that values can often lead to poor science, and that we are more likely to accept lower quality science when it lends support to our political preferences. Using the examples of biodiversity and climate science and the attack on Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist on these two issues, Aynsley Kellow reveals how the reliance of environmental science on mathematical models and the infusion of values into its conduct have produced a preference for virtual over observational data. It argues that both sides of politics are capable of exerting such an influence, but suggests some reasons why those on the political Left seem to be more prone to do so at present, to the detriment of public policy.

Still, Kellow could get lucky. With a thesis like that, the review page editors will most likely just put him into deep freeze.

Kevin Bonham
13-02-2008, 11:14 PM
I know Kellow has enviro-sceptic tendencies. Curiously I've never actually met him. I may well flick through his book if I come across it but I shan't be buying a copy at $US110 anytime soon!

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 11:00 PM
‘The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change’ conference is being held in NY, 2–4 March. It has 98 speakers and 400 participants, including professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions from universities around the world. And the President of the Czech Republic Klaus Havel talked about the “robust relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth”, and that we should not forget the lessons from the fall of Communism:


“We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole of mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussions about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lessons from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message from our conference.”

Naturally the alarmist scientific ignoramuses like alGore, the Leftmedia, Labor Party and most of the craven Liberals nowadays have declared that there is no debate, which is about their strongest “argument”. But I just returned from Melbourne where they locals told me that it's the coldest summer for ages, with snow on the mountains.

Australian agricultural scientist Dr Jennifer Marohasy is another of those skeptical scientists that alGore et al. say don't exist. She is attending the New York conference and is reporting on her blog (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/).

pax
05-03-2008, 11:34 PM
But I just returned from Melbourne where they locals told me that it's the coldest summer for ages, with snow on the mountains.
Don't be a hypocrite.

You quite rightly pillory the "warm-mongers" for using short term weather patterns as evidence of climate change. Yet here you are doing the same..

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 11:40 PM
Don't be a hypocrite.

You quite rightly pillory the "warm-mongers" for using short term weather patterns as evidence of climate change. Yet here you are doing the same..
Here's the difference: the globull warm-mongers that you hero-worship will tout every heat wave, hurricane or drought as evidence for their alarmism. I'm showing up their inconsistency.

But of course, it's now "climate change", which means:

Hot summer? Climate change!
Cold summer? Climate change!

Gotta get rid of our incandescent light bulbs and cut back our CO2 emissions by 90%.

Thomas Sowell, as usual, is right on the money (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/28/cold_water_on_global_warming)(in more ways than one):


“It has almost become something of a joke when some ‘global warming’ conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather. But stampedes and hysteria are no joke - and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming ‘crisis.’.”

...

“A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching. Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?”

Axiom
06-03-2008, 03:17 PM
Don't forget our lying,propagandising,gutless,dangerously mal-informing media.


Networks Ignore, Newspapers Mock N.Y. Climate Change Conference

Nathan Burchfiel and Amy Menefee
Business & Media Institute
Wednesday, March 5, 2008

All three networks’ evening news broadcasts utterly ignored a gathering of hundreds of people – scientists, economists, other experts and interested lay people – aimed at dispelling the media myth that there is “consensus” on climate change’s causes, potential effects, and suggested solutions.

ABC’s “World News,” CBS’s “Evening News” and NBC’s “Nightly News” couldn’t find time in the half-hour broadcasts March 3 to mention the International Conference on Climate Change, which runs through March 4 in New York City.

Two major national newspapers mentioned the Heartland Institute’s conference, but relegated the story to deep within the papers and downplayed the gathering’s credibility and significance.



In fact, none of the sources quoted in the major newspapers’ stories addressed substantive points made during the first day and a half of the conference – which ranged from the sun’s effects on the Earth to oceanic cooling cycles and the effects of limiting energy use in developing countries. Instead, newspaper reporters addressed – and distorted – the Heartland Institute’s funding, labeled attendees “deniers,” “flat Earthers” and “lost” and compared the meeting to “Custer’s last stand.” But debunking actual claims made at the conference – well, that might have involved a little work.

The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin noted in a story published on page A16 that the Heartland Institute is “funded by energy and health-care corporations.” She didn’t mention Heartland’s disclaimer that “no contributions from any energy corporations are being used to support this conference.”

Eilperin downplayed a major aspect of the conference – the release of a report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” countering claims made by the United Nations’ Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.

“While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports,” Eilperin wrote, “the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”

The IPCC is made up of representatives selected by governments – hence “Intergovernmental” – who may or may not be scientists. “Most of the authors are scientists designated by member governments,” the IPCC says on its Web site. The reports may be written by scientists but are also subject to review by member governments.

But Eilperin’s characterization of the conference couldn’t hold a candle to The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin, whose “Reporter’s Notebook” (read: opinion column) piece on the conference appeared on A20 in his paper.

Revkin wrote that conference speakers were “trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.”

He said a diversity of views amongst scientists – the conference features voices from across the global warming spectrum, especially on the causes of climate change – was a “challenge” for the conference’s mission. Maybe that explains why the media include so little diversity in their reports: it poses a “challenge”?

The newest Special Report from the Business & Media Institute, “Global Warming Censored,” showed the network news routinely shuts out debate on climate issues, even from scientists’ perspectives. In fact, no sources departing from the climate alarmist viewpoint were allowed in 80 percent of the stories studied.

Revkin included a note about Heartland’s funding and said the group’s “antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors.”

Revkin concluded his column by coyly noting that “when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so,” implying that only 19 scientists were at the conference. If Revkin had paid closer attention, or simply asked conference organizers about the speakers and attendees, he would have learned that about 100 scientists participated in the conference. Those included experts on meteorology, climatology, geology, and physics, representing at least 30 universities.

Finally some balance?

While most media reports about climate change do not include the balance of the views represented at the conference, stories about the conference made sure to include mocking retorts from environmentalists.

Frank O’Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch, told the Post’s Eilperin the conference “looks like the climate equivalent of Custer’s last stand.” Eilperin also quoted League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski, who said he’s “sure that the flat Earth society had a few final meetings before they broke up.”

Eilperin did acknowledge that “the media and many politicians [are] now ignoring the climate skeptics.” Eilperin’s New York Times counterpart, Revkin, defended the practice of ignoring climate change skeptics.

In his piece, Revkin included his own sources of mocking retaliation. He quoted Riley Dunlap, a sociologist at Oklahoma State University who bashed Heartland Institute’s funding. Revkin also quoted Kert Davies, a campaigner for Greenpeace protesting the conference, who called it “the largest convergence of the lost tribe of skeptics ever seen on the face of the earth.”

In a “Dot Earth” blog post about his story, Revkin later acknowledged that “there is plenty of remaining uncertainty” surrounding global warming, but complained about having to cover the conference – he said writing his pieces took away from family time.

"Last night I would have loved nothing more than to play a bedtime song for my 9-year-old son, Jack, and then relax with my wife, a hard-working middle-school science teacher," he whined, before further dismissing those involved in the conference.

“When I’m forced to cover the edges of the discourse,” Revkin wrote, “that threatens to obscure the enormous body of established science that is not in dispute, which should be enough to inform smart policy.” He didn’t point to any specific aspects of the “quirky” conference as a threat to science.

pax
06-03-2008, 09:51 PM
Here's the difference: the globull warm-mongers that you hero-worship
You talking to that figment of your imagination again?

will tout every heat wave, hurricane or drought as evidence for their alarmism.
Which is rubbish. Long term trends are evidence, single events (or seasons) are not.

I'm showing up their inconsistency.
Garbage. You're playing the same game.



Thomas Sowell, as usual, is right on the money (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/28/cold_water_on_global_warming)(in more ways than one):


“It has almost become something of a joke when some ‘global warming’ conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
.. and so is Sowell.


Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?”
This is an odd point to make, since the climate change deniers on the whole seem to have considerably weaker qualifications than those who say the phenomenon is real and man-made.

Capablanca-Fan
06-03-2008, 11:03 PM
You talking to that figment of your imagination again?
Why, there is hardly an alarmist, tax or government program that you don't like.


Which is rubbish. Long term trends are evidence, single events (or seasons) are not.
I know that, you know that, but that didn't stop the alarmists blaming Katrina on global warming.


Garbage. You're playing the same game.

.. and so is Sowell.
Once more, just countering a lot of the propagandists.


This is an odd point to make, since the climate change deniers on the whole seem to have considerably weaker qualifications than those who say the phenomenon is real and man-made.
Oh yeah, alGore, KRudd, Penny Wong ... yet this conference is good evidence that real scientists are hardly unified on the issue, despite your ilk claiming "the debate is over".

pax
07-03-2008, 01:09 AM
Why, there is hardly an alarmist, tax or government program that you don't like.
Translation: yes!


I know that, you know that, but that didn't stop the alarmists blaming Katrina on global warming.
And they were wrong. Tell me again how that makes it ok for you?


Once more, just countering a lot of the propagandists.
By stooping to their level. It doesn't work.


Oh yeah, alGore, KRudd, Penny Wong
They are politicians. They are taking the advice of hundreds of scientists with real qualifications. You aren't going to win any arguments by claiming that the deniers are better qualified. They are not.

... yet this conference is good evidence that real scientists are hardly unified on the issue, despite your ilk claiming "the debate is over".
I never claimed the debate is over. But the weight of scientific opinion is very strong.

Capablanca-Fan
07-03-2008, 10:26 AM
They are politicians. They are taking the advice of hundreds of scientists with real qualifications. You aren't going to win any arguments by claiming that the deniers are better qualified. They are not.
Ignoring many dissenters with excellent qualifications in climate science is very convenient for those politicians itching for an excuse to expand government power.

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 08:58 PM
Clean Energy Technology Gets Away (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/clean_technology_gets_away/)
10 March 2008


Kevin Rudd is a big supporter of Suntech Power Holdings founder Zhengrong Shi, and last year mentioned how sad he was that the solar billionaire had based his business overseas ...

Australia may have dodged a bullet. The Washington Post, reporting from Gaolong, China, reveals the extent to which Zhengrong Shi’s investment in clean technology is helping locals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html?hpid=topnews):


The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn’t believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It’s a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production—silicon tetrachloride—is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

Similarly, Indonesia destroyed many of its rainforests to clear land for biofuels (http://www.planet2025news.net/ntext.rxml?id=4151), so naturally it was chosen as the venue for the gabfest for hypocritical jetsetting bureaucrats (http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-green-is-their-hypocrisy.html) Climate Change Conference.

pax
10-03-2008, 11:38 PM
Clean Energy Technology Gets Away (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/clean_technology_gets_away/)
Hmm, and the Chinese coal industry is clean as a whistle eh?

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 12:05 AM
Hmm, and the Chinese coal industry is clean as a whistle eh?
Communist countries are notorious polluters, aye, despite the Left's love affair with these despotisms. But the fact remains that some so-called "green" technology is far worse for the environment than CO2.

pax
11-03-2008, 12:39 AM
Communist countries are notorious polluters, aye, despite the Left's love affair with these despotisms.
There's your imaginary lefty again.

But the fact remains that some so-called "green" technology is far worse for the environment than CO2.
The example you cite (if true) is simply about poor industrial practice. It is very little to do with the technology itself.

arosar
11-03-2008, 06:54 AM
The Vatican has just updated their list of sins. Among the new ones is polluting the Earth! Best to amend your ways and repent now!

Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution (http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL109602320080310)

AR

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Hmm, and the Chinese coal industry is clean as a whistle eh?
Does it pose as a "green alternative"?
If not, how is it relevant?

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 09:31 AM
There's your imaginary lefty again.
It wasn't that long ago that an anti-conservative list on this site spouted moral equivalence over human rights with China and USA. But naturally China has a lower prison population—it executes so many and saves prison space!

I have also pointed out the New York Times' Walter Duranty being awarded a Pulitzer that the NYT still proudly displays, for whitewashing Stalin's atrocities. More recently, many on the Left thought Reagan was a fool to denounce the Soviet Union, claiming this moral equivalence crap, and that the USSR was here to stay.

Now there is a love affair with Cuba and Chavez-ruled Venezuela.


The example you cite (if true)
Any proof that it's not?


is simply about poor industrial practice.
And this happens far too often to be an accident. Witness again Indonesia's rainforests


It is very little to do with the technology itself.
It seems that it's a byproduct of its.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 04:15 PM
The Vatican has just updated their list of sins. Among the new ones is polluting the Earth! Best to amend your ways and repent now!

Vatican lists "new sins," including pollution (http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL109602320080310)
I'm not Catholic, but there is a more accurate account of what Bishop Gianfranco Girotto actually said about "social sins" here (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=9A0A606B-5056-8960-327C219014498879). The statement also listed abortion and destructive bioethics practices like embryonic stem cell research and human cloning as sins (http://www.lifenews.com/int652.html).

Axiom
11-03-2008, 11:51 PM
The mammoth global warming scam

AP
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

More evidence from the International Conference on Climate change last month which produced the Manhattan Declaration (see post below) of the way in which scientists who are sceptical about man-made global warming find their work is suppressed. A detailed piece on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports:

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

‘We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,’ wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)


Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ‘Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is ‘very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.’ Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature. ‘Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,’ Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December.

From this post, and in particular if you follow the links, you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION. In other words, MMGW is a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide. Even so, the number of scientists now ‘coming out’ to declare that MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day.

Axiom
11-03-2008, 11:54 PM
Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda
Another professor challenges the so-called "consensus" behind man-made climate change




A retired physics professor became the latest public figure to debunk the myth of a "consensus" behind man-made global warming when he slammed big money interests for pushing climate change propaganda that was at odds with real science in a speech yesterday.

Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.

"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."



Hayden pointed out that global warming is taking place throughout the solar system, underscoring the fact that natural causes and not human beings are driving climate change, which has occurred throughout history.

"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing," adding that warming trends were also being observed on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.

Citing the fact that human activity is responsible for just 3 per cent of carbon-dioxide emissions on earth, Hayden said that carbon levels in the atmosphere have been rising and falling for 400,000 years.

"We are at the lowest levels in the last 300,000 years," he said. "During the Jurassic period, we had very high levels of carbon dioxide."

"About 97 percent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources, not humans," Hayden concluded, adding that global warming is being pushed not by grass roots advocacy groups, but by giant corporations who stand to gain from selling concepts such as carbon tracking and carbon trading.


As we reported last year, During the secretive Trilateral Commission group meeting in March 2007, elitists gathered to formulate policy on how best they could exploit global warming fearmongering to ratchet up taxes and control over how westerners live their lives.

At the confab, European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger and chairman of British Petroleum Peter Sutherland, gave a speech to his cohorts in which he issued a "Universal battle cry arose for the world to address “global warming” with a single voice."

Echoing this sentiment was General Lord Guthrie, director of N.M. Rothschild & Sons, member of the House of Lords and former chief of the Defense Staff in London, who urged the Trilateral power-brokers to "Address the global climate crisis with a single voice, and impose rules that apply worldwide."

A common charge leveled against those who question the official orthodoxy of the global warming religion is that they are acting as stooges for the western establishment and big business interests. If this is the case, then why do the high priests of the elite and kingpin oil men continue to fan the flames of global warming hysteria?

In his excellent article, Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government, Daniel Taylor outlines how the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of "global warming" was a pet project of the Club of Rome and the CFR.

"In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

The fact that global warming hysteria is being pushed by governments that have been caught lying to the public on a regular basis, along with elitists whose stated goal is to push fearmongering as a means of increasing taxation and control over our lives, emphasizes the reality that, allied to the its phony scientific foundation, global warming is just the latest hobby-horse on which control freaks have piggy-backed their agenda to dominate and rule.


(my bolding)

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2008, 07:20 PM
The mammoth global warming scam (http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/550481/the-mammoth-global-warming-scam.thtml)
Melanie Phillips
Spectator 11 March 2008

[A good report of a conference of scientists skeptical of globull warm-mongering alarmism, as opposed to the gabfest in Bali for hypocritical jetsetting political hacks.]


More evidence from the International Conference on Climate change last month which produced the Manhattan Declaration (see post below) of the way in which scientists who are sceptical about man-made global warming find their work is suppressed. A detailed piece on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports:


During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

‘We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,’ wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed “runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations”, but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ‘Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]

From this post, and in particular if you follow the links, you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION. In other words, MMGW is a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide. Even so, the number of scientists now ‘coming out’ to declare that MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day.

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2008, 11:59 AM
Al Gore only has a B.A. in Government (no higher degree achieved, no science degrees)
The Education of Al Gore (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dcfe0d392e.htm) (The Washington Times)


Last Sunday, The Washington Post reproduced Mr. Gore's Harvard transcript as well as his grades and scores at the elite St. Albans high school and later at Vanderbilt University's divinity and law schools. In a word, the transcripts reveal that Mr. Gore's post-secondary academic performance was rather dismal, particularly in the field of science.

Now, admittedly, education is a lifelong process, and Mr. Gore may well have learned a thing or two since he dropped out of Vanderbilt twice. It is well-worth noting, however, that throughout middle-age, Mr. Gore has shown unmistakable signs of being a slow learner still. After all, it did take him three decades to understand the health consequences of smoking, a period during which Mr. Gore received thousands of dollars in contributions from tobacco companies and the Gore family farm profitably grew tobacco as a cash crop. Still, all caveats aside, Mr. Gore's grades do offer a tantalizing peek at his formal economic and scientific education.

Despite Mr. Gore's image as star pupil, the kid most likely to be the first to raise his hand in class, it seems that Mr. Gore barely applied himself during his years as an undergraduate and graduate student. Indeed, his sophomore year at Harvard, The Post notes, was "the year Gore's classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana." Please, take a moment to appreciate the scene painted in that one sentence.

In introductory economics, the only economics course Mr. Gore ever took, he received a C-, which goes a long way toward explaining his December remark that he would consider raising taxes should the economy fall into recession.

...

Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Dominic Lawson: This is a Government which doesn't really believe in the threat of climate change (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-this-is-a-government-which-doesnt-really-believe-in-the-threat-of-climate-change-795685.html)
The Independent, 14 March 2008

It followed the revelation by the Los Angeles Times that Schwarzenegger — who after Al Gore is the US politician most identified with the "battle against climate change" — had been commuting almost every day by private jet.

Let me share with you this extract from a transcript of a news conference, as released by Schwarzenegger's office: "Governor, there have been reports coming out that you're flying up and down the state on a daily basis in a [private] jet...How do you reconcile your public rhetoric on global warming versus your personal lifestyle choices?".

"Are you always that positive? What a positive guy! To me it's very important that I serve the people of California but also at the same time that I serve my family... do the homework with the kids, spend time with my wife and everything."

"So global warming is for other people to worry about, as long as you can afford carbon offsetting?"

"You're absolutely correct. Global warming is very important and that's why we're fighting global warming... in all kinds of things we are promoting."

Axiom
15-03-2008, 11:11 PM
Global Warming Censored
How the Major Networks Silence the Debate on Climate Change

Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor
Business & Media Institute
Saturday, March 15, 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them.

Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.



Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.
Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

What’s It Going to Cost?: All “solutions” have a price, but the cost of fighting global warming was something you rarely heard on the network news. Only 22 stories (11 percent) mentioned any cost of “fixing” global warming. On the rare occasion cost came up, it came from the lips of a skeptic like Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch (D), who said one climate change bill in Congress “would cost $6 trillion.”

CBS the Worst: Journalist/global warming advocate Scott Pelley helped CBS be, by far, the worst network. Pelley argued in 2006 that he shouldn’t have to include skeptics in such stories because “If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” In 2007, he helped ensure only four skeptics were included by CBS – and not a single one was a scientist. Compare that to the 151 people used by the network to promote global warming hysteria. The wildly one-sided outcome was not surprising given remarks by some of its other journalists. Harry Smith declared that “There is, in fact, global climate change” on the Aug. 7, 2007, “Early Show.”

ABC the “Best”: Despite its over-the-top climate hypocrisy of jet-setting journalists around the world to cover climate change, ABC included more skepticism (36 percent) in its broadcasts than either NBC or CBS. Still, the network has plenty of work to do. Bill Weir made the outrageous claim during the Nov. 18, 2007, “Good Morning America” that “all these scientists” urge immediate action to stop global warming. Weather personality Sam Champion even referred to the most recent U.N. climate report as “unequivocal” and “definitive.

To improve coverage, BMI recommends:

Report the issue objectively: Reporters have a professional responsibility to remain objective and avoid inserting their own opinions into their reports. Many in the media have sorely missed that mark when it comes to reporting on global warming and climate change.

Include skeptics: The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states journalists should “Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is the media’s job to inform the public, not persuade them by leaving out alternative viewpoints. Particularly, networks should give skeptical scientists the opportunity to share their findings – just like they include scientists who say manmade global warming is negatively impacting the planet.

Show Me the Money: If the U.S. government passes legislation to address global warming, it will carry a cost and American taxpayers have a right to know what it would be. The media need to do a much better job by asking about or including cost estimates of climate change “solutions.”

cont. - http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2008/GlobalWarmingCensored/GlobalWarmingcensoredfulltext.asp

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 10:38 PM
Don't be a hypocrite.

You quite rightly pillory the "warm-mongers" for using short term weather patterns as evidence of climate change. Yet here you are doing the same..


Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has told Federal Parliament the 15 consecutive days above 35 degrees (in Adelaide) are evidence of the warming trend (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192987.htm?section=justin)…

“You talk to anyone in South Australia at the moment working the land — they are living climate change,” he said.

I guess Pax thinks that hypocrisy is OK from lefties like Burke and alGore.

Aaron Guthrie
18-03-2008, 10:56 PM
I always find the below type of comment annoying.
A climate model suggests that Adelaide can expect another heatwave of 15 consecutive days in about 3,000 years.Close, but it should in the next 3000 years we can expect about 1 more of these heatwaves. I wonder what the odds are that these once in 3000 year heatwaves actually occur at 3000 year intervals!

Miguel
19-03-2008, 02:03 AM
Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has told Federal Parliament the 15 consecutive days above 35 degrees (in Adelaide) are evidence of the warming trend (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192987.htm?section=justin)…

“You talk to anyone in South Australia at the moment working the land — they are living climate change,” he said.
While comments like Burke's are pretty silly, I suspect the p-value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value) for the null hypothesis of no climate change is probably very low. But even with a low p-value, one such event is not necessarily something to get overly excited about.

Incidentally, Mark Chu-Carroll over at ScienceBlogs recently wrote about confusing weather with climate (http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2008/02/bad_statistical_reasoning_abou.php).

Spiny Norman
20-03-2008, 09:12 AM
Ref: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025


Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

pax
20-03-2008, 01:16 PM
I guess Pax thinks that hypocrisy is OK from lefties like Burke and alGore.
No I don't. Nor is it ok from you..

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 10:14 PM
Michael Duffy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

Dr Jennifer Marohasy (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php): "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

More at Climate facts to warm to (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html) by Christopher Pearson.

You can hear the program here (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2191714.htm). She explains that data from NASA's Aqua satellite show that there are strong negative feedback mechanisms that mitigate the warming effects of CO2. She also points out economic projections that proposed climate change policies will make us much poorer but have hardly have any effect on climate. Indeed, she argues that warming is better for us than cooling, and points out that CO2 is plant food.

pax
23-03-2008, 11:11 PM
[INDENT]Michael Duffy: "Is the Earth still warming?"

Dr Jennifer Marohasy (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php): "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.
.. and if you take 2000 as your point of reference, there has been significant warming.

It's an extraordinarily unscientific thing to say. 1998 was the highest temperature year on record IIRC. To answer the question of whether the earth is warming, you have to look at long term trends, not comparisons with any single year.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 12:06 AM
.. and if you take 2000 as your point of reference, there has been significant warming.

It's an extraordinarily unscientific thing to say. 1998 was the highest temperature year on record IIRC. To answer the question of whether the earth is warming, you have to look at long term trends, not comparisons with any single year.
Agreed, so look at the cooling from the 1930s to 1970s, as well as from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age over a few centuries ...

Let's hope people see sense about this, and don't stuff up our economy for little good.

Axiom
24-03-2008, 02:06 AM
Agreed, so look at the cooling from the 1930s to 1970s, as well as from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age over a few centuries ...

Let's hope people see sense about this, and don't stuff up our economy for little good.
The question now is, WHY do we have this scam ?

Spiny Norman
24-03-2008, 07:05 AM
The question now is, WHY do we have this scam ?
We've been having them for years. I'm old enough to remember the 1970's scare about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age, plus the fears that the world would suffer global food shortages in the 1970's (that was a 1960's scare). The current one is nothing unusual, except that the influence of media today is arguably greater than it was in the past.

I've just started reading The Doomsday Syndrome by John Maddox ... very illuminating ... the events/predictions he describes are from almost 40 years ago, yet the pattern is the same ... scientists and politicians scaring the general population!

When the population is fearful and confused, there are increased opportunities to make money out of them (via taxes, levies, products/services that aren't really needed).

Desmond
24-03-2008, 08:51 AM
Agreed, so look at the cooling from the 1930s to 1970s, as well as from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age over a few centuries ...Jono, even if you don't believe in man-made global warming, surely you agree that reducing polution is a good thing?

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 12:38 PM
Jono, even if you don't believe in man-made global warming, surely you agree that reducing polution is a good thing?
Of course, Boris. That's more than can be said for those greenies who fly everywhere on their private jets to screech at us for driving too much.

No one wants to breathe polluted air or drink polluted water. But note that it is reducing, not necessarily eliminating. It's always a question of how much reduction at how much cost. Note that "the dose is the poison"; something can be dangerous at high amounts but harmless at small amounts. It might be very cost effective to get a pollutant down to 1 pmm, which tests show to be harmless. But it might cost a hundred times as much to get it down to 0.1 ppm, which may have no real health benefits, but the cost is likely to cause greater harm elsewhere.

The same applies to treating plant food, CO2, as a dangerous pollutant. Maybe it would be nice to spend a million dollars reducing its concentration, but if countries are spending many billions, then that is money that can't be spend on things that would have a far greater effect on improving lives, such as clean water for developing countries, anti-malarial campaigns, and if necessary doing what Holland has done to cope with rising sea levels.

The polls show that many Australians have disconnected costs from benefits when it comes to stopping global warming. Yes, they want it stopped; no, they don't want to pay twice the price of petrol or electricity, and for what? We produce only 1.5% of the world's man-made CO2.

Walter Williams gives another lesson on cost/benefit analysis (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/02/21/nonsense_ideas):


According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 43,443 people were killed on the nation's highways in 2005. If Congress were to enact a 10 miles per hour national speed limit, we'd save thousands of lives each year. You say, "Williams, that would be stupid and impractical!" My response to you is: But look at all the lives that would be saved. What you really mean by stupid and impractical is that preventing thousands of highway fatalities is not worth the cost and inconvenience that would result from having to poke along at 10 miles per hour. Of course, calling a 10 miles per hour law stupid and impractical is a more socially acceptable way of saying those saved lives aren't worth it.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 12:48 PM
The question now is, WHY do we have this scam ?
It gives politicians an excuse to control our lives more, and enables alGore and his fellow travellers to become multimillionaires.

pax
24-03-2008, 10:28 PM
We've been having them for years. I'm old enough to remember the 1970's scare about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age, plus the fears that the world would suffer global food shortages in the 1970's (that was a 1960's scare). The current one is nothing unusual, except that the influence of media today is arguably greater than it was in the past.

Except that warming is actually happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png), and is not mere speculation. There is plenty of speculation in the cause of the warming and the consequences of the warming, but all this business about "warming stopped in 1998" is a mere grasping at statistical straws.

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 10:48 PM
Except that warming is actually happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png), and is not mere speculation. There is plenty of speculation in the cause of the warming and the consequences of the warming, but all this business about "warming stopped in 1998" is a mere grasping at statistical straws.
The cooling was actually happening as well from the 1930s to 1970s, hence the global ice age scaremongering that Spiny mentions. And even if warming is happening (not that Wikipedia is a reliable source on anything controversial), it doesn't follow that humans are responsible. And even if humans are responsible, it doesn't follow that spending many billions to ameliorate it will not have greater costs elsewhere, esp. with Dr Marohasy's point about the negative feedback mechanisms discovered by NASA's Aqua satellite.

pax
25-03-2008, 12:03 AM
The cooling was actually happening as well from the 1930s to 1970s, hence the global ice age scaremongering that Spiny mentions.
A one decade drop, not four. The ice-age stuff was a bit of isolated speculation - it was hardly a common mainstream view.


And even if warming is happening (not that Wikipedia is a reliable source on anything controversial),

No, but the data which the wikipedia graph is based on is uncontroversial, and widely cited including by climate change skeptics.


it doesn't follow that humans are responsible. And even if humans are responsible, it doesn't follow that spending many billions to ameliorate it will not have greater costs elsewhere,
Fine. This is a debate worth having. The point I am making is that climate change skeptics look like they are pushing an agenda when they engage in obviously dodgy logic and science such as the 'global warming ended in 1998' statement. The same is true of the other side of the debate too.



esp. with Dr Marohasy's point about the negative feedback mechanisms discovered by NASA's Aqua satellite.
Judging by the abysmal original quote from Marohasy, I would be very skeptical of anything she has to say.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 12:39 AM
A one decade drop, not four. The ice-age stuff was a bit of isolated speculation — it was hardly a common mainstream view.
It was pushed loudly by Time and Newsweek — and by some of the current warm-mongers!


Judging by the abysmal original quote from Marohasy, I would be very skeptical of anything she has to say.
I heard her whole piece, where she presents a lot of data, and cautions not to use a short time frame as determinative.

Would that your skepticism was directed at the charlatan alGore and the politicized IPCC.

pax
25-03-2008, 01:24 AM
It was pushed loudly by Time and Newsweek — and by some of the current warm-mongers!
So? They are popular magazines, not scientific journals. Asteroids, supervolcanoes and other 1 in a million doomsday scenarios sell copies.


I heard her whole piece, where she presents a lot of data, and cautions not to use a short time frame as determinative.

Then her words you quoted above were particularly poorly chosen.


Would that your skepticism was directed at the charlatan alGore and the politicized IPCC.
I am no fan of Gore, but he is an advocate, not a scientist. I hold scientists to higher standards.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 02:36 PM
Wind power costs inflate (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/23/do2303.xml)
Christopher Booker
Telegraph (UK) 23 March 2008


A further huge question mark has been raised over the Government’s plan to build 7,000 offshore wind turbines round Britain’s coasts, to help meet its EU target of 15 percent of our electricity from ‘renewables’ by 2020. The director of renewable generation for Centrica, our largest windfarm developer, last week revealed that the cost of this plan to create 33,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity has doubled in three years, from £40 billion to £80 billion. But since, thanks to fluctuations in the wind, offshore turbines generate on average only 27.5 per cent of capacity, the actual power produced by these turbines would be only 9,000MW, putting its price at £8.8 million per MW.

The latest nuclear power station being built in Finland at a cost of £2.7 billion will produce 1600MW, 24 hours a day, representing £1.7 million per MW. In other words, six nuclear power stations could produce more electricity than all those windfarms for only a fifth of the price.

Even cheaper in Oz with our abundant uranium. But the hysterical anti-nuclear lobby won't like it (which is also why MRI drops the word 'nuclear'), although nuclear power is a major reason why Western Europe has such "green" power. And the number of people killed by Western nuclear power is smaller than the number killed in Teddy Kennedy's car.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2008, 01:14 PM
Redistributing the Billions from Emissions Trading (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002897.html)
John Roskam, Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs


You can do a lot of damage with $10 billion. It can be used to build a lot of halls of fame and finance a lot of local community groups. In short, $10 billion can fund a lot of porkbarrelling in a lot of marginal seats.

Ten billion dollars is how much (on a conservative estimate) the federal government will make in 2010 from the sale of permits to emit greenhouse gases. Potentially double that amount could be collected — and if so federal government revenue would jump by 10 per cent. Anyone who believes that climate change is a gravy train only for lawyers, accountants and ‘‘environmental advisers’’ should think again. No politician has ever missed the chance to save the planet, especially if they can also garner a few billion dollars as a re-election war chest.

...

In his speech, Garnaut warned that ‘‘continuing disputation about parameters of the scheme, uncertainty, continuing politicisation of the ETS’s [emissions trading scheme’s] operations, would dissipate resources in unproductive activity, and seriously disrupt productivity growth’’.

An unkind person could translate this as ‘‘be quiet and leave it to the bureaucrats’’. The trouble is, bureaucrats don’t have a sparkling track record designing markets — ask anyone who’s had the misfortune of visiting a public hospital lately. Given the massive change that the introduction of an emissions trading scheme involves, it’s entirely appropriate that there be as much ‘‘disputation’’ as possible — particularly given that the scheme is going to begin within two years.

...

There’s a certain irony that Kevin Rudd has pledged to cut red tape. His government is on the verge of imposing an emissions trading scheme with rules so complicated they will make the 8000 pages of tax laws look simple. Whatever complaints there are about the Australian Taxation Office, it is surely a paragon of efficiency compared with the UN.

Having the UN monitor and regulate Australia’s emissions trading almost sounds like an April’s fool’s joke — except that the first of April was three days ago

Capablanca-Fan
05-04-2008, 02:33 PM
Get used to being greener, poorer (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/get-used-to-being-greener-poorer/2008/04/04/1207249460420.html)
Jessica Irvine Economics Correspondent
SMH, 5 Apri 2008


AUSTRALIANS must accept that emissions trading is designed to make them pay more and lower their standard of living, at least where energy use is concerned, the Reserve Bank governor warns.

...

"One of the things the community will have to accept is that this is a reduction in living standards insofar as our purchasing power over energy-intensive things is concerned. We have got to accept that. If we were to try to collectively push up our wages to get that back, that actually would defeat the intention of the policy."

After Mizz Wong and Chairman Rudd double or triple the costs of petrol and power, anyone who whinges about how hard it is to make ends meet will get no sympathy from me if they voted for envirowacko Laba or Green.

Axiom
07-04-2008, 04:35 PM
The man made global warming hoax part of the sinister eugenics policy.




Ted Turner Wants You Dead To Save The Planet

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
April 6, 2008

"Ted Turner the largest U.S. land owner and wealthy media mogul has stated yet again during a PBS interview with Charlie Rose that the world’s population needs to be reduced. Turner also used the interview as an opportunity to continue the non stop irrational fear mongering of global warming. He stated that if something isn’t done about global warming that people would soon be forced to resort to cannibalism. Turner also stated that he believes that global warming is directly related to the fact that there are too many people on the planet using too much stuff. Therefore, to fight global warming you’d need to have a dramatic reduction in population. As ridiculous as his comments are, this is nothing new from Turner. Turner has promoted eugenics driven policies like one and two-child policies for many years and has consistently touted the virtues of global government through the United Nations (UN). For Turner, it doesn’t matter that the UN has consistently made problems it supposedly attempts to resolve, worse. This is because for Turner and the global elite it is about control. What better way for the rulers of the planet like Turner to gain more control by reducing the world’s population through eugenics and implementing a global carbon tax that will further their aims for a one world government. The proposed solution to solve the phony problem of global warming by the elites has always been the implementation of a global carbon tax. The carbon tax will simply serve as a way to extract wealth from the poor and middle class of the world and into the hands of the elite. These are the true aims of Turner and the individuals who seek to build this New World Order enslavement system through the promotion of the global warming scam. Simply put, Turner and the elites want you dead and they want to implement their population reduction plans under the guise of saving the planet.

Below is taken from the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s report on Turner’s recent comments.

If steps aren’t taken to stem global warming, "We’ll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.




"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.

"We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."

Turner suggested that "on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world’s got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it."

First off, there is no hard scientific evidence indicating that global warming is being caused by man’s activities on this planet. In fact, global warming might not even be occurring at all. Many scientists dispute the claims of Al Gore and other people that have been promoting this theory of global warming and that man is causing it through their activities. There have also been reports of planets in the solar system warming in conjunction with the Earth getting warmer indicating that this is the result of solar activity. In the 1970s, the hysteria of global cooling and the coming ice age was heavily reported on and now only 30 years later, we see the hysteria of global warming. There’s absolutely no way that the threat of global warming can be taken seriously considering this information but that doesn’t stop Turner from promoting the global warming fraud. It is simply an excuse to implement their mass eugenics based extermination programs.

Turner has been at the forefront of promoting eugenics and the threat of phony environmental problems for quite sometime. Back in the 1990s, Turner who was unsatisfied with the original Ten Commandments released his own Ten Voluntary Initiatives as a replacement. Although some of his initiatives sound reasonable, it is clear that Turner’s intention with these initiatives is to promote the virtues of population reduction, governance by the United Nations to solve all of our problems and the new age religion of earth worship that is being promoted heavily by the elites. Turner’s Ten Voluntary Initiatives are listed below.

1. I promise to have love and respect for the planet earth and living things thereon, especially my fellow species–humankind.

2. I promise to treat all persons everywhere with dignity, respect, and friendliness.

3. I promise to have no more than two children, or no more than my nation suggests.

4. I promise to use my best efforts to save what is left of our natural world in its untouched state and to restore damaged or destroyed areas where practical.

5. I pledge to use as little nonrenewable resources as possible.

6. I pledge to use as little toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other poisons as possible and to work for their reduction by others.

7. I promise to contribute to those less fortunate than myself, to help them become self-sufficient and enjoy the benefits of a decent life, including clean air and water, adequate food and health care, housing, education, and individual rights.

8. I reject the use of force, in particular military force, and back United Nations arbitration of international disputes.

9. I support the total elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

10. I support the United Nations and its efforts to collectively improve the conditions of the planet.

Also during the 1990s, Turner was responsible for the launch of the propaganda laced cartoon series Captain Planet. Turner claimed that he launched the cartoon as a way to make children aware of the environmental problems that the planet is facing. In reality, Captain Planet was a way to indoctrinate the youth of the world into the pagan concepts of earth worship as well as the New World Order. In the cartoon series, Gaia the spirit of earth can no longer stand the destruction of the planet and gives five special rings to young people around the world. The five young people represented the elemental powers of fire, wind, water, earth and heart each of which came from a different region of the world. Together, the powers allowed them to summon Captain Planet to battle the evil polluters of the world. There is no doubt that Turner sought to use this cartoon in order to indoctrinate young people into the environmental agenda that the global elite would be pushing much more aggressively later.

Back in 1996, Turner stated in an interview with Audubon Magazine that a 95% population reduction would be ideal. Below is his quote.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Turner has also donated $1 billion to an organization known as the United Nations Foundation. The organization created by Turner is dedicated to the goals of population control, condom distribution, promotion of abortion and other methods to promote the stealth eugenics agenda. Turner and others like Bill and Melinda Gates have donated large amounts of money to so called charitable organizations which really serve to promote the eugenics movement. The public thinks they are doing a good thing with their money, when in fact they are contributing their wealth behind a much more evil and sinister agenda.

Amazingly, Turner was also given an award from the UN for his work in sustainable development which is really nothing more than code for population reduction.

Turner is suffering from the same disease that elites throughout history have had. Once these people have all the money that they could ever want, they seek power and they seek to do evil things with that power. By advocating population reduction and claiming that global warming is directly tied to the belief that there are too many people on the planet, Turner is simply promoting a softer variation of the eugenics programs that Hitler and his Third Reich implemented during World War II. No government or group of people should have the power to enforce population reduction. By giving governments and assorted institutions this power, this gives the people who have control over these organizations god like power. Of course, people like Turner and other elites seek to be living gods on this planet and want to ensure that their power is not challenged. Turner is simply out of his mind, and if he really believed in population reduction, it is hypocritical that he has decided not to kill himself in order to begin the process."


Well Ted lets see you set the example !

pax
07-04-2008, 04:40 PM
Also during the 1990s, Turner was responsible for the launch of the propaganda laced cartoon series Captain Planet.

Hah, it was also the lamest excuse for a cartoon series ever devised...

Axiom
07-04-2008, 04:52 PM
Hah, it was also the lamest excuse for a cartoon series ever devised...
The indoctrinating and propagandising of the young as an excuse for a cartoon series, is not just lame but should be alarming !


Sure , look after the world ,look after nature and species, don't pollute our waterways and our air, but please do not be sidetracked by the fatally flawed man made warming hoax. Like a pollutant itself , it obscures us from the real picture.

Spiny Norman
07-04-2008, 04:53 PM
Ted's Ten Commandments eh? I'll stick to the original version, thanks all the same! ;)

Desmond
07-04-2008, 07:36 PM
Anyone ever noticed that the 10% Ethanol pump is slower to fill your car than the regular one. It always is for me anyway, and the other day in the kiosk lining up to pay a woman in front of me was having a go at the attendant about it. The attendant explained that the ethanol-laced stuff goes through more filters than the regular stuff, and when the filters get clogged it slows the flow. Sounds reasonable to me, but I guess there are always nutters out there wanting to believe that petrol companies are pushing consumers to more expensive fuels for their own reasons. *cough* Axiom *cough* *cough*

Axiom
07-04-2008, 07:41 PM
Anyone ever noticed that the 10% Ethanol pump is slower to fill your car than the regular one. It always is for me anyway, and the other day in the kiosk lining up to pay a woman in front of me was having a go at the attendant about it. The attendant explained that the ethanol-laced stuff goes through more filters than the regular stuff, and when the filters get clogged it slows the flow. Sounds reasonable to me, but I guess there are always nutters out there wanting to believe that petrol companies are pushing consumers to more expensive fuels for their own reasons. *cough* Axiom *cough* *cough*
Boris, you really oughta stop seeing conspiracies at every given opportunity . :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2008, 08:09 PM
Anyone ever noticed that the 10% Ethanol pump is slower to fill your car than the regular one.
No. But it should be avoided unless the 10% EtOH is at least 4c cheaper, because EtOH has a lower energy density than petrol, because it is already partly oxidized.

It makes sense that it would need more filters, because the –OH group makes EtOH very hygroscopic.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2008, 11:16 PM
Well Ted lets see you set the example !
Green control freaks never do, do they? alGore is another overpopulation doom-monger, but he had four kids. And I've lost count of the global warming preachers who fly on private jets that spew more CO2 in an hour than most people drive in a year.

Axiom
07-04-2008, 11:22 PM
Green control freaks never do, do they? alGore is another overpopulation doom-monger, but he had four kids. And I've lost count of the global warming preachers who fly on private jets that spew more CO2 in an hour than most people drive in a year.
I'm right with you , on this one Jono, as you know
and at times i can scarcely control my anger at the duped,dupers and dupes.

Spiny Norman
09-04-2008, 09:35 AM
Reposted from the "Minnesotans for Global Warming" website (www.m4gw.com):

Elmer's First Law of Global Warming or "The Chicken Little Syndrome" is:
After an unusual warm spell, some people think that means the globe will burn up, so they run around screaming "The Globe Is Warming! The Globe Is Warming!"

Elmer's Second Law of Global Warming or "God Is In Control" is:
Whenever the mainstream media comes out and says that Global Warming is for real, we get hit with unusually cold weather.

Elmer's Third Law Of Global Warming is:
Most Global Warming occurs during the summer.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2008, 12:04 PM
RAPID ROUNDUP: Is the Earth cooling? – experts respond (http://www.aussmc.org/Is_the_Earth_Cooling.php)
11 April 08

William Kininmonth is a meteorologist and an outspoken critic of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol. He was head of the National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998.


"Info Note No. 44 issued by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) underscores why the public should take no notice of climate predictions for months, years or centuries ahead.

In the Note, the Secretary General of WMO discussed the potential for the current La Niña to extend into a second year and then concluded, with remarkable candidness, that 'The likelihood of the current La Niña continuing for such a period will remain unclear for some months'. Clearly the climate scientists, with all their elaborate computer models, cannot predict even a few months in advance.

It should be recalled that in January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office, with much fanfare, predicted that the then current El Niño event would continue through 2007 and that 2007 would be the warmest year on record. The prediction was spectacularly wrong. The El Niño was soon replaced by a La Niña event and the global temperature fell 0.6°C in the 12 months to January 2008, effectively wiping off a century of ‘global warming’.

1998 remains the warmest year of the climate record and the headline beginning 'Global warming continues...' is clearly misleading. No amount of spin can disguise the fact that there are many unknowns and uncertainties about the climate system. There is no compelling evidence that carbon dioxide has any significant control over the direction of global temperature and climate. The processes that regulate the interannual to decadal fluctuations of climate are poorly understood and, as yet, unpredictable."

What's the chance of the Australian Science and Media Centre asking Kininmonth for his opinion again, let alone Chairman KRudd's summit? That would spoil the "debate is over" mantra.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Gore Has Personal Stake in Anti-Warming Campaign (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Gore_profit_warming/2008/04/11/87256.html?s=al&promo_code=4926-1)
Phil Brennan
11 April 2008


Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense — I have a stake in these so I’ll have a disclaimer there — geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation."

Commented NewsBusters Noel Sheppard, "As Gore spoke these words, pictures of hybrid cars, windmills and solar panels appeared in multiple slides on the screen with company names at the bottom such as Amyris (biofuels), Altra (biofuels), Bloom Energy (solid oxide fuel cells), Mascoma (cellulosic biofuels), GreatPoint Energy (catalytic gasification), Miasole (solar cells), Ausra (utility scale solar panels), GEM (battery operated cars), Smart (electric cars), and AltaRock Energy (geothermal power)."

Sheppard noted Gore's recommendations that people put money in companies in which he has a financial stake is like "an investment advisor or stock broker giving a seminar to prospects and clients. And, as he tours the world demanding nations stop burning fossil fuels, he will financially benefit if they follow his advice and move to technologies that he has already invested in."

Miguel
12-04-2008, 02:53 PM
RAPID ROUNDUP: Is the Earth cooling? – experts respond (http://www.aussmc.org/Is_the_Earth_Cooling.php)
11 April 08
Did you conveniently forget the other comments?

Professor Barry Brook:

"Claims that global warming stopped in <... insert convenient year> underscore a fundamental lack of understanding about the difference between a trend and variability - or else a deliberate attempt to mislead people with the intent of further delaying action on climate change.

"The trend for global warming is consistently upwards, but in any given month, or even season or year, the actual temperature will be variable."

Dr Andrew Glikson:

"Some advocates of the 'pro-Carbon lobby' use climate data selectively, namely, they use low seasonal or annual points below the average trend as 'evidence' for cooling, and high points above the average trend to say that subsequent years represent a 'cooling'."

Dr Helen McGregor:

"What the WMO statement is saying is that the current La Niña represents a short-term fluctuation on an overall warming trend. We must be clear here: we are still experiencing global warming."


Professor Neville Nicholls:

"Some commentators have confused this recent, short term La Niña cooling with the long term warming human activity is causing. Just as one cold Melbourne day doesn't show the world has stopped warming, neither does the short-term cooling caused by a La Niña."

pax
12-04-2008, 05:49 PM
Professor Neville Nicholls:

"Some commentators have confused this recent, short term La Niña cooling with the long term warming human activity is causing. Just as one cold Melbourne day doesn't show the world has stopped warming, neither does the short-term cooling caused by a La Niña."

This goes to the heart of why Kinninmouth's statement above is so unscientific. I would have expected better from a senior meteorologist.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2008, 08:06 PM
Did you conveniently forget the other comments?
No, we are not supposed to copy too much here according to site rules.

But you can get the same crap from Flummery and alGore and various other jetsetters.

Dr Andrew Glikson:

"Some advocates of the 'pro-Carbon lobby' use climate data selectively, namely, they use low seasonal or annual points below the average trend as 'evidence' for cooling, and high points above the average trend to say that subsequent years represent a 'cooling'."
Ah yes, "pro-carbon lobby". Never mind that funding from government bureaucrats and loony left movie stars to push warm-mongering eclipses the funding from the alleged carbon lobby.

Dr Helen McGregor:

"What the WMO statement is saying is that the current La Niña represents a short-term fluctuation on an overall warming trend. We must be clear here: we are still experiencing global warming."

And this can only be taken seriously by ignoring the longer term trends that gave us the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

Professor Neville Nicholls:

"Some commentators have confused this recent, short term La Niña cooling with the long term warming human activity is causing. Just as one cold Melbourne day doesn't show the world has stopped warming, neither does the short-term cooling caused by a La Niña."
But the warm-mongers are only too happy to point to hot summers, droughts and hurricanes as evidence of warming.

Miguel
12-04-2008, 09:09 PM
No, we are not supposed to copy too much here according to site rules.
Presumably the rule exists to prevent members being annoyed by lengthy dumped quotes, not as an excuse for peddling misinformation.


Ah yes, "pro-carbon lobby". Never mind that funding from government bureaucrats and loony left movie stars to push warm-mongering eclipses the funding from the alleged carbon lobby.
Red herring.


And this can only be taken seriously by ignoring the longer term trends that gave us the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
And this can't be taken seriously at all.


But the warm-mongers are only too happy to point to hot summers, droughts and hurricanes as evidence of warming.
Straw man. Since you brought up these experts (by linking to the article), perhaps you can cite examples where any of them (Brook, Glikson, McGregor, Nicholls) confuse weather with climate?

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2008, 09:14 PM
Presumably the rule exists to prevent members being annoyed by lengthy dumped quotes, not as an excuse for peddling misinformation.

It's mainly for copyright reasons and also because extremely long cut-and-dumps of the sort routinely conducted by Axiom and sometimes by others are an unnecessary waste of space.

It certainly shouldn't be seen as an impedement to accurate summation of the full contents of an article. :lol:

pax
13-04-2008, 01:41 AM
But the warm-mongers are only too happy to point to hot summers, droughts and hurricanes as evidence of warming.

We don't hear that sort of rhetoric from "warm-mongers" anywhere near as often as we hear you going on about it...

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 09:53 AM
It certainly shouldn't be seen as an impedement to accurate summation of the full contents of an article. :lol:
As long as the post was an accurate summation of the quotee, that is sufficient. That people disagree is hardly news; it's the dissenters from warm-mongering who supposedly don't exist according to alGore, the IPCC, Krudd, and now apparently the loser leading the Coalition.

Miguel
13-04-2008, 01:06 PM
As long as the post was an accurate summation of the quotee, that is sufficient.
Translation: "Cherry-picking experts is justified if they are accurately quoted."

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 05:22 PM
Translation: "Cherry-picking experts is justified if they are accurately quoted."
You quote your experts, I'll quote mine. But it's not my side that screams "the debate is over".

Miguel
13-04-2008, 06:15 PM
But it's not my side that screams "the debate is over".
That's right. The deniers goes around insidiously spreading misinformation and screaming "the debate is not over", despite their nonsense being repeatedly debunked.

Axiom
13-04-2008, 06:31 PM
That's right. The deniers goes around insidiously spreading misinformation and screaming "the debate is not over", despite their nonsense being repeatedly debunked.
the man made gw position has been utterly debunked Miguel, you brainwashed uncritical thinking brainwashed bootlicker !

Miguel i challenge you to investigate reality via the 'information war' thread.

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 06:53 PM
That's right. The deniers goes around insidiously spreading misinformation and screaming "the debate is not over", despite their nonsense being repeatedly debunked.
More likely, there is too much for lefties to gain by perpetuating the AGW scaremongering, but they couldn't withstand real debate, so they declare it to be over.

Miguel
13-04-2008, 07:04 PM
the man made gw position has been utterly debunked Miguel, you brainwashed uncritical thinking brainwashed bootlicker !
That's rich, coming from a conspiracy nut! :lol:


Miguel i challenge you to investigate reality fantastic conspiracy theories via the 'information war' thread.
Fixed.

Axiom
13-04-2008, 07:08 PM
That's rich, coming from a conspiracy nut! :lol:
See what i mean about uncritical thinking ! ??


Fixed.
great, now start reading it !

Miguel
13-04-2008, 07:14 PM
More likely, there is too much for lefties to gain by perpetuating the AGW scaremongering, but they couldn't withstand real debate, so they declare it to be over.
:eek: "It's the lefties, I tell you!!! They're everywhere!!! AAAGH!!!"

Axiom
13-04-2008, 08:41 PM
:eek: "It's the lefties, I tell you!!! They're everywhere!!! AAAGH!!!"
yeah, and thats only half the problem...

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 09:43 PM
:eek: "It's the lefties, I tell you!!! They're everywhere!!! AAAGH!!!"
No, just in the media and academia, as I've documented. They are not everywhere — one of the points of the studies is how out of step journos and academics are with most of the population. But leftism is the only view you hear in your uni classes; one day you might grow up and join the real world.

Miguel
13-04-2008, 10:04 PM
But leftism is the only view you hear in your uni classes;
I don't recall there being any discussions on political ideology in my classes, but maybe universities are different in Jono-land.


one day you might grow up and join the real world.
And you might grow up once you've abandoned your childish fantasies... Nah, it'll never happen :lol:

pax
13-04-2008, 10:55 PM
I don't recall there being any discussions on political ideology in my classes, but maybe universities are different in Jono-land.
It's a remarkable place, Jono-land. Universities are full of evil communists plotting the downfall of the free market as we know it.

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 11:01 PM
I don't recall there being any discussions on political ideology in my classes, but maybe universities are different in Jono-land.
My land is the real world, as shown by surveys, as well as all the academics who supported the Soviet Union and now Cuba and Venzuela. But lefties like you are blind to your own biases, so think there is nothing unusual about Howard voters at Australian unis being rarer than whites at Obama's church.

Miguel
13-04-2008, 11:18 PM
My land is the real world, as shown by surveys, as well as all the academics who supported the Soviet Union and now Cuba and Venzuela. But lefties like you are blind to your own biases, so think there is nothing unusual about Howard voters at Australian unis being rarer than whites at Obama's church.
I'm beginning to think that you're just an automated Jono-bot that keeps regurgitating the same ol' "pinkos are eeeeeeevil!!!" rubbish. Really, you've got to get a new hobbyhorse, so that I can differentiate between real Jono and Jono-bot.

pax
14-04-2008, 09:38 AM
But lefties like you are blind to your own biases, so think there is nothing unusual about Howard voters at Australian unis being rarer than whites at Obama's church.

Perhaps we need affirmative action for righties in Universities :owned: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 10:36 AM
Perhaps we need affirmative action for righties in Universities :owned: :owned:
All we need is lack of government funding for universities that practice negative action against conservatives. But the above shows the hypocrisy of the left, which call for "affirmative action" merely on the grounds of a lower representation of blacks and women, but not on the grounds of an immensely lower representation of conservatives. Their idea of "diversity" doesn't include ideological diversity.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 10:38 AM
I'm beginning to think that you're just an automated Jono-bot that keeps regurgitating the same ol' "pinkos are eeeeeeevil!!!" rubbish. Really, you've got to get a new hobbyhorse, so that I can differentiate between real Jono and Jono-bot.
Ironic, given that lefties are all about stupid slogans about the evils of the West, whites, males, the free market, America, Israel ... But at universities, there is no real opposition, so the products of the uni system aren't used to dealing with real arguments, as opposed to demonizing their proponents.

pax
14-04-2008, 11:01 AM
All we need is lack of government funding for universities that practice negative action against conservatives.
Oh come on, there is absolutely no evidence of discrimination against conservatives in Universities (except for the three examples you will inevitably cite from the "poor downtodden tories" file). Staff political views are completely irrelevant in the vast majority of fields.

pax
14-04-2008, 11:04 AM
Ironic, given that lefties are all about stupid slogans about the evils of the West, whites, males, the free market, America, Israel ...

The lefties of Jono's imagination...

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 11:25 AM
The lefties of Jono's imagination...
Only if prominent academics and journos, as well as Soros, More-On, are also in my imagination …

Miguel
14-04-2008, 12:15 PM
But at universities, there is no real opposition, so the products of the uni system aren't used to dealing with real arguments, as opposed to demonizing their proponents.
Demonizing opposition? Straight out of your bag of tricks, eh? :lol:

Miguel
14-04-2008, 12:23 PM
Oh come on, there is absolutely no evidence of discrimination against conservatives in Universities (except for the three examples you will inevitably cite from the "poor downtodden tories" file). Staff political views are completely irrelevant in the vast majority of fields.
Jono doesn't care about evidence, because he magically knows The Truth.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 01:42 PM
Demonizing opposition? Straight out of your bag of tricks, eh? :lol:
What a joke, when the only argument from the Left against global warm-mongering skeptics is that they are in the pay of Big Oil (being paid by Far Bigger Government is fine of course). And of course, supporters of the free market just love big business and hate poor people, those who oppose "affirmative action" or criticise Obama are racists, ...

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2008, 01:46 PM
Staff political views are completely irrelevant in the vast majority of fields., as long as they are on left

pax
14-04-2008, 02:13 PM
, as long as they are on left
:eek: :eek: Do you really think engineers and scientists and economists have to answer some pop political quiz before getting a job in a University?

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2008, 02:14 PM
:eek: :eek: Do you really think engineers and scientists and economists have to answer some pop political quiz before getting a job in a University?
Do I need to put a smiley after each joke?

pax
14-04-2008, 02:18 PM
Only if prominent academics and journos, as well as Soros, More-On, are also in my imagination …

The problem with your grab-bag of generalizations is that anybody who has a vaguely left of centre view on any topic is immediately branded LEFTY in your copybook. And all lefties are assigned with all of the most extreme left views you can find in any member of the group (and in fact any other extreme non-left views too).

The result is a gross caricature that doesn't remotely resemble anyone.

pax
14-04-2008, 02:19 PM
Do I need to put a smiley after each joke?
In threads where Jono is involved you do - because he would not be joking...

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 02:20 PM
:eek: :eek: Do you really think engineers and scientists and economists have to answer some pop political quiz before getting a job in a University?
And that is the reason there are more conservatives among them. There is still a residual lefty bias, because they owe their positions to governments confiscating money from taxpayers.

The humanities departments are far left—so far that it's unnecessary to caricature them; they are already a caricature!

Aaron Guthrie
14-04-2008, 03:21 PM
The humanities departments are far left—so far that it's unnecessary to caricature them; they are already a caricature!Evidence?

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 03:31 PM
Evidence?
Discussed on this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7754&page=9).

Igor_Goldenberg
14-04-2008, 03:50 PM
In threads where Jono is involved you do - because he would not be joking...
So far it did not apply to him. Do I need to mention the only person got caught?

Axiom
14-04-2008, 05:15 PM
Government Scientists Propose “Geo-Engineering” Earth’s Upper Atmosphere

Research tied to increasing reports of chemtrails over past 10 years?

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet | April 10, 2008


Government scientists have been experimenting with the feasibility of bombarding the Earth’s upper atmosphere with microscopic glass particles to dampen the effects of “global warming,” despite warnings that the process could damage the ozone layer. Are admissions of government research into altering the earth’s atmosphere tied to increasing reports of chemtrail spraying over the past 10 years?

According to documents obtained by Cybercast News Service under the Freedom of Information Act, “Scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., are conducting limited tests and developing computer models of what might happen if a huge amount of particulate matter is shot into the stratosphere.”

“The particles, consisting of a very fine and special form of glass - “porous-walled glass microspheres” - would be able to absorb a certain amount of carbon dioxide, and would reflect sunlight away from the Earth,” states the article.

The project, which began last year and ends on April 30, is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”




Tom Wigley, a scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told Cybercast News Service that research into injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere, referred to as “geo-engineering,” has been ongoing.

“Geo-engineering is the intentional large-scale intervention into the environment to counteract anthropogenic (our human-caused) climate change,” Wigley said.

Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, said unwanted side-effects could occur if the proposals were tested on a large scale.

“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” Singer told Cybercast News Service .

Patrick Michaels, a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, said that the “geo-engineering” proposals stem from research by, “Soviet scientists in the 1970s, who were trying to change the climate over Northern Russia and reverse the flow of certain rivers.”

Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, have increased over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda.

Earlier this year, KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.



Could a strange substance found by an Ark-La-Tex man be part of secret government testing program? That’s the question at the heart of a phenomenon called “Chemtrails.” In a KSLA News 12 investigation, Reporter Jeff Ferrell shows us the results of testing we had done about what’s in our skies.
story by Jeff Ferrell


The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.

KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.

KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.”
http://www.*******s.com/?p=1447

Aaron Guthrie
14-04-2008, 09:32 PM
Discussed on this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7754&page=9).I don't see evidence of that on that page of the thread.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2008, 02:04 PM
I don't see evidence of that on that page of the thread.
None so blind as those who will not see.

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2008, 02:12 PM
The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557374&in_page_id=1770)
Nigel Lawson, Energy Secretary in Margaret Thatcher's first government in the early Eighties
Daily Mail 5 April 2008

...science is only part of the story. Even if the climate scientists can tell us what is happening, and why they think it is happening, they cannot tell us what governments should be doing about it. For this, we also need an understanding of the economics: of what the economic consequences of any warming might be, and, if there is a problem, the best way of dealing with it.

First, then, what is happening? Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.

The world's temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - part of Britain's Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy - has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.

The centre now officially expects global warming to resume at some point between 2009 and 2014.

Maybe it will. But the fact that the present lull was not predicted by any of the complex computer models upon which the global warming orthodoxy relies is clear evidence that the science of what determines the world's temperature is distinctly uncertain and far from "settled".

Genuine climate scientists admit that Earth's climate is determined by hugely complex systems, and reliable prediction is impossible.

...

Even the IPCC concedes that for a warming of anything up to 3 per cent, "globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase". Yes: increase.

As to health, in its most recent report, the IPCC found only one outcome which they ranked as "virtually certain" to happen - and that was "reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure".

This echoes a study done by our own Department of Health which predicted that by the 2050s, the UK would suffer an increase in heat-related deaths by 2,000 a year, and a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 deaths a year — something that ministers have been curiously silent about.

...

All in all, given that global warming produces benefits as well as costs, it is far from clear that the currently projected warming, far from being "catastrophic", will do any net harm at all.

To which it will be replied that while that may be so for the world as a whole, the people in the developing world will indeed suffer.

But the greatest curse of the developing world is mass poverty, and the malnutrition, disease and unnecessary death that poverty brings. To impede their escape from poverty by denying them the benefits of cheap carbon-based energy would damage them far more than global warming ever could.

Nonetheless, on the basis of its deeply flawed assumptions, the IPCC predicts that if the warming is as much as 4 degrees centigrade by the end of this century, then the economic cost would be a cut of between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of what world output (GDP) would otherwise have been — with the developed world suffering much less, and the developing world much more than this.

But supposing the developing world suffers as much as a 10 per cent loss of GDP from what it would have been in 100 years' time.

That means that by the year 2100, people in the developing world, instead of being some 9.5 times better off than they are today, will be 'only' 8.5 times better off (which, incidentally, will still leave them better off than people in the developed world today). And, remember, all this is on the basis of the IPCC's own grotesquely inflated estimate of the likely damage from further warming.

So the fundamental question is: how big a sacrifice should the present generation make now in the hope of avoiding this?

Miguel
15-04-2008, 03:01 PM
<copy-dump>
Yet another denial (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php) screed dumped by Jono... or is it Jono-bot again, set on auto-dump?

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2008, 03:30 PM
Yet another denial (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php) screed dumped by Jono... or is it Jono-bot again, set on auto-dump?
Another automated "the debate is over" response by a warm-mongering hack.

Of course, Miguel didn't deal with a major point made in this article: even if warming is true, it may well do more good than harm. But screwing our economy to prevent it is sure to do far more harm than warming.

Axiom
15-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 14, 2008

One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes - has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it.

Hurricane buff and professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Kerry Emanuel asserted for over 20 years that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms and he shot to prominence just one month before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when he delivered the "final proof" that global warming was already causing extreme weather events and wrecking livelihoods.

Emanuel was subsequently acknowledged with a place in Time Magazine’s "100 People Who Shape Our World" list.

Al Gore was so inspired by Emanuel’s research that he devoted the iconic front cover image of his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth to his warning, portraying a hurricane emerging from a Co2-belching smokestack.




An inconvenient cover image - Al Gore’s depiction of global warming’s contribution to hurricanes has been completely discredited.


Unfortunately for the church of environmentalism, who ceaselessly profess to have a monopoly on truth and insist that "the debate is over" on global warming, Emanuel has completely recanted his position and now admits that hurricanes and storms will actually decline over the next 200 years and have little or no correlation with global temperature change whatsoever.

"Emanuel’s newest work, co-authored with two other researchers, simulates hurricane conditions nearly 200 years in the future. The research — the first to mesh global climate models with small-scale high-resolution simulations of individual storms — found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others — and the total number of worldwide storms actually declines slightly," reports Daily Tech.

"The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries," reports The Houston Chronicle.

"The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes."

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," said Emanuel, adding, "The results surprised me."

This bears testimony to the fact that we cannot accept the shrill claims of the alarmists that "the debate is over" on global warming, because to do so would hand control of our future over to bumbling, self-serving control freaks who have been proven wrong time after time.

How can we let technocrats impose sweeping control measures based on a "consensus" about the effects of global warming that isn’t necessarily correct? Those that propose drastic responses to a "crisis" that isn’t even fully understood should be treated with extreme suspicion.

The admission that global warming has no effect on extreme weather patterns, in addition to last week’s report confirming there has been no global temperature increase since 1998, spells disaster for the alarmists and current weather patterns are not doing them any favors either.

Shortly after China experienced its coldest winter in 100 years and northeast America was hit by record snow levels, Britain is currently experiencing its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils are pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis.




Since forecasters have problems predicting what the weather will be in a few days time, to claim an understanding of climate patterns hundreds of years into the future is not only asinine, it is the height of arrogance and a danger to humanity.

The proposals for combating so-called global warming are so drastic that they will inflict a worse burden on humanity than any claimed minor temperature increase, wrecking economies, increasing starvation and stripping away basic freedoms in the name of rallying to save mother earth from a problem that does not even exist.

For eons, earth has been battered by violent storms and experienced huge temperature swings as a result of natural climate change before man ever set foot on the planet.

Historically, we are currently living in a frigid "Ice House" compared to the "Hot House" endured by our predecessors the dinosaurs, who roamed the earth when the poles were covered by lush forests.

But all this matters little to the demagogues of a giant sprawling cash cow whose continued funding relies on tying everything that happens to man-made global warming and that "evil" life-giving gas, carbon dioxide.

The real environmental issues - GM frankenstein food, deforestation and toxic waste dumping amongst others, will continue to be neglected as we are led on a merry dance by the climate change cultists - but as the hard evidence increasingly belies the hoax that they have foisted upon us, their credibility and influence will continue to wane.

http://www.*******s.com/?p=1468

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2008, 04:35 PM
Yet another denial (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php) screed dumped by Jono... or is it Jono-bot again, set on auto-dump?
Do you have anything of substance to say about the content of the article?

pax
15-04-2008, 04:36 PM
even if warming is true, it may well do more good than harm.
You guys can't even figure out where you stand. Your position seems to waver erratically between the following (whichever corresponds to your autodump of the day):

Warming isn't happening.
Warming is happening, but it isn't man made.
Warming is happening, and it might be man made, but think how much better the weather will be!

Igor_Goldenberg
15-04-2008, 04:44 PM
You guys can't even figure out where you stand. Your position seems to waver erratically between the following (whichever corresponds to your autodump of the day):

Warming isn't happening.
Warming is happening, but it isn't man made.
Warming is happening, and it might be man made, but think how much better the weather will be!

You missed the point again. Global warning alarmist demand government funded/enforced action. The onus is on them to proof that:
1. Warming is happening
2. Warming is man made
3. Warming will make our live worse off.
Only if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt all of above we can talk about which actions can address the problem (not make it worse).

Global warming skeptics, on the other hand, do not demand government intervention, declining of living standards, massive regulation and spending of taxpayers money. Therefore they only need to point the mistakes in any attempts (quite feeble actually) to prove any of above.

Axiom
15-04-2008, 05:00 PM
You missed the point again. Global warning alarmist demand government funded/enforced action. The onus is on them to proof that:
1. Warming is happening
2. Warming is man made
3. Warming will make our live worse off.
Only if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt all of above we can talk about which actions can address the problem (not make it worse).

Global warming skeptics, on the other hand, do not demand government intervention, declining of living standards, massive regulation and spending of taxpayers money. Therefore they only need to point the mistakes in any attempts (quite feeble actually) to prove any of above.
quite right :clap: :clap: :clap:

pax
15-04-2008, 05:00 PM
Only if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt all of above we can talk about which actions can address the problem (not make it worse).

Beyond reasonable doubt? If that is your standard of evidence, then you will never prove anything about the climate.

Miguel
15-04-2008, 06:13 PM
Of course, Miguel didn't deal with a major point made in this article
Why bother? As per usual, you just dump-and-run, and expect everybody else to clean up your mess.

Miguel
15-04-2008, 06:14 PM
Do you have anything of substance to say about the content of the article?
Jono didn't, so why should I?

Capablanca-Fan
15-04-2008, 07:37 PM
Beyond reasonable doubt? If that is your standard of evidence, then you will never prove anything about the climate.
It's pretty reasonable considering that the governments want to impose massive costs on us. Poverty, unlike warmth, is a proven health hazard.

Of course, many of the loudest shouters are not making any sacrifices to their jetsetting and energy guzzling mansions themselves.

Aaron Guthrie
15-04-2008, 07:50 PM
None so blind as those who will not see.I skimmed the page. I am not going to do more than that. I am certainly not going to trawl through a thread to find evidnce of your claim!

If you actually linked to that page for a reason, that is to say because there was some evidence there, surely you are able to point out such.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-04-2008, 09:29 AM
Beyond reasonable doubt? If that is your standard of evidence, then you will never prove anything about the climate.

In my system of moral values putting your hand in someone else pocket without their consent is a thief. I understand that it is not shared by many and vigorously opposed by greenies and lefties. However, I expect at least some pretense of decency before someone puts a hand (or vacuum cleaner) in my pocket.

In case of confiscating billions of dollars to fight global warming some sort of excuse would be greatly appreciated. Reasonable proves of the three points mentioned, as well as a proof that suggested measures will have a net benefit has to be presented.

The impudence of modern green/left is staggering. In a nutshell:
"We just want your money. Why do you demand any logical evidences?"

That's why I repeat:

Either proof beyond reasonable doubt that confiscating my money will provide net benefit, or admit it's just a thief.

Capablanca-Fan
16-04-2008, 11:38 AM
Global warming rage lets global hunger grow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/14/ccview114.xml)
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
Telegraph (UK) 15/04/2008


We drive, they starve. The mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits.

A demonstrator eats grass in front of a U.N. peacekeeping soldier during a protest against the high cost of living in Port-au-Prince

"The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.

The UN says it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. That is enough to feed a child for a year. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted.

We are all part of this drama whether we fill up with petrol or ethanol. The substitution effect across global markets makes the two morally identical.

Mr Diouf says world grain stocks have fallen to a quarter-century low of 5m tonnes, rations for eight to 12 weeks. America — the world's food superpower — will divert 18pc of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45pc biofuel target for corn by 2015.
I've also mentioned that ethanol is a crass fuel from a physical chemical viewpoint, and that Indonesia destroyed huge areas of rainforest to clear land for biofuel. So before greenie lefties steal our hard-earned money, we want proof that their policies will do more good than harm.

pax
16-04-2008, 07:04 PM
In case of confiscating billions of dollars to fight global warming some sort of excuse would be greatly appreciated. Reasonable proves of the three points mentioned, as well as a proof that suggested measures will have a net benefit has to be presented.
There is a scientific literature on these points a mile deep. But as long as you guys are believe there is a massive conspiracy of scientists, you will never be convinced.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2008, 12:11 AM
There is a scientific literature on these points a mile deep. But as long as you guys are believe there is a massive conspiracy of scientists, you will never be convinced.
No, there is a lot of political literature, e.g. the IPCC. But there is much scientific dissent merely about whether it will do more good than harm, and economic dissent about whether measures to stop warming will be a remedy worse than the disease.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2008, 12:12 AM
Meet the New Big Energy, Same as the Old Big Energy (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonSanders/2008/04/15/meet_the_new_big_energy,_same_as_the_old_big_ene)
By Jon Sanders
15 April 2008

If you are a politician and you favor federal support for ethanol and other biofuels, would you kindly stop telling voters you care for the poor? We all expect candidates to tell some whoppers, but even so, that one is just plain unseemly.

...

Look what has happened in the few short years since Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with its "renewable fuel" requirements. The insulated thinkers in Foggy Bottom reached amid all this market uncertainty and hand-selected the energy alternatives to save America and the planet. And what they've accomplished is already as thorough a cock-up as possible even from that rarefied assemblage of bumblers.

Is their solution better for the environment per the standards of manmade-global-warming orthodoxy? No. The most recent studies have shown that, taking into account all the factors involved in producing biofuels, including the need for shipping and for converting land to cropland, they would increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the amount contributed by conventional fuels.

What of oil prices? They are still on the increase. Their rise is being eclipsed, however, by the staggering increase in the worldwide price of food. What does the price of food have to do with energy policy? Because our savants' energy is made from food, especially corn, one of the primary staples worldwide.

Corn prices are at all-time highs, having passed $6 a bushel this month after hovering mostly between $2 to $3 the last ten years. This sizeable increase is affecting all kinds of markets worldwide; increasing the prices not only of consumer items and cereals made from corn, but also of beef, chicken and dairy products (livestock that is corn fed), and substitute goods such as grains.

...

Record profits, record high prices, suppressed supply, consumers facing higher bills – and you thought oil was bad? This new behemoth is worse for the environment and worse for the poor -- rising food prices hit the poor the hardest, and even "liberals" know that; it's why they often try to exempt food from sales-tax increases.

Only a central-government policy "fix" could be this counterproductive. Everything else is subject to being laughed off by investors, consumers, and people whose fortunes depend upon finding ways to please investors and consumers. Officials insulated from this necessary corrective and equipped with the coercive power of government are doubly able to foist great boondoggles not only on their country, but sometimes even the world.

Capablanca-Fan
23-04-2008, 12:14 PM
See “The Sky is NOT Falling (http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garnaut-submission.pdf)”.
A submission to the Garnaut Climate Change Review
from The Carbon Sense Coalition.
www.carbon-sense.com
January 2008

Also see Time for an Australia New Zealand Royal Commission on Global Warming (http://carbon-sense.com/2008/02/05/time-for-an-australia-new-zealand-royal-commission-on-global-warming/)

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 10:39 AM
Climatology: top eleven at amazon.com (http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/04/climatology-top-eleven-at-amazoncom.html)
by physicist Lubos Motl ranks the climate books selling best at Amazon, from realist (usually dismissed as “sceptical") to out and out Flummery:

1. Roy Spencer, realist (#116)
2. Bjorn Lomborg, realist (#959)
3. Fred Singer, realist (#1324)
4. Brian Fagan, neutral (#6156), a book about the little ice age
5. James Lovelock, Gaia priest (#8706)
6. Wallace Broeckner, alarmist (#9202)
7. Mark Lynas, alarmist loon (#10308)
8.Patrick Michaels, realist (#12027)
9. Tim Flannery, alarmist loon (#16135)
10. Henrik Svensmark, realist (#16309)
11. Dennis Avery and Fred Singer, realists (#19266)

Capablanca-Fan
24-04-2008, 09:19 PM
Cap-and-trade fraud
Proponents misunderstand the dynamic marketplace (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=96dc23c8-33e2-45c4-bf6a-14aba852d764)
Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden,
Financial Post, 2 October 2007


In response to the global warming consensus, political momentum is building to cap greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGs), subdivide the cap into smaller parts (or emissions allowances similar to rationing coupons), and distribute the emissions allowances, either by auction or on a no-cost basis to businesses that emit greenhouse gases.

...

The bottom line: Due to the reduction in economic growth, by 2020 every man, woman, and child [in the US] would be about $2,700 poorer than the baseline scenario — or about $10,800 for a family of four.

Capablanca-Fan
25-04-2008, 03:28 PM
Nobel Laureate Fraud Exposed:

alGore used fictional video to illustrate ‘Inconvenient Truth’ (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/22/abc-s-20-20-gore-used-fictional-film-clip-inconvenient-truth)

Igor_Goldenberg
26-04-2008, 10:03 PM
There is a scientific literature on these points a mile deep. But as long as you guys are believe there is a massive conspiracy of scientists, you will never be convinced.
Let me kindly remind you about my post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=191292&postcount=658
The literature you mentioned covers extensively 1st item (that warming is happening), fails to convince that it's man-made (2nd point) and does not even pretend to address the 3rd point (that confiscating trillions and spending billions provides net benefit).

pax
27-04-2008, 12:22 AM
Let me kindly remind you about my post http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=191292&postcount=658
The literature you mentioned covers extensively 1st item (that warming is happening), fails to convince that it's man-made (2nd point) and does not even pretend to address the 3rd point (that confiscating trillions and spending billions provides net benefit).
You're wrong. There are hundreds of papers out there modelling the effect of reductions in CO2 on warming, and even modelling specific carbon tax scenarios. You may not agree with their conclusions, but don't pretend they don't exist.

Capablanca-Fan
27-04-2008, 01:35 AM
You're wrong. There are hundreds of papers out there modelling the effect of reductions in CO2 on warming,
Of course, the politicians ignore those that suggest warming might actually do more good than harm.


and even modelling specific carbon tax scenarios. You may not agree with their conclusions, but don't pretend they don't exist.
Just about all of them mean that we will be a lot poorer. But lefties always demand sacrifices from the masses for the alleged greater good. I know of people who have lived under both Hitler and Stalin and see similarities in the current alarmism, in that they all asserted that some crisis demanded more government control and less freedom. Some alarmists today have seriously suggested that liberal democracy can't meet the demands of the environment. And just think of Time with its crappy cover comparing the fight against a real and vicious enemy, Imperial Japan, with the current "enemy" of global warming.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-04-2008, 08:50 PM
You're wrong. There are hundreds of papers out there modelling the effect of reductions in CO2 on warming, and even modelling specific carbon tax scenarios. You may not agree with their conclusions, but don't pretend they don't exist.
Why don't you provide a link to a cost/benefit analysis you agree with and happy to advocate and defend.

Davidflude
27-04-2008, 10:21 PM
Meet the New Big Energy, Same as the Old Big Energy (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JonSanders/2008/04/15/meet_the_new_big_energy,_same_as_the_old_big_ene)
By Jon Sanders
15 April 2008

If you are a politician and you favor federal support for ethanol and other biofuels, would you kindly stop telling voters you care for the poor? We all expect candidates to tell some whoppers, but even so, that one is just plain unseemly.

...

Look what has happened in the few short years since Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with its "renewable fuel" requirements. The insulated thinkers in Foggy Bottom reached amid all this market uncertainty and hand-selected the energy alternatives to save America and the planet. And what they've accomplished is already as thorough a cock-up as possible even from that rarefied assemblage of bumblers.

Is their solution better for the environment per the standards of manmade-global-warming orthodoxy? No. The most recent studies have shown that, taking into account all the factors involved in producing biofuels, including the need for shipping and for converting land to cropland, they would increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the amount contributed by conventional fuels.

What of oil prices? They are still on the increase. Their rise is being eclipsed, however, by the staggering increase in the worldwide price of food. What does the price of food have to do with energy policy? Because our savants' energy is made from food, especially corn, one of the primary staples worldwide.

Corn prices are at all-time highs, having passed $6 a bushel this month after hovering mostly between $2 to $3 the last ten years. This sizeable increase is affecting all kinds of markets worldwide; increasing the prices not only of consumer items and cereals made from corn, but also of beef, chicken and dairy products (livestock that is corn fed), and substitute goods such as grains.

...

Record profits, record high prices, suppressed supply, consumers facing higher bills – and you thought oil was bad? This new behemoth is worse for the environment and worse for the poor -- rising food prices hit the poor the hardest, and even "liberals" know that; it's why they often try to exempt food from sales-tax increases.

Only a central-government policy "fix" could be this counterproductive. Everything else is subject to being laughed off by investors, consumers, and people whose fortunes depend upon finding ways to please investors and consumers. Officials insulated from this necessary corrective and equipped with the coercive power of government are doubly able to foist great boondoggles not only on their country, but sometimes even the world.

Jono, you are right on the money regarding ethanol from corn. it was pushed through congress and not vetoed by a well known drongo to help the mid west farmers. The energy expended in producing the ethanol is greater than that produced by the ethanol.

There is an itsy bitsy Australian company that is planning to make bio-diesol from a plant that grows in Western Australia as a weed. It loves poor soils, stands up to long droughts and is already being used in India by the railways to provide 15% of the diesol they use. However the company looks undercapitalized to me so I will not invest.

At present I am researching an Aussie company that at first sight is a boring industrial distributing elecricity and gas and producing oil and coal bed methane. However it now will add solar heating to your existing gas or electric heating, markets and instals solar panels and will buy back your surplus electricity. Furthermore they are into geothermal power and are buying their first wind farm in Germany. (Also there is one piece of blue sky that the market has overlooked so far which in the long term could very good indeed.

As always it is the private sector that gets things done provided the bureaucrats get the ground rules right and stand well clear.

I believe in global warming and peak oil. I am overweight in oil stocks.

Davidflude
27-04-2008, 10:33 PM
Reinforcing what Jono said.

read the following.

http://www.henrythornton.com/article.asp?article_id=5130

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2008, 09:54 PM
Why don't you provide a link to a cost/benefit analysis you agree with and happy to advocate and defend.

“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

“‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices.” — Prof. P. Stott

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2008, 10:05 PM
Jono, you are right on the money regarding ethanol from corn. it was pushed through congress and not vetoed by a well known drongo to help the mid west farmers.
It's no accident that Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom to "socialists of both parties". Shrubby was just using tried and failed socialist method of forcibly taking money from taxpayers to give to favored groups.


There is an itsy bitsy Australian company that is planning to make bio-diesol from a plant that grows in Western Australia as a weed. It loves poor soils, stands up to long droughts and is already being used in India by the railways to provide 15% of the diesol they use. However the company looks undercapitalized to me so I will not invest.
Sounds like a better plan than clearing forests to grow biodiesel crops, as has been done.


As always it is the private sector that gets things done provided the bureaucrats get the ground rules right and stand well clear.
There have been ample lessons of this in history, but they fail to be learned.


I am overweight in oil stocks.
Because the oil price is likely to rise?

Desmond
29-04-2008, 10:14 PM
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L MenckenWas he talking about Jesus Carpenter?

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2008, 09:06 AM
Was he talking about Jesus Carpenter?
Maybe; I included him because he was a misotheist, so you should like him :P

Desmond
30-04-2008, 10:27 AM
Maybe; I included him because he was a misotheist, so you should like him :P
touche :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2008, 01:57 PM
This looks interesting: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud — And Those Who Are Too Fearful to Do So (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C7214&sour_CEE080001) by Lawrence Solomon:


There is a small and plucky coterie of scientists who, because of their commitment to the facts, are daring to stand up — at great personal cost — against the established global warming myth.
Solomon explains how Gore and Co. have mounted an all-out campaign against these men, portraying them as hacks bought off by profit-mad oil companies — or, worse, as global warming “deniers,” a term meant to link them with “Holocaust deniers.” But Solomon knew firsthand from his efforts in the battles over nuclear energy in the 1970s and 1980s that scientists with integrity can hold unconventional and unpopular views, despite the scorn heaped upon them by the establishment. So when the rhetoric began to heat up on the global warming skeptics, he began to look into the claims of the deniers who were being so roundly criticized. In The Deniers he profiles some of the principal dissenters from global warming dogma — all recognized leaders in their fields, with many of them even active in the official body that oversees most of the world’s climate-change research, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Axiom
30-04-2008, 06:41 PM
This looks interesting: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud — And Those Who Are Too Fearful to Do So (http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C7214&sour_CEE080001) by Lawrence Solomon:


There is a small and plucky coterie of scientists who, because of their commitment to the facts, are daring to stand up — at great personal cost — against the established global warming myth.
Solomon explains how Gore and Co. have mounted an all-out campaign against these men, portraying them as hacks bought off by profit-mad oil companies — or, worse, as global warming “deniers,” a term meant to link them with “Holocaust deniers.” But Solomon knew firsthand from his efforts in the battles over nuclear energy in the 1970s and 1980s that scientists with integrity can hold unconventional and unpopular views, despite the scorn heaped upon them by the establishment. So when the rhetoric began to heat up on the global warming skeptics, he began to look into the claims of the deniers who were being so roundly criticized. In The Deniers he profiles some of the principal dissenters from global warming dogma — all recognized leaders in their fields, with many of them even active in the official body that oversees most of the world’s climate-change research, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion -- and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion... while truth again reverts to a new minority.”

Soren Kierkegaard

Kevin Bonham
01-05-2008, 04:09 PM
My response to Ax's quote and all the subsequent Kierkegaard stuff moved here (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=8090)

Capablanca-Fan
01-05-2008, 08:49 PM
The great organic myths: Why organic foods are an indulgence the world can't afford (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/the-great-organic-myths-why-organic-foods-are-an-indulgence-the-world-cant-afford-818585.html?service=Print)

The Independent (UK), 1 May 2008


They're not healthier or better for the environment — and they're packed with pesticides. In an age of climate change and shortages, these foods are an indugence the world can't afford, argues environmental expert Rob Johnston

Axiom
02-05-2008, 03:34 AM
Dhxp-720z1Y&feature=related

pax
02-05-2008, 12:14 PM
The so-called "Heartland institute" has been caught out inventing a list of 500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978). At least 45 people on the list (of some 120 contacted) expressed outrage (http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute) that their views had been misrepresented by their inclusion in the list.

Capablanca-Fan
03-05-2008, 10:20 AM
According to a paper in Nature (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=science), parts of North America and Europe are expected to cool over the next decade.

But of course the researcher remains a global warming zealot, and was reluctant to present his research in case it would be used to undermine his religion:


“We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don’t want it to be turned around in the wrong way,” Keenlyside said. “I hope it doesn’t become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.”

pax
03-05-2008, 11:44 PM
“We thought a lot about the way to present this because we don’t want it to be turned around in the wrong way,” Keenlyside said. “I hope it doesn’t become a message of Exxon Mobil and other skeptics.”
He clearly anticipated the likes of yourself takes his results out of context to make it sound like proof that global warming is not happening.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2008, 12:06 AM
He clearly anticipated the likes of yourself takes his results out of context to make it sound like proof that global warming is not happening.
More likely, he wants to claim that this cooling is cyclic, but previous "evidence" for warming was the real trend, ignoring evidence that it was part of a larger cycle that produced the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age.

Axiom
04-05-2008, 03:54 AM
http://www.************.com/articles/may2008/020508Ball.htm

Dr. Timothy Ball
NRSP Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee
Phone: 250-380-7784
Fax: 250-380-7776

e-mail: timothyball@shaw.ca

Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, where he founded and directed the Rupertsland Research Centre. With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Ball's comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.

Dr. Ball is a researcher/author of scientific papers on a range of environmental issues. He has recently (December 06) co-authored a paper for the scientific journal, Ecological Complexity, with Baliunas, Dyck, Soon, Baydack, Legates, and Hancock entitled Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the "ultimate" survival control factor? He is also co-author of the book Eighteenth Century Naturalists of Hudson Bay (2004 - McGill/Queens University Press) with Dr. Stuart Houston, one of the World's leading authorities on arctic birds.

Dr. Ball is a leader in the current global warming debate and appears regularly as a guest on radio and television - click here to watch one of his recent appearances on Fox TV's "Hannity and Colmes"; click here to listen to his June 9, 2007 radio interview on the Nick at Night on CFRA Radio in Ottawa, Ontario.

Dr. Ball is also published frequently in leading newspapers and magazines across Canada and, increasingly, the U.S. and abroad A measure of Dr. Ball's impact was seen recently when, after one of his pieces was featured on the Drudge Report, a leading on-line news service (click here to see original piece), he received approximately 1,000 e-mails from the general public during the next 24 hours, 90% of which were supportive. Dr. Ball personally responded to over 500 of these, providing respondents with information as requested -- as a consequence several are now NRSP supporters.

Dr. Ball's public presentations - over 600 in the past ten years -- have been enthusiastically received by professional societies, business conferences, public forums and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations. His entertaining, yet solidly science-based description of the current climate change controversy has resulted in him being a much sought after speaker continent-wide. Recognizing the different knowledge-levels and interests of particular audiences, Dr. Ball specially tunes his talks to appeal to listeners and, as a consequence, is regular repeat presenter for many groups.
Click here to discuss this story in our forum

pax
04-05-2008, 08:22 PM
More likely, he wants to claim that this cooling is cyclic, but previous "evidence" for warming was the real trend, ignoring evidence that it was part of a larger cycle that produced the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age.

Or perhaps (being the person who actually did the research), he is aware that they were not studying global trends. And he knows that taking short term regional trends in climate, and making claims about long term global trends is spurious in the extreme. He probably also knows that many in the global warming denial camp have no such qualms about the malintepretation of research.

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2008, 08:54 PM
Or perhaps (being the person who actually did the research), he is aware that they were not studying global trends. And he knows that taking short term regional trends in climate, and making claims about long term global trends is spurious in the extreme.
Exactly the point of the "deniers": they criticise basing too much on the last few decades, and ignore evidence of previous climate cycles that gave us the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, as well as the previous Roman Warming. They also ignore that previous warmings were prosperous periods.


He probably also knows that many in the global warming denial camp have no such qualms about the malintepretation of research.
Look in the mirror. The jetsetting global warming prophets (or should that be profits?) are happy to look at any heat spell or hurricane and argue that it's proof of global warming. Typical of these scaremongers: heads I win, tails you lose.

pax
04-05-2008, 09:31 PM
Look in the mirror. The jetsetting global warming prophets (or should that be profits?) are happy to look at any heat spell or hurricane and argue that it's proof of global warming. Typical of these scaremongers: heads I win, tails you lose.
It's just as ignorant when they do it, so the question is why do you repeatedly use this bullshit science to push your case?

Capablanca-Fan
04-05-2008, 10:05 PM
It's just as ignorant when they do it, so the question is why do you repeatedly use this bullshit science to push your case?
Who says it's bullshit to point out trends that contradict the warming dogma?

pax
04-05-2008, 11:07 PM
Who says it's bullshit to point out trends that contradict the warming dogma?
Because a localised cooling in one place does not contradict a long-term global warming trend. Nor does a short-term cooling cycle (e.g a La Nina event).

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2008, 12:24 AM
Because a localised cooling in one place does not contradict a long-term global warming trend. Nor does a short-term cooling cycle (e.g a La Nina event).
But the dogma of a long-term warming trend, essential for politicians to control more of our lives and warm-mongers to obtain grants, requires that evidence of previous historical warm periods is explained away as localized.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 09:46 AM
Because a localised cooling in one place does not contradict a long-term global warming trend. Nor does a short-term cooling cycle (e.g a La Nina event).
Correct. Should al Nino be used to support a claim of global warming trend?

pax
05-05-2008, 11:02 AM
Correct. Should al Nino be used to support a claim of global warming trend?
No. To study a long-term trend you have to look at the trend in averages across at least a whole El Niño-La Niña cycle. A short-term warming due to an El Niño event is not evidence for global warming, nor is a short-term cooling due to a La Niña event evidence against.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2008, 12:40 PM
More Carbon Dioxide, Please
Raising a scientific question. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJlODMxYmUzYWNmZGZiM2NhNmExYTYyNDUzYmViZjQ=&w=MA==)

By Roy Spencer


There seems to be an unwritten assumption among environmentalists — and among the media — that any influence humans have on nature is, by definition, bad. I even see it in scientific papers written by climate researchers. For instance, if we can measure some minute amount of a trace gas in the atmosphere at the South Pole, well removed from its human source, we are astonished at the far-reaching effects of mankind’s “pollution.”

....

Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?

....

Now, no matter how much CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year, the biosphere takes out an average of 50 percent of that extra amount. Even after we triple the amount of CO2 we produce, nature still takes out 50 percent of the extra amount.

I think it is time for scientists to consider the possibility that more CO2 in the atmosphere might, on the whole, be good for life on Earth. Oh, I’m sure there will be some species which are hurt more than helped, but this is true of any change in nature. There are always winners and losers.

For instance, during a strong El Niño event, trillions of animals in the ocean die as the usual patterns of ocean temperature are disrupted. When Mother Nature does something like this it is considered natural. Yet, if humans were to do such a thing, it would be considered an environmental catastrophe. Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

....

The automatic assumption that mankind’s production of CO2 by burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment needs to be critically examined. Unfortunately, scientists who question that point of view are immediately branded as shills for Big Oil.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=1594032106).

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 01:34 PM
No. To study a long-term trend you have to look at the trend in averages across at least a whole El Niño-La Niña cycle. A short-term warming due to an El Niño event is not evidence for global warming, nor is a short-term cooling due to a La Niña event evidence against.

I remember a media hysteria about a decade ago about global warming causing El Niño.

pax
05-05-2008, 02:37 PM
Well, plant physiologists have known for a long time that most vegetation loves more carbon dioxide. It grows faster, is more drought-tolerant, and is more efficient in its water use. While the pre-industrial CO2 concentration of the atmosphere was only about 280 parts per million (ppm) by volume, and now it is around 380 ppm, some greenhouses pump it all the way up to around 1,000 ppm. How can environmentalists claim that helping vegetation to grow is a bad thing?
How can a so-called scientist make such a breathtakingly shallow statement?

pax
05-05-2008, 02:39 PM
I remember a media hysteria about a decade ago about global warming causing El Niño.
Really? Do you have a reference? It surprises me, as El Nino phenomena have been observed for nearly a century.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 02:49 PM
Really? Do you have a reference? It surprises me, as El Nino phenomena have been observed for nearly a century.
A decade ago I mostly read newspapers and occasionally listened to radio, so no links (I doubt any newspaper web site have 10 years archive.) If my memory does not fails me, they were talking a lot about it in 1997-1998. I am surprised you don't remember it.

Basil
05-05-2008, 02:49 PM
Really? Do you have a reference?
C'mon Jon - the creamin' screamin' hysteriites started in the late 70s. You know it. I know it. The El Ninnies really got going about a decade ago - and now are (un) surprisingly mute in the face of doubt as to the (lack of) basis for their hysteria.

I won't be debating this (attach whatever motive you wish).

pax
05-05-2008, 03:18 PM
C'mon Jon - the creamin' screamin' hysteriites started in the late 70s. You know it. I know it. The El Ninnies really got going about a decade ago - and now are (un) surprisingly mute in the face of doubt as to the (lack of) basis for their hysteria.
El Nino hit an extremely severe peak in 1998 (highest on record by far), which may be what you are referring to. I don't recall anybody claiming El Nino was "caused" by global warming. It may have been argued that the severity of the peak was related to global warming, which at the time was probably not an unreasonable argument to make.


I won't be debating this (attach whatever motive you wish).
Goodo.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 03:29 PM
El Nino hit an extremely severe peak in 1998 (highest on record by far), which may be what you are referring to.
That's right.


I don't recall anybody claiming El Nino was "caused" by global warming. It may have been argued that the severity of the peak was related to global warming, which at the time was probably not an unreasonable argument to make.


At that time I was even more ignorant then now, yet I still remember newspapers and radio raving about global warming and especially high level of CO2 causing EL Nino. I doubt I would actually notice it (yet along remember it!) if they were not going on endlessly about it.

I can see that Gunner's recollection is similar to mine.

pax
05-05-2008, 03:35 PM
At that time I was even more ignorant then now, yet I still remember newspapers and radio raving about global warming and especially high level of CO2 causing EL Nino. I doubt I would actually notice it (yet along remember it!) if they were not going on endlessly about it.
I'll take your word for it that they were arguing that warming/CO2 caused El Nino rather than that it caused the severity of that year's peak. I doubt any credible scientists would have made such an argument (as opposed to newspapers, who will argue anything if the wind is blowing the right way). There is pretty clear evidence that the El Nino cycle has existed for thousands of years at least.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 03:38 PM
I doubt any credible scientists would have made such an argument (as opposed to newspapers, who will argue anything if the wind is blowing the right way).

IMHO media/politicians presentation of "climate change problem" have little in common with what scientists (on both sides of the debate) say.

Aaron Guthrie
05-05-2008, 03:46 PM
A decade ago I mostly read newspapers and occasionally listened to radio, so no links (I doubt any newspaper web site have 10 years archive.) If my memory does not fails me, they were talking a lot about it in 1997-1998. I am surprised you don't remember it.Factiva! For- "El Nino" AND "caused by" AND "global warming" -, and date range 19970101-19990101, I get 16 results. None of these (on a quick scan) assert that El Nino was actually caused by global warming. Some claim that the effects were worsened by global warming.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2008, 04:25 PM
C'mon Jon — the creamin' screamin' hysteriites started in the late 70s. You know it. I know it.
Of course. And in the 70s, it was global cooling that was the scaremongering. Some of the scaremongers haven't changed, but it's just a different part of the sky falling. One of them is a Stephen Schneider, at the forefront of both global ice age and global warm-mongering, who admitted:


"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." (interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

And this is one of the "scientists" that Pax talks about. alGore just takes it a step further, and of course Chairman KRudd is a big supporter.

Capablanca-Fan
05-05-2008, 04:32 PM
How can a so-called scientist make such a breathtakingly shallow statement?
How can Pax be breathtakingly ignorant of the fact that photosynthesis (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4476) uses CO2?

Igor_Goldenberg
05-05-2008, 05:03 PM
Factiva! For- "El Nino" AND "caused by" AND "global warming" -, and date range 19970101-19990101, I get 16 results. None of these (on a quick scan) assert that El Nino was actually caused by global warming. Some claim that the effects were worsened by global warming.

That search is not likely to bring up what was printed in newspapers and broadcasted on radio and TV 10 years ago (when Internet was popular, but not a universal storage as it is now).

pax
05-05-2008, 05:23 PM
How can Pax be breathtakingly ignorant of the fact that photosynthesis (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4476) uses CO2?
No, really? Just ask an algal bloom. :wall: :wall:

Aaron Guthrie
05-05-2008, 05:31 PM
That search is not likely to bring up what was printed in newspapers and broadcasted on radio and TV 10 years ago (when Internet was popular, but not a universal storage as it is now).Amongst the larger newspapers, it is.

Miguel
05-05-2008, 05:31 PM
How can Pax be breathtakingly ignorant of the fact that photosynthesis (http://www.google.com/search?q=photosynthesis+site:.edu) uses CO2?
Fixed.

Spiny Norman
06-05-2008, 06:58 AM
Wikipedia ... that wonderful source of mis-/non-information:
www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/wikipedias-zealots

pax
06-05-2008, 11:46 AM
Wikipedia ... that wonderful source of mis-/non-information:
www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/wikipedias-zealots
As opposed to the unbiased truth of Intelligent Design blogs? :hmm: :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2008, 01:16 PM
As opposed to the unbiased truth of Intelligent Design blogs? :hmm: :hmm:
Of course! :P:P

Note also, Wikipedia is ostensibly a neutral encyclopedia, while an ID blog is upfront about its bias. But when it comes to anything controversial, Wikipedia = The Abomination that Causes Misinformation.

pax
06-05-2008, 01:30 PM
Note also, Wikipedia is ostensibly a neutral encyclopedia,
Is it? Does it actually claim to be neutral?

Wikipedia is a tremendous resource if used correctly. I agree that for controversial and/or political matters, it must be treated very cautiously. But for matters of pure fact, and for much of science and technology it is pretty reliable.

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2008, 01:46 PM
Wikipedia ... that wonderful source of mis-/non-information:
www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/wikipedias-zealots

I'd suggest anyone wanting a balanced view of the debate about his editing of that page also read the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naomi_Oreskes) for the Oreskes article (it will take a while!), in particular the "Blog post" section.

Bascially Solomon was of the view that an unpublished conversation he had with a person was acceptable reference material to back a particular line of editing when it clearly isn't on under the site's policies.

Wikipedia discusses Peiser's criticism of Oreskes' work at length on its page about Peiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser). Whether that commentary is fair or not I have not bothered to investigate.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-05-2008, 01:53 PM
I'd suggest anyone wanting a balanced view of the debate about his editing of that page also read the discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naomi_Oreskes) for the Oreskes article (it will take a while!), in particular the "Blog post" section.

Bascially Solomon was of the view that an unpublished conversation he had with a person was acceptable reference material to back a particular line of editing when it clearly isn't on under the site's policies.

Wikipedia discusses Peiser's criticism of Oreskes' work at length on its page about Peiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser). Whether that commentary is fair or not I have not bothered to investigate.
I guess if Oreskes article had a link to Peiser article, most of the complain and controversy would be removed.
The fact whether commentary is fair or not would not be an issue (plus not many readers would bother anyway).

Igor_Goldenberg
06-05-2008, 02:00 PM
Is it? Does it actually claim to be neutral?

More or less, yes. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About


Wikipedia is a tremendous resource if used correctly. I agree that for controversial and/or political matters, it must be treated very cautiously. But for matters of pure fact, and for much of science and technology it is pretty reliable.
I do like it as a source of information, found it to be quite neutral and presenting opposite opinion in most cases. It is unfortunate that editors sometimes overzealous, like the case above.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2008, 02:02 PM
Is it? Does it actually claim to be neutral?
Yes. Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov).


Wikipedia is a tremendous resource if used correctly. I agree that for controversial and/or political matters, it must be treated very cautiously.
Yeah. A schoolkid typing in his mother's basement could become a higher-ranking editor just through quantity. See also:


The Six Sins of the Wikipedia (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/11109)by Sam Vaknin Ph.D., 2 July 2006
Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems: Yes it's garbage, but it's delivered so much (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/)by Andrew Orlowski, 18 October 2005
Jimmy Wales’ latest response on the Essjay situation (http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/03/03/jimmy-wales-latest-response-on-the-essjay-situation/)(about a college dropout who claimed to be a prof and used his fraudulent qualifications in content disputes, and who was promoted to the highest positions even after his fraud was known) by Larry Sanger



But for matters of pure fact, and for much of science and technology it is pretty reliable.
Chess articles are often good, when decent editors have had a chance to fix them.

Aaron Guthrie
06-05-2008, 02:13 PM
The philosophers have the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/). The articles are very clear and for the most part don't require any technical expertise to read them. They are also very reliable in terms of accuracy. It is the basic general resource for when you are getting started on a topic.

Do other disciplines have similar online resources?

Igor_Goldenberg
06-05-2008, 02:15 PM
As wikipeida popularity and credibility rises, it will become target of special interest groups and drift away from being an impartial source. It is unfortunate, but inevitable.
However, when realisation about loss of impartiality sinks in, it will become less credible. Another possible development - the owners of the site will understand the risk and will try fix the editing process.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-05-2008, 02:18 PM
The Six Sins of the Wikipedia (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/11109)by Sam Vaknin Ph.D., 2 July 2006

I actually like the fact that it's non-elitist, so self-appointed experts cannot claim a gospel truth. However, it is too easy to hijack.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2008, 02:22 PM
I actually like the fact that it's non-elitist, so self-appointed experts cannot claim a gospel truth. However, it is too easy to hijack.
Good points. The problem is that for controversial topics, Wiki has the worst of both worlds: the lack of quality that characterizes the worst of non-elitism, but the clique of editors claiming that their view is gospel truth and undoing and blocking contrary editors.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-05-2008, 02:24 PM
Good points. The problem is that for controversial topics, Wiki has the worst of both worlds: the lack of quality that characterizes the worst of non-elitism, but the clique of editors claiming that their view is gospel truth and undoing and blocking contrary editors.
I don't think former is a problem, when the latter definitely is.

Miguel
06-05-2008, 03:07 PM
Do other disciplines have similar online resources?
I sometimes use MathWorld (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/), but I usually find Wikipedia to be at least nearly as good. If that fails to enlighten me, I usually do a Google Book (http://books.google.com/) search with limited preview/full view.

Basil
06-05-2008, 04:34 PM
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y105/scene66/smilies/beat-dead-horse.gif

Kevin Bonham
06-05-2008, 05:40 PM
I guess if Oreskes article had a link to Peiser article, most of the complain and controversy would be removed.

Certainly, but it looks like the editors on Wikipedia are more interested in following their interpretations of the Wikipedia guidelines than in avoiding bunfights. Which, if those guidelines are correct, is the right thing for them to do.

Peiser's article was deemed not to meet Wikipedia criteria of being a reliable source (because it was self-published) and was not deemed sufficiently notable to include in a biography article about the opponent.

Capablanca-Fan
06-05-2008, 05:47 PM
“In a quest to lower my impact on the environment, I calculated our [family’s] carbon footprint if we cut our use of electricity and natural gas in half, switched our two cars for a single Toyota Prius and reduced our annual mileage by half, tripled our train travel, and never took an airplane. Furthermore, what if we became vegetarians, ate only local organic food in season, bought only second-hand clothes, furniture and appliances, never went to movies, bars or restaurants, and recycled or composted all our waste? Even then our combined carbon footprint would be 7.3 tons per year, but that would get us just below the world average of 4 tons per capita annually... The creators of Carbon Footprint claim that everyone in the world must eventually emit no more than 2 tons of carbon dioxide per year. When did Americans last emit so little carbon dioxide? Around 1870.” —Ronald Bailey

Capablanca-Fan
07-05-2008, 11:43 AM
Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming (http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx)
Former vice president tells NPR's Fresh Air cyclone is example of ‘consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.’

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
6/5/2008 4:04:54 PM


Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

However:


A fresh study by a leading hurricane researcher (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/index.html?hp)[Kerry Emanuel, M.I.T. climate scientist] has raised new questions about how hurricane strength and frequency might, or might not, be influenced by global warming.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Let's use cooling off period to check our facts (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10508067)
Terry Dunleavy
New Zealand Herald
6 May 2008


The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has been about 1.5 parts per million (ppm) per year over the past 15 years. New Zealand produces about 0.2 per cent of the world's man-made production of CO2. Even if NZ totally eliminated CO2 emissions, the difference would be to reduce the annual rate of increase in the atmosphere by 0.2 per cent of 1.5ppm, equalling 0.003ppm which equals 3 parts per billion. This of course is a far lower amount than can even be detected.

Are we seriously going to shatter our economy, restrict ourselves to a fragile electricity system, cost every family in the land $1000 to $1500 per year in electricity expenses alone, seriously damage our agriculture industry, etc. by trying to reduce New Zealand's minuscule CO2 contribution?

But it's worse than that. The Government's stated goal is to reduce our CO2 emissions by 20 per cent . So if we were to succeed in this, and thereby reduce New Zealand's 3 parts per billion contribution to 20 per cent of this figure, the reduction in global CO2 arising from our action would amount to 0.6 parts per billion per year.

And all the while the actual world increase is 1.5 parts CO2 per million annually, which is 2500 times greater than the reduction in CO2 emission which would cripple New Zealand.

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 04:31 PM
Or perhaps (being the person who actually did the research), he is aware that they were not studying global trends. And he knows that taking short term regional trends in climate, and making claims about long term global trends is spurious in the extreme. He probably also knows that many in the global warming denial camp have no such qualms about the malintepretation of research.

So why didn't the computer models used by IPCC in its first four assessment reports predict this current decade of temperature stability?

Spiny Norman
08-05-2008, 04:33 PM
So why didn't the computer models used by IPCC in its first four assessment reports predict this current decade of temperature stability?
I'm surprised you even have to ask Jono ... its because the computer models obviously weren't "right" until they predicted a suitable amount of global warming.

Desmond
08-05-2008, 04:37 PM
Let's use cooling off period to check our facts (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10508067)
Terry Dunleavy
New Zealand Herald
6 May 2008


The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 has been about 1.5 parts per million (ppm) per year over the past 15 years. New Zealand produces about 0.2 per cent of the world's man-made production of CO2. Even if NZ totally eliminated CO2 emissions, the difference would be to reduce the annual rate of increase in the atmosphere by 0.2 per cent of 1.5ppm, equalling 0.003ppm which equals 3 parts per billion. This of course is a far lower amount than can even be detected.

Are we seriously going to shatter our economy, restrict ourselves to a fragile electricity system, cost every family in the land $1000 to $1500 per year in electricity expenses alone, seriously damage our agriculture industry, etc. by trying to reduce New Zealand's minuscule CO2 contribution?

But it's worse than that. The Government's stated goal is to reduce our CO2 emissions by 20 per cent . So if we were to succeed in this, and thereby reduce New Zealand's 3 parts per billion contribution to 20 per cent of this figure, the reduction in global CO2 arising from our action would amount to 0.6 parts per billion per year.

And all the while the actual world increase is 1.5 parts CO2 per million annually, which is 2500 times greater than the reduction in CO2 emission which would cripple New Zealand.What total rubbish. Following this logic, you would never vote, because one vote will not decide the election. Don't save water, as this won't raise the dams by 1%. Don't give to the Olympiad Appeal, because it won't buy a single airplane ticket.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-05-2008, 04:47 PM
What total rubbish. Following this logic, you would never vote, because one vote will not decide the election. Don't save water, as this won't raise the dams by 1%. Don't give to the Olympiad Appeal, because it won't buy a single airplane ticket.
It is not rubbish. It is called "tragedy of the common"

Capablanca-Fan
08-05-2008, 05:37 PM
What total rubbish. Following this logic, you would never vote, because one vote will not decide the election. Don't save water, as this won't raise the dams by 1%. Don't give to the Olympiad Appeal, because it won't buy a single airplane ticket.
Not rubbish at all, when analysed in terms of specific costs and benefit. None of your examples entails such huge costs as Kyoto is imposing on every Kiwi for such little benefit.

To take the Olympiad appeal, if every member of ACF donated a relatively small amount, a few tens of dollars, it would cover the airfare.

But if every Kiwi totally stopped all fossil fuel use, it would not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels. The current proposals would cost every Kiwi family over a thousand dollars, and make even less actual difference.

Similarly, some anti-dam loonies have proposed that after cooking vegetables the water should be poured out on the lawn as a way of "saving" our existing dam levels. But do the maths: number of Brisbane households: 334,000 (http://www.urc.or.jp/summit/summit/map/more_e.php?id=0702&apcs_mbr=47dcd8f8a10d93cd51998e762366faf1)
Capacity of Wivenhoe Dam 1.16 million megalitres (http://www.seqwater.com.au/content/standard.asp?name=WivenhoeDam)
So if every Brisbane household tipped out all their boiled vegetable water on the garden, say a generous 10 L every day, for a whole year, instead of using a garden hose, it would amount to a thousandth of the total capacity!

The reason for our water shortage is as Igor correctly pointed out, the tragedy of the commons. The water shortage would disappear very quickly if price were set by supply and demand instead of the government holding it too low. Price would be a much better way of inducing self-rationing rather than the alternating threatening and begging, and it would also encourage people to find new supplies.

Axiom
09-05-2008, 01:59 AM
ZzDkFFthE48

Desmond
09-05-2008, 08:44 AM
Not rubbish at all, when analysed in terms of specific costs and benefit. Your quote does not analysis the benefit.


But if every Kiwi totally stopped all fossil fuel use, it would not make a detectable difference to world CO2 levels. The current proposals would cost every Kiwi family over a thousand dollars, and make even less actual difference. It's silly to compare the reductions of Kiwis against the global levels. The comparison that should be used is Kiwi reductions vs Kiwi costs. Your article reminds me of an emo kid angsting in the corner because what is the point of getting out of bed when nothing you do will matter in the grand scheme of things.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2008, 09:42 AM
Your quote does not analysis the benefit.
It's up to you to prove the benefit of an undetectable change in CO2 levels — even if every Kiwi stopped using fossil fuels completely — compared with the cost incurred by complying with this crass Kyoto protocol.


It's silly to compare the reductions of Kiwis against the global levels.
Why not? It's the global levels that are important. And China and India are not going to forego economic growth with fossil fuels because of any "example" set by tiny countries like NZ, or by Australia for that matter.


The comparison that should be used is Kiwi reductions vs Kiwi costs.
Didn't I just do that? Kiwi reductions of CO2 will result in an undetectable difference to CO2 levels, but an immense cost.

Greenism is the old Communism: inventing a crisis to increase government power and force the people to make sacrifices that make them all poorer, while the leaders live in luxury.


Your article reminds me of an emo kid angsting in the corner because what is the point of getting out of bed when nothing you do will matter in the grand scheme of things.
Again, trying to avoid proper quantitative analysis. I've shown you that forced martyrdom of the Kiwis really will achieve nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Conversely, an emo kid might well make a difference to his own life and those around him by getting out of bed.

Desmond
09-05-2008, 09:58 AM
It's up to you to prove the benefit of an undetectable change in CO2 levels — even if every Kiwi stopped using fossil fuels completely — compared with the cost incurred by complying with this crass Kyoto protocol.
Who is suggesting that they immediately stop using fossil fuels altogether? I suspect that this is your strawman.


Why not? It's the global levels that are important. And China and India are not going to forego economic growth with fossil fuels because of any "example" set by tiny countries like NZ, or by Australia for that matter.If the scope of your reduction analysis is limited to NZ, then that is the figures you should be comparing with. Also, I would question whether the actions of countries like NZ are really as insignificant as you are trying to make them out to be. If NZ does it, it would pressure Aus to follow suit, which would pressure our other neghbours and allies to follow suit and so on.



Didn't I just do that? Kiwi reductions of CO2 will result in an undetectable difference to CO2 levels, but an immense cost.If NZ was the only country doing it, which clearly it won't be.


Greenism is the old Communism: inventing a crisis to increase government power and force the people to make sacrifices that make them all poorer, while the leaders live in luxury.Replace "Greenism" with "The War on Terror".


Again, trying to avoid proper quantitative analysis. I've shown you that forced martyrdom of the Kiwis really will achieve nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Conversely, an emo kid might well make a difference to his own life and those around him by getting out of bed.As will NZ make a difference to their own emissions, and that of those countries around it.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2008, 10:34 AM
Who is suggesting that they immediately stop using fossil fuels altogether? I suspect that this is your strawman.
No it's not. It's showing that even the best possible (total) CO2 reduction wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to CO2 levels. So how crass is the costly partial reduction?


If the scope of your reduction analysis is limited to NZ, then that is the figures you should be comparing with. Also, I would question whether the actions of countries like NZ are really as insignificant as you are trying to make them out to be. If NZ does it, it would pressure Aus to follow suit, which would pressure our other neghbours and allies to follow suit and so on.
As your fellow misotheist Ian Plimer said, if anyone thinks that India and China are going to screw up their fast-growing economies because of anything NZ or Au do, then he has kangaroos in the top paddock.

And if Au follows suit, it's because our own country is now ruled by Chairman Rudd who is a fellow devotee of this Green religion and likewise doesn't care about stuffing up our economy.


If NZ was the only country doing it, which clearly it won't be.
Right, like a typical lefty, you're into gestures rather than measures of practical value.


Replace "Greenism" with "The War on Terror".
Why? It's Greenism that is proving very costly, while alGore becomes filthy rich.


As will NZ make a difference to their own emissions, and that of those countries around it.
Do you have the slightest proof that India and China will follow suit? It's more likely that they will see the immense damage it does to our economies and thumb their noses.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-05-2008, 10:46 AM
Replace "Greenism" with "The War on Terror".


A lot of similarities indeed. War on drugs an war on poverty fall in the same category. But Greenism is going to cost even more with results even less noticeable.

Desmond
09-05-2008, 11:14 AM
No it's not. It's showing that even the best possible (total) CO2 reduction wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to CO2 levels. So how crass is the costly partial reduction?It will make a significant difference to NZ's portion of the CO2 levels.



As your fellow misotheist Ian Plimer said, if anyone thinks that India and China are going to screw up their fast-growing economies because of anything NZ or Au do, then he has kangaroos in the top paddock.Thanks for resorting to name-calling. Now I know that you are losing.


And if Au follows suit, it's because our own country is now ruled by Chairman Rudd who is a fellow devotee of this Green religion and likewise doesn't care about stuffing up our economy.Who's fellow? Mine? I am not a green devotee.



Right, like a typical lefty, you're into gestures rather than measures of practical value.Gestures like saving water even though it won't significantly raise the dam levels? Yep, guilty as charged.



Why? It's Greenism that is proving very costly, while alGore becomes filthy rich. Because your cliche could be applied to any number of issues. It's just rhetoric.



Do you have the slightest proof that India and China will follow suit? It's more likely that they will see the immense damage it does to our economies and thumb their noses.I'm not so sure that they won't but let's assume that you are right for a moment. How many countries would it take to make a difference that you would consider significant? How about NZ, Aus, US, and most of Western Europe? On their own, not so much, but together it would be quite significant.