Page 3 of 307 FirstFirst 123451353103 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 4602
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    I'll take this quote from that linka s my answer:
    I would qualify by asking, "according to what clocks?" since time is not constant everywhere. See my answer to George L re distant starlight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boris
    The reason I asked is because I was going to point out that the Earth has been warming and cooling since its inception some 4 billion years ago quite independently of human activity, but I suppose you don't belive any of that anyway.
    It's a fair point—even without the timescale, it's clear that the climate has changed without any input from man. There are example within fairly recent written human history <<6000 years ago, such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age; as well as the Ice Age on which I've written. And it is reasonable to take Gore's graph on CO2 v Temp and show that even on the timescale he accepts, the graph shows that CO2 increase lags the temperature rise. It's fair to use an opponent's own assumptions against him this way. It's also amusing to point out that one of CMI's bitterest opponents, Ian Plimer, has become an ardent AGW skeptic for the reasons you point out.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not a bad thought. So we should hold back on signing futile documents like Kyoto (that even Kyoto itself can't even stick to), or imposing carbon taxes or advocating carbon <strike>indulgences</strike> offsets. And more debates like the above should be shown.
    It is not necessary for one to be certain of an adverse outcome in order for mitigating actions to be justified. Just ask anyone involved in risk analysis.

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,372
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    It is not necessary for one to be certain of an adverse outcome in order for mitigating actions to be justified. Just ask anyone involved in risk analysis.
    Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #34
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.
    I totally agreed with the point made by one of the sceptically-inclined on the panel about the vacuity of the "precautionary principle". (Actually there is not one single "precautionary principle" but many different versions of the same concept, most of which are about equally useless.)

    The main problem with precautionary principles is self-contradiction. In environmental debates they are frequently applied to two different things: (i) impacts on the natural environment (ii) impacts on human health. But preventing some kind of profitable industrial activity on account of the potential of (i) or (ii) causes loss of profits for the industrialist, which has the potential to reduce their potential to provide employment. Unemployment is a proven health risk, so just as such precautionary principles can be used to argue that developments should not be approved when it is not known whether they may cause harm, so it can also be used to argue that developments should not be rejected when it is not known whether their rejection will cause harm. As such the principle, in many practical situations, is self-contradictory and useless. It should be dispensed with entirely and replaced with a concept of realistic balancing of potential costs and benefits (not just economic). Obviously there are some cases where it is not possible to balance costs and benefits because the values involved are incommensurable (for instance, is a development that provides 20,000 jobs worthwhile if the cost is the extinction of a species?) but these will just have to be thrashed out in the political sphere.

    Considerations of cost and benefit need to be considered - eg it is not worth forcefully imposing solutions that bankrupt struggling countries for the sake of making western ones marginally more prosperous, although no doubt this will happen anyway. Similarly within the West I'm especially concerned about how the cost of remediation measures is going to be distributed, because it could be the case that the poor will be slugged through increased costs of just about everything while large companies continue to enjoy massive bulk energy discounts.

    I am a bit puzzled about Kyoto. I haven't looked into it closely but Howard Government rhetoric seems to be both that committing to meet the targets would be incredibly expensive and that we are more or less meeting them anyway.

    My overall view (although it is an inexpert one in all areas except the potential impacts of global warming on the survival or otherwise of species) is that global warming is occurring, is primarily human-driven but will not have anything like the dire consequences being forecast in the more alarmist predictions.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 14-07-2007 at 01:33 PM.

  5. #35
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That was a heavy politicized document
    Which document? They have produced many. I was referring to the 2007 report.

    As regards the politics, so what? Should I just respond to any anti human involved global warming argument by pointing out the financial and political motivation of their side?

    That 2 scientists of the many involved criticized the 2001 report isn't a great surprise. Again, so what? You got a better study?

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Indeed not. But benefits should not outweigh costs. But Kyoto would cost us billions of dollars for the sake of a tiny reduction of the average temperature increase, which is of questionable benefit anyway.
    If you believe the government, then we will meet our Kyoto obligations anyway, so the cost of signing the protocol would have been precisely zero.

  7. #37
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    Globalists Love Global Warming

    Globalists Love Global Warming

    Trilateral Commission, chairman of British Petroleum, CFR, Club of Rome fan hysteria to achieve world government


    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?

    The Trilateral Commission, one of the three pillars of the New World Order in alliance with Bilderberg and the CFR, met last week in near secrecy 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 (pictured top), gave a speech to his elitist 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."

    Allegations that skeptics of the man-made explanation behind global warming are somehow doing the bidding of the elite are laughable in the face of the fact that Rothschild operatives and the very chairman of British Petroleum are the ones orchestrating an elitist plan to push global warming fears in order to achieve political objectives.

    We have a similar situation to the Peak Oil scam , which was created by the oil industry as a profit boon to promote artificial scarcity, and yet is parroted by environmentalists who grandstand as if they are in opposition to the oil companies.


    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..."

    Taylor also points out future British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's admonishment that only a "new world order" (world government) can help fight global warming.

    Other attendees at the recent Trilateral meeting raised the specter of climate change as a tool to force through tax hikes.

    Calling on the United States government to adopt a "carbon monoxide control policy," former CIA boss and long term champion of creating a domestic intelligence agency to spy on Americans John Deutch, argued that America should impose a $1-pergallon increase in the gasoline tax under the pretext of fighting pollution.

    The lapdog media have proven adept in the past at taking their orders from the elitists in pushing higher taxes in the name of saving the environment.

    "When the TC called on the United States to increase gas taxes by 10 cents at a meeting in Tokyo in 1991, The Washington Post, which is always represented at TC and Bilderberg meetings, called for such an increase in an editorial the following day," reports Jim Tucker .

    Tucker writes that an essential means of achieving global government by consent over conquest, as has long been the ultimate goal of the elite, is by "fanning public hysteria" over climate change, encouraging further integration by forcing countries to adhere to international law on global warming. Such restrictions have prevented the development of third world nations and directly contributed to poverty, disease and squalor by essentially keeping them at a stone age level of progress, as is documented in The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary.

    People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial , are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

    Globalists love global warming! Oil industry kingpins, Bilderbergers and Rothschild minions have all put their weight behind it. This is a fraud conceived, nurtured and promulgated by elite, and to castigate individuals for merely questioning the motives behind climate change fearmongering by accusing them of being mouthpieces for the establishment is a complete reversal of the truth.
    Last edited by Axiom; 14-07-2007 at 03:18 PM.

  8. #38
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    That 2 scientists of the many involved criticized the 2001 report isn't a great surprise. Again, so what? You got a better study?
    That sort of thing came up a fair bit in the stuff on the ABC - scientists alleging that their names had been left on reports when in fact they had been involved in the process and heavily critical of it.

    It is a tricky issue because a person who contributes work to a process deserves an authorship credit, but at the same time, a work should not be represented as the views of a co-author who doesn't agree with it.

    Clearly at the first sign from an individual that they want their name removed, it should be done. A name more or less indeed makes very little difference but fighting over it is stupid politics from the bodies responsible.

  9. #39
    Account Permanently Banned Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    4,383

    Remember Global Cooling?

    Remember Global Cooling?

    Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict.


    By Jerry Adler
    Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET Oct. 23, 2006

    Oct. 23, 2006 - In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/

  10. #40
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham
    That sort of thing came up a fair bit in the stuff on the ABC - scientists alleging that their names had been left on reports when in fact they had been involved in the process and heavily critical of it.

    It is a tricky issue because a person who contributes work to a process deserves an authorship credit, but at the same time, a work should not be represented as the views of a co-author who doesn't agree with it.

    Clearly at the first sign from an individual that they want their name removed, it should be done. A name more or less indeed makes very little difference but fighting over it is stupid politics from the bodies responsible.
    But does this significantly discredit the (2001) report?

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,372
    Quote Originally Posted by pax
    If you believe the government, then we will meet our Kyoto obligations anyway, so the cost of signing the protocol would have been precisely zero.
    I am not obliged to defend government pronouncements. And the cost would not be zero, but signing up for yet another program under the auspices of the corrupt UN thugocracy. But it is most interesting that the US and Au, who have not signed Kyoto, have done more to meet its aims than many of its signatories. Not really surprising, because the free market is far more environmentally friendly than a centrally planned / socialist economy has ever been.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #42
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,494
    Quote Originally Posted by Mangafranga
    But does this significantly discredit the (2001) report?
    No, having a very small proportion of authors drop out of a report doesn't significantly discredit it in isolation. Which makes it all the more surprising when getting one's name removed is made difficult.

  13. #43
    CC International Master Bereaved's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,222

    On Topic

    this is on topic

    http://www.xkcd.com/c164.html

    Take care and God Bless, Macavity

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,372
    Global warming zealots are stifling scientific debate

    by Ian Plimer of all people!
    The Age, 12 July 2007:

    ... Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators.

    ...

    Groups like BAMOS and the IPCC deny, minimise or ignore significant recent climate changes that gave us the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present. Populations and the economy thrived. Previous coolings led to famine, depopulation and social disruption. History shows that it is dangerous to ignore history. ...
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,372
    Fear of a global 'coldening'Tim Blair
    The Daily Telegraph
    , 14 July 2007:

    LAST month Australians endured our coldest June since 1950. Imagine that; all those trillions of tonnes of evil carbon we've horked up into the atmosphere over six decades of rampant industrialisation, and we're still getting the same icy weather we got during the Cold War.

    ...

    But climate change is like Michael Moore's tracksuit - it can fit anyone. In 2005, Greenpeace rep Steven Guilbeault helpfully explained: "Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with." [Where's Popper when you need him? ]

    ...

    [T]his year Queensland has gone frosty. Townsville's June was its coldest since 1940; June 24 saw the coldest Brisbane morning on record.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 16-07-2007 at 10:31 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Evangelism and Climate Change
    By Ian Murray in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 11-04-2017, 11:24 AM
  2. Climate Change (read bottom up)
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 01:00 PM
  3. Climate Change Is Irreversable ??
    By Bruce Oates in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 28-01-2009, 09:55 PM
  4. The Death of Climate Change Consensus
    By Spiny Norman in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21-12-2007, 11:38 AM
  5. Pentagon Report on Climate Change
    By Cat in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-06-2004, 10:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •