# Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Jul 2005)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wwarming0728/BNStory/International/

"Global greenhouse gas emissions would have increased 41 per cent from 1990 to 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Downer said. With the accord, they are expected to go up by 40 per cent if all countries meet their targets, he claimed."

Billions spent in Canada alone to reduce the overall world increase *by 1%*?




Matthew.   :blotto:

P.S.  The rest of the article deals with a new agreement being pushed by the EVIL United States to bring India and China into the effort.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2005)

Hi Matt.

I just posted a slightly different slant on that article on the China, Japan etc superthread.  Interested to hear your comments.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Monsoon (1 Aug 2005)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> "Global greenhouse gas emissions would have increased 41 per cent from 1990 to 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Downer said. With the accord, they are expected to go up by 40 per cent if all countries meet their targets, he claimed."
> 
> Billions spent in Canada alone to reduce the overall world increase *by 1%*?


Umm, you may have noticed that 15 years of the time frame in question have already elapsed.  A one percent reduction in global greenhouse gases in the first five years of the programme represents a pretty significant long-term effect.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Dec 2005)

> Associated Press
> Update 4: Arctic Natives Seek Global Warming Ruling
> 12.08.2005, 04:45 AM
> 
> ...




This should be interesting. I think they will have a hard time proving "global warming" exists, conclusively, in a legal context.   

Has anyone read the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crighton??


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

I think anyone would have a hard time proving global warming does NOT exist.  
There are what... TWO(??)  scientists that argue against it, and they have become the icons of the oil industry and heavy polluting industries.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2005)

I think what is meant is the proof that global warming is caused by human agency is lacking. After all, shortly after their ancestors crossed into North America, the ice sheets melted and the Glaciers receded farther and faster than at any time in the 12,000 years since. In the 1100-1400 time period, the Vikings settled Greenland and Labrador, and even carried out "croft" farming. Today, the cows would starve since the meadows don't produce enough fodder, except that they would freeze to death before they got the chance to starve.

Given this evidence, should we conclude the Inuit caused catastrophic global warming, resulting in the extinction of Ice Age Mega-fauna? Did the Vikings kick off an era of global warming over 500 years ago? Despite bold claims by the "scientific" community, there really isn't any coherent explanation of Global warming, and indeed there are no reliable climactic models which can be used to make predictions (even "reverse predictions" where you load in all the known variables from last week in an attempt to replicate this week's weather). Given that state of the art, and other information (such as the fact the average temperature on the planet Mars is also rising, damn those neo-cons!), I would suggest the idea of human agency is somewhat moot.


----------



## UberCree (8 Dec 2005)

Human agency moot?  Read this!


http://www.venganza.org/
"You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature"


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2005)

See? Everyone is looking in the wrong direction. Since the number of pirtes is on the rise (off the coast of Somalia and in the Indonesian archepelago), we should conclude the Earth's temperature will soon stabilize......


----------



## UberCree (9 Dec 2005)

Sorry I cannot help it when talk turns to pirates or ninjas.  

But seriously, let me quote a document created in 1992 called ''World Scientists' Warning to Humanity''.  Signed by 1600 senior scientists from 71 countries, including over half of all Nobel Prize winners (Suzuki,1997).  
''Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course.  Human activities inflict harsh and often irreversible damage on teh environment and on critical resources.  If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future that we wish for human society and the planet and animal kingdoms, and may so alter the living world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know.  Fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about.''

The evidence that we are harming the earth stares us in the face every day.  In environments where people are desensitized to nature and its fluctuations and rythms no one notices, or cares.  In environments where people are dependant on nature, we notice.  The Inuit hold thousands and thousands of years of ecological knowledge and their warning should not be cast aside lightly.  They are one more on the list of people that live with the earth that see changes to the environment first hand and understand that we humans are playing a role in this change.  

I underestand the desire to be critical of the alarmists.  I understand the desire to toe the party line in rallying against environmentalists because most of the most active are leftists.  However for the sake of our country we need to rise above getting partisan politics involved in the eco-debate.  Do not pretend for a minute that all of the industries that depend on expoiting the environment will not do what they can whatever that may be to remain profitable.  'The guilty don't feel guilty they learn not to' (NOFX  ).

We are living through the greatest period of extinction since the last ice age.  Is this a natural phenomenon ... I dont think so.


----------



## COBRA-6 (9 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I think what is meant is the proof that global warming is caused by human agency is lacking. After all, shortly after their ancestors crossed into North America, the ice sheets melted and the Glaciers receded farther and faster than at any time in the 12,000 years since. In the 1100-1400 time period, the Vikings settled Greenland and Labrador, and even carried out "croft" farming. Today, the cows would starve since the meadows don't produce enough fodder, except that they would freeze to death before they got the chance to starve.
> 
> Given this evidence, should we conclude the Inuit caused catastrophic global warming, resulting in the extinction of Ice Age Mega-fauna? Did the Vikings kick off an era of global warming over 500 years ago? Despite bold claims by the "scientific" community, there really isn't any coherent explanation of Global warming, and indeed there are no reliable climactic models which can be used to make predictions (even "reverse predictions" where you load in all the known variables from last week in an attempt to replicate this week's weather). Given that state of the art, and other information (such as the fact the average temperature on the planet Mars is also rising, damn those neo-cons!), I would suggest the idea of human agency is somewhat moot.



Exactly, "Global Warming" is an unproven _theory_ at best. Proving it in a court will be next to impossible. In the 70's all the scientists were predicting we were entering a new ice age...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2005)

Whatever the cause of global climactic change (and I am sure the Martians would like to know as well), I strongly suspect the overriding issue has very little to do with science and a very great deal with politics.

Alarmism isn't new, the "Club of Rome" made its very infamous and wrong "Limits to growth" argument back in the 1970s, and doom sayers have been threatening us with Ice ages, mass starvation, pollution, overfishing and other eco catastrophes.....There are two common features to these predictions. First is they are simple linear extrapolations usually based on limited data sets, which is not the way to make predictions with complex systems involving hundreds or thousands (or millions) of variables. The second is the proposed "solution" is always a vast expansion of government power to harness the resources of the people, the nation or the world in order to "solve" the problem.

Picture a post Kyoto Canada, where draconian "carbon" taxes and emissions limits are imposed on us all. The Government of the day would be able to control the economy by deciding who is issued these permits, and of course a vast culture of political corruption (dwarfing Adscam, the billion dollar boondoggle, Shawinigate and every other scandal combined) would come into being as politicians realized the literally life and death power they held over the population. No carbon permits would equal no production or transportation, limit agriculture and drive much of the population to a sustenance level existence. 

The public would have a difficult time opposing this sort of takeover, since it is based on a poorly understood "science", and how many people would take the time and effort to check out David Suzuki's assertions about how things have gotten warmer since he was in high school in London in the 1950s? I did, accessing the weather records of London to the 1990s (when they suddenly are hidden behind a paid access database) and comparable records from Buffalo NY, and guess what? The average temperature has DROPPED almost one degree c during that period. Other so called evidence like the "hockey stick" graph proporting to show the average temperature for the last 1000 years can be debunked by using other disciplines like History to cross check the record; the graph shows a stable temperature with a dramatic upswing in the last 100 years, but we know the Earth was warmer in the time of the Vikings than it is today, and we also have records of the climate being a great deal colder from the 1600s to the late 1700s (the "Little Ice Age").  The fact that these events are missing from the public record of debates and pronouncements by these environmental activists would suggest they are not interested in science (the recording and interpretation of data). 

This is very similar to the Liberal proposal to ban hand guns in Canada as a means of stopping crime. There is plenty of evidence that gun crime is a result of cross border gun smuggling, so banning and confiscating legaly owned handguns in Canada will have zero effect on the problem. Given this isn't very hard to figure out, the question becomes; are there any other reasons for doing this? 

Do we use resources poorly and inefficiently? Of course we do. If we are serious about things like resource management and the environment, then we would drop industrial and agricultural subsidies and tax incentives. Once people have to start paying market prices for things, they will have a huge incentive to conserve and minimize, and no Government agency will have to tell them what to do or how to do it (or who to do it with) either. But you won't be hearing about that solution from the eco crusaders any time soon.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Dec 2005)

Global warming, with its ties to politics and policy, seems awfully Malthusian at times....


----------



## TCBF (9 Dec 2005)

"Correllation is NOT causation!" - anon. Statistics 101 prof.

Next!

Tom


----------



## COBRA-6 (10 Dec 2005)

> U.S. and China bar any steps on climate
> By Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times
> 
> FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2005
> ...



Well it looks like Kyoto's dead in the water if the U.S. and China aren't on board. And what would be the possible outcome if everyone had agreed in the first place? A reduction in warming by 0.02 degrees Celsius by the year 2050. Not much benefit for the huge costs involved.




			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> We are living through the greatest period of extinction since the last ice age.   Is this a natural phenomenon ... I dont think so.


   

This is also open to debate. The estimates of the number of species on earth range from 2 million to 80 million. Only about 1.6 million have been recorded to date. Any attempt to quntify the number of species that have gone extinct is pure guesswork, only 1,033 extinctions have been documented since the 1600's. 

The oft-cited number of 40,000 species going extinct each year was the guess of one scientist, Norman Myers, in his 1979 book "The Sinking Ark". This is his complete argument for that number:



> _Let us suppose that, as a consequence of this man-handling of natural environments (clearing of tropical rain forests), the final one-quarter of this century witnesses the elimination of 1 million species - a far from unlikely prospect. This would work out, during the course of 25 years, at an average extinction rate of 40,000 species per year, or rather over 100 species per day._



I, for one, am not convinced...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2005)

The Kyotoites who expect the business community to pressure the government into accepting the Kyoto accord are really standing on their heads. The largest and deepest market on Earth is the United States, and the two largest and fastest growing markets are China and India, both exempt from Kyoto and likely never to sign on.

Although if the EU manages to complete it's protectionest agenda by excluding American products from it's markets, they might discover retaliatory actions by the United States has a much larger effect on their economy.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Dec 2005)

This is really a NAFTA issue.  We send the US blizzards in winter, and they send us acid rain in the spring, fair is fair.


----------



## UberCree (12 Dec 2005)

So if I get your arguements correctly, there is nothing wrong with the environment?   Or is it that actually pollution is good for the environment?   
Silly environmentalists, always crying wolf when there is nothing wrong. :   All the bad things that are happening to the environment are simply coincidence.   
Let me get this straight:
All of the contaminated fish in the north are simply a product of some natural selection process and it's a good thing.
All of the clearcutting in Canada and across the world is good for the air and prevents soil erosion.
Polluters should be rewarded not sanctioned.   The more pollution an industry can dump into the environment the better it is for the economy and in fact for the environment too!   We should reward them!
Gas consumption should be encouraged.   Bigger cars and SUV's should be encouraged.   
Alternative energies should be discouraged, because yes, pollution is good for the environment.   
No species have been negatively effected by humans, in fact, we have helped create more diversity in the world!
Let's see what else...
Oh yeah, all of the world's leading scientists are wrong.   Even 'The Economist', that last week discussed the 'alarming' trend of global warming and its potential effects on western Europe weather is ... wrong.   

Did I get it right?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

What is "wrong" is the idea that:

a. Climate change is caused by human agency. A single volcanic eruption can put more sulphur compounds and particulate matter in the atmosphere than the entire industrial output of the human species in a year, which should be negative proof enough for most people. Historical records demonstrate climactic change happened (both warming and cooling) long before human beings had anywhere near the capabilities we have today. 

b. Regulatory control of the world's industry is going to effect change to the environment. I might postulate that there would be a negative correlation, since desperate people will start clear cutting trees for warmth and to open farmland to feed themselves. (The United States has about 30% more forest than in the 1920s since technological developments in agriculture allow vastly more food to be grown on the same amount of land. Marginal farmland has gradually been abandoned and allowed to revert to forest.)

The world's scientists are not a single monolithic block, I am sure many of them disagree on the cause and extent of Global Warming and almost anything else you care to name. On the other hand, scientists proposing an economic or regulatory regime to affect climate change is about as useful as having a musician like Bono lecture Paul Martin on foreign policy, or me lecturing Bono on U2's next album and tour. (Indeed, many of the scientists who speak publicly on "Climate change" are not climatologists. Davis Suzuki is a geneticist, for example). 

Many of the problems which you describe are classified as "externalities" in economics, and the best and most effective way to solve these problems is to assign cost (i.e. internalize them), which quickly makes these problems subject to market incentives. You might not agree with the solution the market comes up with (believe me, I have been doing business plans for alternative energy schemes and the only ones which show any promise at all involve making current process more efficient, not changing to some new process), but there will be a solution.


----------



## squealiox (12 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> What is "wrong" is the idea that:
> 
> a. Climate change is caused by human agency. A single volcanic eruption can put more sulphur compounds and particulate matter in the atmosphere than the entire industrial output of the human species in a year, which should be negative proof enough for most people. Historical records demonstrate climactic change happened (both warming and cooling) long before human beings had anywhere near the capabilities we have today.



those aren't greenhouse gases. in fact they would probably even have the opposite effect. but CO2 and methane are.

anyway, i have yet to see a single objection to the idea of manmade global warming that hasn't been comprehensively debunked by this group of actual climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/
(gotta get your information from somewhere, so it might as well be from someone working in the field in question.)



> The world's scientists are not a single monolithic block, I am sure many of them disagree on the cause and extent of Global Warming and almost anything else you care to name. On the other hand, scientists proposing an economic or regulatory regime to affect climate change is about as useful as having a musician like Bono lecture Paul Martin on foreign policy, or me lecturing Bono on U2's next album and tour. (Indeed, many of the scientists who speak publicly on "Climate change" are not climatologists. Davis Suzuki is a geneticist, for example).


unlike "experts" like michael crighton (novelist) or benny peiser (sociologist)?



> Many of the problems which you describe are classified as "externalities" in economics, and the best and most effective way to solve these problems is to assign cost (i.e. internalize them), which quickly makes these problems subject to market incentives.


and the only proposal that actually seeks to do this is ... kyoto


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2005)

It seems from the historical record that the American suggestion to open up a market for trading emission credits was opposed by the Europeans and the various NGOs, and finally adopted in a very watered down form. This has the effect of creating an "illiquid" market, which is shunned since potential participants cannot readily realize the value of their "credits". (As an aside, creating highly regulated markets or otherwise preventing the free flow of information, capital and participants always has a negative result. Deregulation of the California electrical market was marred by restrictions which effectively shut out new players from competeing, and Ontario's decision to keep Ontario Hydro's generating system as one huge entity and dictate the consumer price of electricity has had a similar effect here. California's rolling blackouts were no surprise to anyone who saw the regulatory structure, since the invisible hand of the market will always manifest itself. Ontario will be in for it soon.)

Most of this topic is moot anyway, the non signatories don't appear to be making any moves, the signatories (such as Canada) have done nothing to impliment the plan and the "exempt" nations will fight tooth and nail to remain exempt.

Since many people believe the case is "proven", I would suggest you peruse the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

This is an interesting introduction, and you will be surprised to see (but should not be) there are climatologists who are not with the "consensus" crowd.


----------



## COBRA-6 (13 Dec 2005)

UberCree,

Just because I'm skeptical of global warming, doesn't mean I'm anti-environment. What bothers me the most is the amount of time people spend obsessing over this and other over-hyped scares, based on limited data, which often turn out to be groundless (DDT, power lines causing cancer etc...). This takes attention and resources away from issues that are proven and we can do something about, i.e. heavy metal polution, smokestack sulphur emissions, etc...


----------



## squealiox (13 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> It seems from the historical record that the American suggestion to open up a market for trading emission credits was opposed by the Europeans and the various NGOs, and finally adopted in a very watered down form. This has the effect of creating an "illiquid" market, which is shunned since potential participants cannot readily realize the value of their "credits". (As an aside, creating highly regulated markets or otherwise preventing the free flow of information, capital and participants always has a negative result. Deregulation of the California electrical market was marred by restrictions which effectively shut out new players from competeing, and Ontario's decision to keep Ontario Hydro's generating system as one huge entity and dictate the consumer price of electricity has had a similar effect here. California's rolling blackouts were no surprise to anyone who saw the regulatory structure, since the invisible hand of the market will always manifest itself. Ontario will be in for it soon.)
> 
> Most of this topic is moot anyway, the non signatories don't appear to be making any moves, the signatories (such as Canada) have done nothing to impliment the plan and the "exempt" nations will fight tooth and nail to remain exempt.
> 
> ...



yes, i do recall that many activist and ngo types were against using a market mechanism, for the usual ideological reasons. but nevertheless, kyoto is the _only _ market solution out there -- that's why the US originally went along with it in the first place. washington's latest idea of "encouraging" energy efficiency is certainly not one. 
as for the emissions trading, it was already under way the last time i posted on this subject a year ago.

and yes, there are contrarian climatologists, as with any discipline, but they are definitely in the minority.


----------



## UberCree (14 Dec 2005)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> UberCree,
> 
> Just because I'm skeptical of global warming, doesn't mean I'm anti-environment. What bothers me the most is the amount of time people spend obsessing over this and other over-hyped scares, based on limited data, which often turn out to be groundless (DDT, power lines causing cancer etc...). This takes attention and resources away from issues that are proven and we can do something about, i.e. heavy metal polution, smokestack sulphur emissions, etc...



I do agree that crying wolf obsessively creates a desensitization effect on the general population, myself included.  David Suzuki has done this to some extent.  However it does not stop the fact that there is still a wolf.  Even those that argue against global warming, would support increased regulation and government control over global pollution.  Most would also argue that we need to be realistic in our goals and not utopic.  Clean water is the most pressing international environmental issue.  What irks me however... well maybe not irks but dissapoints me... is when people think our actions are 'moot' (I suppose if they are then why bother opposing environmentalists).  To be so caught up in 'the bottom dollar' and so separate from the realities of nature is what is shocking to me.  

Corporations, like other citizens (as they are legally individuals correct?) need to be regulated.  The rights of the collective (be it in Canada, world wide, or in the future) need to be weighed against the rights of individual corporations to make their money.  If we let them determine what rules they have to play by then I do not think anyone would disagree that they will place their rights over the collective's rights.  In my part of the land, we have 2 of Canada's top three polluters.  INCO and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting.  If one could see first hand the effects this has on the land and its many inhabitants perhaps they would not be so quick to support every meagre lame attempt at rationalizing pollution that these companies use to avoid cleaning up their act.  The locals that work there buy the arguements hook line and sinker without so much as being even remotely critical and while 'air quality advisories' sound on the airways daily.  "What we say and do is moot", they say, between coughs and wheezes, while on the radio it warns to stay indoors.  

I for one do not want my children and their children to inherate a world that is F'd up because of my lack of moral integrity or because I shrugged off the realities unfolding in front of my eyes.  Like the people that do not respond when they hear calls for help, because 'someone else will help' every one of us is guilty of contributing to pollution today... myself included.  

So as much as I probably do not make much sense, except in my own little world and in my own little mind, I call BULLSH*T when I hear corporations and their supporters spout their verbal pollution rationalizing their deeds that we all know are wrong.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2005)

The issue here is individual rights. People and corporations (who are treated as individuals for legal convenience) work best when they can set their own goal and work to achieve them. Even the extreme large "L" Libertarian position is that your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose, so there is nothing intrinsically wrong with turning people loose.

The "rights of the Collective" on the other hand are a complete fiction, since the "collective" can be defined in any arbitrary way, short of putting implants into people's heads and creating the "Borg". Even then, what criteria are being used to select you for membership into the Borg Collective?

UberCree, much of the problem you are describing up in Northern Ontario falls under "The Tragedy of the Commons". Since no one actually "owns" the land and environment (it is classed as Crown Land), the local mills and smelters feel free to do what they want. After all, they "own" it too. Property owners could (and should, but that is a different issue) take action against people and institutions who violate their property rights. Canada is a difficult place to put this into action, since much of the land is Crown land, property rights are not binding in law (they are not mentioned in the Canadian Constitution, for example) and Canadians tend to be passive and accept all kinds of outrages without action or complaint (see Adscam).

I am with you, (although you probably don't see it this way), after all, being a Combat Arms soldier for much of my career has put me in pretty intimate contact with the environment. The difference is that I also look through the lenses of History and Economics, so I understand there are large cycles which are beyond current understanding and control, as well as there are efficient means of providing incentives to encourage of discourage action. If we want to see real action against automotive pollution, for example, we can either put a large and expensive regulatory regime in place, which adds a lot to the price of a car and is constantly being subverted by auto makers or political pressure groups who fell they can gain/loose based on the zero sum regulatory game; or we can let the price of fuel rise to reflect true costs (removing lots of subsidies all through the production and transportation chain, for example) and see how quickly people change their habits and purchasing decisions.

As for Kyoto, analysis of the "plan" suggests we will end up spending billions or trillions of dollars, watch our standard of living plunge, and in the end see a temperature moderation of something on the order of .250C. Subjecting the people of the world to such a drastic dislocation for such little result seems pretty immoral to me.


----------



## UberCree (14 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I am with you



So you are going to vote Green then? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2005)

UberCree said:
			
		

> So you are going to vote Green then? ;D



Commander's intent: we are seekig the same end state, I have just selected a different means of approaching it!


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2006)

Putting it all into perspective:



> *Mark Steyn: Climate change myth*
> 
> 11jan06
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2006)

Well, who would have thought......

http://upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041447-2345r



> NewsTrack
> *Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'*
> ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.
> 
> ...


----------



## GO!!! (13 Mar 2006)

Hello all,

It is assignment time again, and I am looking for a bit of peer review on this paper. This is *unfinished*, (running out of time) and the citations are in "austere" form, I am looking for a critique of the conclusions stated, and of the writing. 

*Canada and the Kyoto Protocol; A Dangerous Combination of Good Intentions and Opportunism*

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is, at heart, a fine document, conceived by individuals with only the best of intentions for the future of our world, and the condition of the natural environment, worldwide. There was no malice when it was written, only an idealistic slant that was either unaware of, or perhaps believing that environmental concerns transcended the historical and economic conditions that would come into play when the time to sign it came. These conditions are precisely why the Kyoto Protocol is a terrible idea for Canada and Canadians.

The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The basis for it lies in the concept of a certain level of pollution of the atmosphere by eight gasses considered by the UN to be the major contributors to the global “greenhouse effect”, which is human activity creating a rise in the earth’s overall temperatures by releasing gasses into the atmosphere that break down the ozone layer (a naturally formed layer of gas that blocks harmful UV rays from the sun) and holds more of the sun’s radiated heat on earth, as opposed to allowing it to dissipate into space, as was previously the case. The protocol aims to achieve this by placing restrictions on countries that have large amounts of heavy industry, which emits large amounts of these gasses, and instituting a system of international “emissions credits” the possession of which allows the holder to pollute to a set limit, at which point he must buy more. In the interests of the global economy, the writers of the protocol proposed that the emissions levels be set for the declared level of emission of 1990, as a benchmark, with the eventual goal being for all countries to lower national emissions of the eight gasses to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Nations that are above this level would have to purchase emissions credits on the global market, in order to stay below their set limit. The Kyoto Protocol sets no limits on the emission of greenhouse gasses by undeveloped signatory nations, and there are no reliable methods of ascertaining the levels at which many nations emit these gasses now, or at any point in the past. The “exempt” signatory nations of the Protocol have no timeline to become adherents to it, and the Protocol specifies only that the levels at which undeveloped countries will be permitted to emit will be ascertained “in the future”. The protocol also leaves some participant nations with the option to increase their emissions, due to economic and political factors that will be covered later. The Protocol came into effect on the 15th of February, 2005, after it had been ratified by 55 “Annex 1” nations, whose emissions totaled 55% or more of the world emissions. Developing nations were not counted as members of the annex 1 group. In short, the Kyoto Protocol is an extremely complicated document that does not apply to any two signatories equally.

*Kyoto and the Environment*

The effects of Kyoto on the environment are also difficult to ascertain, and given the present wording of the document, possibly very small. At the present time, the five largest national emitters of Kyoto protocol gasses are the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India.  Interestingly, only the US and Japan would be expected to curtail their industrial activity or purchase emissions credits from the developing world, while China and India, with their rapidly expanding economies and surging use of fossil fuels would be permitted to pollute with impunity, and simultaneously enjoy exempt status from the protocol, as well as large amounts of foreign exchange from the industrialized signatory nations. Russia would also benefit from the Protocol, given that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, industrial production fell sharply, and emissions with it. This has placed the Russians in the enviable position of having enormous emissions in 1990, the benchmark for the Protocol, that fell off immediately afterwards, and are currently approximately 35% below the level set by the Protocol. This means that Russia would profit handsomely from the implementation of the Protocol, being Russia is a net energy exporter, and could now profit from both the sale of energy, and of the use of energy as well! The effect on the environment that a reduction or stabilization of emissions in the industrialized world would almost certainly be dwarfed by the massive increases that will occur in the developing world, given that they are not subject to the reduction standards, would be profiting from the sale of emissions credits, and would also benefit from an additional competitive edge, given that industry in industrialized nations would still have to be profitable, even with the added burden of supporting their unrestrained competition. This would have the additional effect of creating even more industrialization in the undeveloped nations and increasing their levels of emissions even further! The environmental effects of the Kyoto Protocol in the present form are likely to be small initially, and even worse over the long term, as the emitters of greenhouse gasses fight to keep their “exempt” status as they industrialize further.

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. These reasons encompass the full spectrum of national interests, from the effects on the Canadian and international environments, to the effects of an enforced Kyoto Protocol on the Canadian economy, the implications for national unity and domestic politics and the loss of Canadian independence and sovereignty in the economic and strategic spheres.

*A Roaring Economy Reduced to a Whimper*

Canada as a nation has a widely diversified economy, but is still one that places an emphasis on natural resources and the export of them, primarily to the United States. This has created an extremely wealthy, skilled and educated Canadian population, and one that enjoys one of the highest standards of living on the planet. This natural resource based export economy has an environmental price though, and combined with the high living standards, this has become quite high, with Canadians driving larger and more vehicles, residing in larger homes, and consuming more goods, which require transport, sale and climate controlled space. As a result, Canadians are among the worst per capita polluters in the world,  and the goods that provide the source of Canadian wealth, hydrocarbons especially, contribute to this even further, both in the production of them, and the subsidies which encourage even greater use in certain Canadian provinces, as a matter of public policy. The rising price of all hydrocarbons, in addition to the rise in the price of many natural resources, from iron to diamonds has created an even more successful economy in Canada, but one that requires extensive use of petroleum to maintain it. For example; the Canadian mining sector has made great advances in recent years, but the entire mining industry relies on the use of diesel engines to operate, and thus the use of diesel fuel. The Canadian economy relies on polluting the air with impunity, and must be allowed to continue to do so to.
The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would remove the profitability of nearly every Canadian industry, and effect savage cuts to the standard of living in Canada – for all citizens. If Canada was to be required to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and this was to be enforced, the industrial emissions alone would have to drop by 24%.  Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is directly tied to the emissions of Kyoto Protocol gasses, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?

The effects of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian public would be severe as well. If every Canadian were to be assigned a “carbon credit” and forced to purchase more, they would quickly command a premium, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. A more likely scenario is that an added tax would be applied to all forms of energy, as a method of discouraging use and raising capital to pay for the right to emit. This money would then be sent to the national governments of undeveloped countries. In essence, this would be a global tax on Canadian citizens, with all of the proceeds leaving the country. Simultaneously, the cost of producing every good in Canada would rise substantially, as producers attempted to remain profitable in the face of enormous increases in their costs of production. Canadian citizens would watch their costs of living skyrocket, with no end in sight, as energy resources are getting scarcer, and demand for many types is only rising, and will continue to do so, especially given the surge in wealth and industrial activity that would occur in the developing world. The damage to the resource based Canadian economy would be catastrophic. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. One study places the cost of Kyoto at a conservative $2700 per household, per year, based on information available in 2002.  This information is telling, but the costs of many items have risen significantly since 2002 (oil, for example, was worth approximately $25/US a barrel in 2002, it is now worth approximately $60! ) and given that there are approximately 14 million households in Canada, this cost (in 2002) dollars amounts to a total drain gargantuan proportions, especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit! All of this money would be spent in other countries! In short, the Canadian public would be expected to suffer enormous increases in the cost of nearly every good and service, increased taxation, and job losses, to cut emissions by an amount that Kyoto exempt nations like Mexico, India and China could wipe out in a fiscal quarter of solid economic growth.

*Paying Others to Pollute Here*

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would, in essence, mean that Canada would be participating in a massive wealth re-distribution scheme, in which Canada would be the number one spender, and in which other participants would be spending far less, if anything at all!	The “benchmark” for Kyoto emissions was set at 1990. This was a standard of great advantage to both the Europeans and Russians, but punitive to Canada. In 1990, the former Soviet states were in a state of vicious industrial decline due to the collapse of the command economies of the former Soviet Union, as such, their emissions were startlingly low. East and West Germany had also recently reunited, and the horribly inefficient Eastern industrial base had largely become quiet, along with the collapse of the East German coal industry, and the factories which it supplied, which had fallen victim to the ruthlessly efficient west in the new, free market economy. In Britain, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had worked and succeeded to break the powerful coal mining unions in her country, and as a result, inefficient and polluting mines were shut down, simultaneously inspiring industry to switch to cleaner alternatives and raising the price of that commodity for foreign trade. As a result of these timely reformations, European (both eastern and western) and Russian emissions were at a low ebb, and falling immediately after the benchmark was decided upon in 1990, due to new nations calculating new amounts, and reformations which were healthy and ultimately necessary taking place. Canada is in the opposite situation. Canadian emissions were low in 1990, and have been on a steady rise ever since, especially with the signing of the North American Free Trade agreement in 1994, and the rising costs of oil, of which Canada is a net exporter. The benchmark of 1990 highly advantageous to most signatories of the Kyoto protocol. With 1990 as the benchmark, all of the annex 1 signatory nations have significant emissions “room” in which to expand their emissions, with the exception of Canada and Japan. The Japanese only signed the Protocol after it was ascertained that there would be no enforcement mechanism put in place, because they have no intention of enforcing it themselves, realizing the terrible economic costs it would have! Canada has the most ambitious of the Kyoto targets, and the most to lose by fulfilling their “obligation”. Nations like Russia and the Ukraine are likely to become net emissions credits exporters, so for them, the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea; they only had to sign, continue planned economic recovery, and sell a good (emissions credits) with no cost to themselves, but which would provide a large source of foreign exchange – in short, the ideal commodity for export! Canada is the only nation to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol who will actually have to pay the significant costs associated with it. Canadians will be paying Russians and Ukrainians to pollute Canada under Kyoto.

*Kyoto Across Canada – Well, Most Of It*

One of the first moves the Liberal government made in 2003, when the plans for how the Kyoto Protocol could be met were being drawn up, was to exempt the southern Ontario automotive manufacturers from any emissions cuts or regulations under the agreement.  This vital bastion of liberal electoral support is to be shielded from Kyoto cuts while the natural resource producing (but right leaning and conservative voting) west will bear the full brunt of this agreement. This means that Canadians will bear the full costs of Kyoto, but their place of residence will play a major part in just how much they pay, or whether they will have a job at all in the first place! While the issue of western alienation has always been a problem in Canada, this single action, even more than Pierre Trudeau’s wealth redistribution plan, the NEP (National Energy Plan), demonstrated to residents of western Canada that they were destined to forever be the “drawers of water and hewers of wood” for eastern Canada unless a sympathetic government could be voted in. The exemption of Liberal friendly ridings from Kyoto was perhaps the most telling action that proved that Canada has no plans to distribute the pain of Kyoto evenly, preferring to concentrate the negative effects in areas that are not traditional supporters of the Liberal party.

Comments please!!


----------



## couchcommander (13 Mar 2006)

Oh dear, I've managed to avoid politically charged topics for a while here.... ah screw it, here it goes



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is directly tied to the emissions of Kyoto Protocol gasses, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?



Can you prove causation between these two figures? 



> Hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world.



(....the following is not really constructive advice for developing your paper, but some things I hope you take into consideration...)

That would require us accepting your predictions of it being horribly expensive. Two confounding things here, to me at least. Firstly, the cost of reducing it... I am more on the side that it won't be that bad, especially when I see figures that point out that five coal fired power generating stations in Ontario are responsible for 5% percent of our TOTAL  emissions in an entire year (2002 stats, read Environment Canada's "Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2002", Annex 10, and compare it to the emissions of the five coal fired plants operated by Ontario Power Generation, this is freely availible, but you can get it from CleanAir). And there are more, especially here in Alberta!

These together, total, generate about seven and a half gigawatts of electricity. The cost of replacing these stations with relatively clean nuclear energy would have run us, very roughly 15 billion dollars (10 CANDU 6 reactors - 5 times the Quishan cost... we'd have to tac on some inflation of course), assuming we used older technology, and not the newer, advanced, 1000 or 1500 megawatt designs that reduce cost per kilowatt. If we spread this out over the construction period, it equals about 2, maybe 3 (if we want to add 50% to the cost for inflation or whatever), oh hell lets just make it 4 ... for the middleman, and the fact we will have to hire Canadians that aren't paid 5 cents an hours... billion dollars a year (approx. 7 years construction time). Regardless, put this in perspective of our trillion dollar a year economy... and it's pennies. 

Now, the second big objection is this entire "cost" thing. 

The solution I just put forth for reducing our total emissions in a year by 5% would have required a capital expendure, yes, but this is also on Canadian reactors, which are going to be built(mostly) by Canadians (even if they don't come from AECL), with the profits from their eventual generation (assuming we don't let them get bought up by, oh, the British or something) going towards Canadian shareholders... my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se. Like any "cost" in our economy, it will just end up paying for someone elses supper. 

I mean, using the same logic as these people who are predicting the death of the Canadian economy due to the "cost" of kyoto, you could say that the "cost" of running our national economy is many hundreds of billions of dollars a year (building new buildings, paying workers, paying for resources, etc. etc. etc.)! Certainly a horrific number... but we all know that's not how the economy really works. 

Given this I am more inclined to believe the reports that say going after Kyoto will in fact result in a net benefit   to our national economy, both in terms of cash floating around, and the residual benefits that come from investing in high tech development (...avoiding competing with developing countries 5 cent an hour labour, for one). But that's just me I suppose. 



> especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit!



Not having it snow in August (screws up crops because they get cold), or +15 in December (screws up crops because the soil won't be moist from snow) is nice for me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Mar 2006)

I agree there aren't "hundreds of thousands" jobs at stake, but "my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se" isn't true.  This isn't an unused pile of cash in someone's mattress you are writing about.  What you propose means a diversion of funding from something else, which means something else must be foregone.

>with the profits from their eventual generation

How profitable has Ontario Hydro been these recent years?

>Given this I am more inclined to believe the reports that say going after Kyoto will in fact result in a net benefit

We'll get the benefits eventually anyways without interfering directly in the market in pursuit of a goal which doesn't have any easily demonstrable purpose.


----------



## couchcommander (13 Mar 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I agree there aren't "hundreds of thousands" jobs at stake, but "my point is that there really isn't a "cost" per se" isn't true.  This isn't an unused pile of cash in someone's mattress you are writing about.  What you propose means a diversion of funding from something else, which means something else must be foregone.


Fair enough. My point was that it's not like we are just taking the money and giving it to "someone" never to be seen again, akin to the traditional connotation of the term "cost". 

You are right it would require diverting funding from some other project, but another way to look at is these coal fired plants all date from the late sixties early seventies, and are in need of replacement anywho. We would just be doing it in a timely manner. As well, they contribute a very very large proportion of the air pollution in Ontario (I don't have the exact number in front of me, i can get it if you want), which has been estimated (very late nineties I think) to cost Ontario 10 billion dollars a year...



> How profitable has Ontario Hydro been these recent years?


There are plenty of profitable nuclear operations worldwide. Just because we were too dumb to do it correctly doesn't mean it's not possible. 



> We'll get the benefits eventually anyways without interfering directly in the market in pursuit of a goal which doesn't have any easily demonstrable purpose.



Ah it's doing our bit. On the grand scheme of things, we only produce 2 percent of the worlds emissions... but that shouldn't stop us from pulling our own weight (and hopefully more). Taking responsibility for our actions is a principle, in my opinion, that defines this country (or at least it should). "Because everyone else is doing it" isn't an excuse to me.

*edit* Oh, to the essay as well GO!!!!... I'm not too certain that a major focus of Kyoto is ozone depletion. It was my understanding that this was the primary focus of the montreal protocols (??) back in the eighties when they banned CFC's.. I think the big concern is just the entire greenhouse effect. I could be wrong on this though, I'd just advise checking it.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2006)

Couple of points:

1. The assumption that global climate change is a result of human activity is built into the Kyoto accords, but is not proven one way or the other. Indeed, historical evidence shows large climactic swings occured when humans had very little control over the environment. Vikings colonized Greenland and lived as "croft" farmers in the Dark ages, something which is impossible today since Greenland is colder than it was then. During the "Little Ice Age", the Thames river was frozen hard enough to hold fairs on, and many battles in the American Revolutionary War were decided by the ability to cross frozen rivers with the logistics and artillery train, so it was far colder than it was today. To suggest Kyoto was driven by scientific concerns is a bit difficult to believe given the widely available evidence in the historical record.

2. The motivation to "deindustrealize" the United States seems implicit in the way the accord is structured (i.e. India and China are exempt, Russia gains net wealth transfers). A more thourough discussion on costs, including sources would strengthen that part of your argument. I believe when the accord was signed by Canada, there were predicitons that up to 500,000 jobs would be affected, which should be findable.


----------



## couchcommander (13 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> 1. The assumption that global climate change is a result of human activity is built into the Kyoto accords, but is not proven one way or the other. Indeed, historical evidence shows large climactic swings occured when humans had very little control over the environment. Vikings colonized Greenland and lived as "croft" farmers in the Dark ages, something which is impossible today since Greenland is colder than it was then. During the "Little Ice Age", the Thames river was frozen hard enough to hold fairs on, and many battles in the American Revolutionary War were decided by the ability to cross frozen rivers with the logistics and artillery train, so it was far colder than it was today. To suggest Kyoto was driven by scientific concerns is a bit difficult to believe given the widely available evidence in the historical record.



No, it's not proven (nothing ever really is), but it is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. Indeed, there was drastic climatic shifts in past, but the last 150 year trend has been rather unique. It is particularily pronounced. Yes, the sun, our orbit, dust, etc. etc. all play a role, but not to the extent required. And yes, some places get colder, others warmer. In fact during the last 150 years, the earth has gone through warming and cooling cycles every decade or so. However the net effect on the whole globe, over the long term, is what matters, and this net effect, which just so happens to coincide with humans starting to release unheard of amounts of CO2, is drastic. This graphic http://www.ghgonline.org/images/ipcc1aandb.gif illustrates it well. THe first one just shows the warming and cooling trends, compared to the 1961-1990 average, but the second, b) is the really interesting one. This graphic is from the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and yes, I know the Fraser Institute and a couple of climatologists from the U of T object to the report... to name a few, but they are a deviation from the norm).


----------



## c_canuk (13 Mar 2006)

> No, it's not proven (nothing ever really is), but it is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community



in the 70s it was accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community that we are heading into the next ice age... a lot of the so called scientific community that is studying "Global warming" is a very small fraction of the scientific community and if you look at the data its a pretty slim argument that man is causing it by releasing green house gasses when active volcanoes spew forth more in a year than man has since the industrial revolution. the increase in CO2 is in the parts per million, and CO2 is a very small fraction of our atmoshere, which was not the case millions of years ago when it was a major componet.

A good book to read which really made things clear to me, though it is fiction, it's backed up on solid sources(ie The whole of Antarctica has been melting for 3000 years, but only recently has this stopped and only parts of it continue to melt while the rest of it continues to thicken), is State of Fear by Michael Crighton. I believe that humans can have an effect on our local environments, but to think that we cause every change in the environment is ignorant at best. Nature is one continuous changing journey which we've only been a part of for a very short time, and has endured through catastrophes worse than we've ever seen in our blink of an existence within it.

The reason I'm very skeptical about our role in "Global Warming" is that the same crowd that protests soldiers and thinks that the mission in Afghanistan is a wasted effort overlap quite a bit with those carrying the "Global Warming" flag. I hear a lot of "everyone agrees" and "The scientific community accepts that" but I don't hear sources, I do however find a lot of sources saying nothing of the sort. 

Some people say contradictory sources are funded by Energy Corps and are therefore biased, but don't see a problem with these same people chairing and largely funding the Environmental research groups that are trying to find alternate sources of renewable energy.


----------



## squealiox (13 Mar 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> in the 70s it was accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community that we are heading into the next ice age



not in any peer-reviewed scientific journals, it wasn't.



> if you look at the data its a pretty slim argument that man is causing it by releasing green house gasses when active volcanoes spew forth more in a year than man has since the industrial revolution



the USGS says humans produce 22 *b*illion tons of co2 a year, volcanoes only 230 *m*illion, at most. 
volcanoes also produce particles that should have a cooling effect.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html




> The reason I'm very skeptical about our role in "Global Warming" is that the same crowd that protests soldiers and thinks that the mission in Afghanistan is a wasted effort overlap quite a bit with those carrying the "Global Warming" flag. I hear a lot of "everyone agrees" and "The scientific community accepts that" but I don't hear sources, I do however find a lot of sources saying nothing of the sort.



no consensus? this is a partial list of major institutions that find in favour of the manmade global warming theory (while the naysayers come overwhelmingly from the arts and humanities):

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

google them if you don't believe me. i'm not sure what their take on our afghan mission is, though. (does the fact that i support it 100% have any bearing on anything i have just said?)


----------



## squealiox (13 Mar 2006)

GO, i didn't mean to derail this thread about your essay, so ... 
you might want to clarify just how the emissions trading scheme is intended to work, and focus on why you think it won't work. as a derivatives market (something i take a semi-professional interest in), the carbon markets are pretty straightforward. you can even look up the latest prices if you have access to a bloomberg terminal. (i believe the function is <NGY><Go>)

the most obvious potential flaw with the kyoto trading mechanism, i think, is in the enforcement . in fact, you could probably even make the argument that the prices and the volatility of these emissions credit markets should reflect the extent to which it is (a) a wealth-redistribution scheme (larger fluctation in prices) or (b) a perfectly efficient market (smaller fluctuations). no need for much financial theory, just a qualititve appraisal of how it compares with other derivatives markets, such as energy futures or options.

you can find more info on these markets at http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php


----------



## GO!!! (13 Mar 2006)

Thank you all for your thoughtful insight, particularly Squeeliox and Brad for their suggestions on how it might be improved.

Work continues, I will post the rest tomorrow (14 March)

GO!!!


----------



## IamCanadian (13 Mar 2006)

Also take into account the medical costs, air pollution costs Ontario alone over $1 billion a year in hospital visits, emergency room visits, medication, family physician visits and time off work usually for respiratory problems. Not to mention the estimated 1900 deaths per year in Ontario caused by air pollution, and the lower quality of life for people with chronic respiratory problems such as asthma.
http://www.oma.org/phealth/icap.htm
http://www.cleanair.web.net/whatsnew/response.html


----------



## GO!!! (14 Mar 2006)

Closer to the finished version.

CC, 

I am aware of the Ontario power crisis, but the left seems to have convinced that province that all forms of power generation are bad. This has not quelled their desires for power though, and recent studies, as mentioned, have stated that support for nuclear power is "soft"

All,

There are numerous issues *not* explored in my paper, (carbon trading, for example) but I am already approximately 1/3 *over* the word limit, which is _verboten_ in all but the most extraordinary cases, so I have to cut somewhere!

This is v2. There are some major changes to the beginning (Brad, thanks) so I posted the whole thing again, comments please!

*Canada and the Kyoto Protocol; A Dangerous Combination of Good Intentions and Opportunism*

The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is, at heart, a two documents; one conceived by individuals with only the best of intentions for the future of our world, and the condition of the natural environment. The other, a declaration of economic warfare enticingly cloaked in environmentalism, but bearing only difficulty and even danger for those foolhardy enough to answer the siren call. There was malice when it was written, combined with an idealistic slant that was either unaware of, or perhaps believing that environmental concerns transcended the historical and economic conditions that would come into play when the time to sign it came. These conditions are precisely why the Kyoto Protocol is a terrible idea for Canada, Canadians, and the entire developed world. 

The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The basis for it lies in the concept of a certain level of pollution of the atmosphere by eight gases considered by the UN to be the major contributors to the global “greenhouse effect”, which is human activity creating a rise in the earth’s overall temperatures by releasing gases into the atmosphere hold more of the sun’s radiated heat on earth, as opposed to allowing it to dissipate into space, as was previously the case. It should be noted that this is only a theory as to the reasons behind climate change, and there is a large group of prominent dissenters who claim that human activity has little or no effect on climate change. The Protocol aims to achieve this reversal or stoppage of climate change by placing restrictions on countries that have large amounts of heavy industry, which emits large amounts of these gases, and instituting a system of international “emissions credits” the possession of which allows the holder to pollute to a set limit, at which point he must buy more. In the interests of the global economy, the writers of the Protocol proposed that the emissions levels be set for the declared level of emission of 1990, as a benchmark, with the eventual goal being for all countries to lower national emissions of the eight gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Nations that are above this level would have to purchase emissions credits on the global market, in order to stay below their set limit. The Kyoto Protocol sets no limits on the emission of greenhouse gases by undeveloped signatory nations, and there are no reliable methods of ascertaining the levels at which many nations emit these gases now, or at any point in the past. The “exempt” signatory nations of the Protocol have no timeline to become adherents to it, and the Protocol specifies only that the levels at which undeveloped countries will be permitted to emit will be ascertained “in the future”. The Protocol also leaves some participant nations with the option to increase their emissions, due to economic and political factors that will be covered later. The Protocol came into effect on the 15th of February, 2005, after it had been ratified by 55 “Annex 1” nations, whose emissions totaled 55% or more of the world emissions. Developing nations were not counted as members of the annex 1 group. In short, the Kyoto Protocol is an extremely complicated document that does not apply to any two signatories equally.

*Kyoto and the Environment*

The effects of Kyoto on the environment are also difficult to ascertain, and given the present wording of the document, possibly very small, especially given that Canada is responsible for approximately 2% of global Kyoto Protocol gas emissions  At the present time, the five largest national emitters of Kyoto Protocol gases are the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India.  Interestingly, only the US and Japan would be expected to curtail their industrial activity or purchase emissions credits from the developing world, while China and India, with their rapidly expanding economies and surging use of fossil fuels would be permitted to pollute with impunity, and simultaneously enjoy exempt status from the Protocol, as well as large amounts of foreign exchange from the industrialized signatory nations. Russia would also benefit from the Protocol, given that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, industrial production fell sharply, and emissions with it. This has placed the Russians in the enviable position of having enormous emissions in 1990, the benchmark for the Protocol, that fell off immediately afterwards, and are currently approximately 35% below the level set by the Protocol. This means that Russia would profit handsomely from the implementation of the Protocol, being as Russia is a net energy exporter, and could now profit from both the sale of energy, and of the use of energy as well! The effect that a reduction or stabilization of emissions in the industrialized world would almost certainly be dwarfed by the massive increases that will occur in the developing world, given that they are not subject to the reduction standards, would be profiting from the sale of emissions credits, and would also benefit from an additional competitive edge, given that industry in industrialized nations would still have to be profitable, even with the added burden of supporting their unrestrained competition. This would have the additional effect of creating even more industrialization in the undeveloped nations and increasing their levels of emissions even further! The environmental effects of the Kyoto Protocol in the present form are likely to be small initially, and even worse over the long term, as the emitters of greenhouse gases fight to keep their “exempt” status as they industrialize further. 

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. These reasons encompass the full spectrum of national interests, from the effects on the Canadian and international environments, to the effects of an enforced Kyoto Protocol on the Canadian economy, the implications for national unity and domestic politics and the loss of Canadian independence and sovereignty in the economic and strategic spheres.

*A Roaring Economy Reduced to a Whimper*

Canada as a nation has a widely diversified economy, but is still one that places an emphasis on natural resources and the export of them, primarily to the United States. This has created an extremely wealthy, skilled and educated Canadian population, and one that enjoys one of the highest standards of living on the planet. This natural resource based export economy has an environmental price though, and combined with the high living standards, this has become quite high, with Canadians driving larger and more vehicles, residing in larger homes, and consuming more goods, which require transport, sale and climate controlled space. As a result, Canadians are among the worst per capita polluters in the world.  The goods that provide the source of Canadian wealth, hydrocarbons especially, contribute to this even further, both in the production of them, and the subsidies which encourage even greater use in certain Canadian provinces, as a matter of public policy. The rising price of all hydrocarbons, in addition to the rise in the price of many natural resources, from iron to diamonds has created an even more successful economy in Canada, but one that requires extensive use of petroleum to maintain it. For example; the Canadian mining sector has made great advances in recent years, but the entire mining industry relies on the use of diesel engines to operate, and thus the use of diesel fuel. The Canadian economy relies on polluting the air with impunity, and must be allowed to continue to do so to.

The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would reduce the profitability of nearly every Canadian industry, and effect savage cuts to the standard of living in Canada – for all citizens. If Canada was to be required to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and this was to be enforced, the industrial emissions alone would have to drop by 24%.  Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003)  the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is strongly related to increased emissions of Kyoto Protocol gases, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it? 

The effects of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian public would be severe as well. If every Canadian were to be assigned a “carbon credit” and forced to purchase more, they would quickly command a premium, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. A more likely scenario is that an added tax would be applied to all forms of energy, as a method of discouraging use and raising capital to pay for the right to emit. This money would then be sent to the national governments of undeveloped countries. In essence, this would be a global tax on Canadian citizens, with all of the proceeds leaving the country. Simultaneously, the cost of producing every good in Canada would rise substantially, as producers attempted to remain profitable in the face of enormous increases in their costs of production. Canadian citizens would watch their costs of living skyrocket, with no end in sight, as energy resources are getting scarcer, and demand for many types is only rising, and will continue to do so, especially given the surge in wealth and industrial activity that would occur in the developing world. The damage to the resource based Canadian economy would be catastrophic. Thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. One study places the cost of Kyoto at a conservative $2700 per household, per year, based on information available in 2002.  This information is telling, but the costs of many items have risen significantly since 2002 (oil, for example, was worth approximately $25/US a barrel in 2002, it is now worth approximately $60! ) and given that there are approximately 14 million households in Canada, this cost (in 2002) dollars amounts to a total drain of gargantuan proportions, especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit! All of this money would be spent in other countries! Canadian industries could be further damaged as producers, unable to manufacture goods domestically at a profit, moved their facilities to Kyoto – exempt nations. This could make Canada an exporter of raw materials only, as value was added in nations whose economies operated without the loadstone of emissions taxes. In short, the Canadian public would be expected to suffer enormous increases in the cost of nearly every good and service, increased taxation, and job losses, to cut emissions by an amount that Kyoto exempt nations like Mexico, India and China could wipe out in a fiscal quarter of solid economic growth.

*Paying Others to Pollute Here*

Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would, in essence, mean that Canada would be participating in a massive wealth re-distribution scheme, in which Canada would be the number one spender, and in which other participants would be spending far less, if anything at all!	The “benchmark” for Kyoto emissions was set at 1990. This was a standard of great advantage to both the Europeans and Russians, but punitive to Canada. In 1990, the former Soviet states were in a state of vicious industrial decline due to the collapse of the command economies of the former Soviet Union; as such, their emissions were startlingly low. East and West Germany had also recently reunited, and the horribly inefficient Eastern industrial base had largely become quiet. This, along with the collapse of the East German coal industry and the factories which it supplied, which had fallen victim to the ruthlessly efficient west in the new, free market economy. In Britain, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had worked and succeeded to break the powerful coal mining unions in her country, and as a result, inefficient and polluting mines were shut down, simultaneously inspiring industry to switch to cleaner alternatives and raising the price of that commodity for foreign trade. As a result of these timely reformations, European (both eastern and western) and Russian emissions were at a low ebb, and falling immediately after the benchmark was decided upon in 1990, due to new nations calculating new amounts, and reformations which were healthy and ultimately necessary taking place. Canada was in the opposite situation. Canadian emissions were low in 1990, and have been on a steady rise ever since, especially with the signing of the North American Free Trade agreement in 1994, and the rising costs of oil, of which Canada is a net exporter. The benchmark of 1990 is highly advantageous to most signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. With 1990 as the benchmark, all of the annex 1 signatory nations have significant emissions “room” in which to expand their emissions, with the exception of Canada and Japan. The Japanese only signed the Protocol after it was ascertained that there would be no enforcement mechanism put in place, because they have no intention of enforcing it themselves, realizing the terrible economic costs it would have! Canada has the most ambitious of the Kyoto targets, and the most to lose by fulfilling their “obligation”. Nations like Russia and the Ukraine are likely to become net emissions credits exporters, so for them, the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea; they only had to sign, continue planned economic recovery, and sell a good (emissions credits) with no cost to themselves, but which would provide a large source of foreign exchange – in short, the ideal commodity for export! Canada is the only nation to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol which will actually have to pay the significant costs associated with it. Canadians will be paying Russians and Ukrainians to pollute Canada under Kyoto.

*Kyoto Across Canada – Well, Most Of It*

One of the first moves the Liberal government made in 2003, when the plans for how the Kyoto Protocol could be met were being drawn up, was to exempt the southern Ontario automotive manufacturers from any emissions cuts or regulations under the agreement.  This vital bastion of liberal electoral support is to be shielded from Kyoto cuts while the natural resource producing (but right leaning and conservative voting) west will bear the full brunt of this agreement. This means that Canadians will bear the full costs of Kyoto, but their place of residence will play a major part in just how much they pay, or whether they will have a job at all in the first place! While the issue of western alienation has always been a problem in Canada, this single action, even more than Pierre Trudeau’s wealth redistribution plan, the NEP (National Energy Plan), demonstrated to residents of western Canada that they were destined to forever be the “drawers of water and hewers of wood” for eastern Canada unless a sympathetic government could be voted in. The exemption of Liberal friendly ridings from Kyoto was perhaps the most telling action that proved that Canada has no plans to distribute the pain of Kyoto evenly, preferring to concentrate the negative effects in areas that are not traditional supporters of the Liberal party, and consolidate their hold on power even further.

The resource based economy of the west would also suffer even more under Kyoto, due to the nature of many of the economic activities in western Canada. The production of liquid oil from oil wells produces significant amounts of gases linked to climate change, which are either burned off or simply vented into the atmosphere as “fugitive gases”. While the practice of burning off natural gas was common a decade ago, the price of this resource has risen to the point where it is now worth it to capture it for sale. Even with this capture of a valuable by-product, however, the mechanics of the chief propellant of the western Canadian economy must be discussed to fully understand the implications of Kyoto as envisaged by the liberal party of Canada. The oil sands, centered in northern Alberta in the area to the north and west of the town of Fort McMurray, are the number one source of jobs, royalties and economic activity in western Canada. The process by which the bitumen (crude oil) is separated from the sand it lies in, involves the raw product being heated, then filtered, before being refined. This heating is largely done with natural gas, leading to the specter of a possible five levels of taxation on what are already the most expensive costs of oil production in the world. The first is the provincial royalties that must be paid on the resource as it is removed from the ground. The second is the cost of paying the Kyoto emissions cost for the fugitive gases that are produced, the third, the Kyoto tax levied on the natural gas used to separate the sand from the bitumen, the fourth on the fugitive gases produced by the refining process, and the fifth and final taxes being levied by the provincial and federal governments “at the pump” or source of purchase. Even in an industry as profitable as the oil industry currently is, the level of taxation mentioned here would strain any industry. Most disturbingly, all of the Kyoto “taxes” would be siphoned right out of the Canadian economy, providing plenty of local negative effects, with no tangible positives for Canadians. The combination of a possible five layered taxation scheme for western Canada and an exemption from Kyoto targets for the major economic activities in eastern Canada would be potent ammunition for disgruntled westerners, already disillusioned with the eastern – centric nature of the federal government. Kyoto is not only bad for the Canadian economy, it is also bad for Canadian unity, and has the potential to create a three way split of Canada, as opposed to the current French – English rift.

*A Sovereign State – No Higher Authority*

The final set of arguments against the Kyoto Protocol center on the ramifications of subordinating so many aspects of the lives of Canadian citizens to a collective of nations who are participants in a globally competitive marketplace, and the strategic and military consequences of handing over control of national economic machinery to organizations that do not act in the best interests of Canadians. The act of Canada subordinating itself to such a flawed treaty as the Kyoto Protocol with no national debate invalidates the purpose of Canadians voting or having representation in a federal system due to the fact that it is, in essence, creating a higher form of legitimate government. The difference is, that the Kyoto Protocol does not have elected representatives, it is merely a document. Canadians may well be justified in demanding their government take action to study or prevent climate change, but the impetus, plan, costs and benefits should be Canadian in source and destination. There is simply no excuse to pay Russians for the right to pollute Canada, that money could be better spent improving the efficiency of Canadian industry, or researching alternative sources of propulsion, power and profit. Canada probably should attempt to reduce emissions of Kyoto gases, but it should do so on Canadian terms.

The strategic implications of a post – Kyoto world are no less startling than the economic. China and India are two of the world’s fastest growing states. Both are nuclear powers, have massive human resources, and a strong desire to achieve the “prestige, power and influence” that Louis St. Laurent spoke of. These effects are directly tied to a national ability to raise two items; a large and ongoing source of foreign exchange, and a powerful military, capable of projecting power to areas where it can be used to further national objectives. China has made large strides in this area in recent years, modernizing the People’s Liberation Army, Navy and Air Force to the extent that it will soon be capable of challenging US supremacy in the Pacific. Canada adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would facilitate Chinese strategic goals in two ways. The first is that it would drive down the demand for sources of energy within Canada and depress the price of these commodities as the Canadian public consumed them less due to the high costs associated with them. The second is that since China (being a developing nation) is not subject to the Protocol, it would be able to purchase these resources at a reduced cost, further expanding the Chinese economy and the sources of foreign exchange. Canadians, would, in essence, be subsidizing the economic and military advancement of a state which does not share Canadian values or goals and simultaneously, is a rival of the staunch, long standing and faithful Canadian ally, the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is the opening volley of economic warfare against Canada and any other state foolhardy enough to sign it.

Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. The Kyoto Protocol is a global wealth and economic growth re-distribution scheme, disguised as an environmental protection treaty. Canadians under Kyoto would be poorer, and the benefactors of Canadian sacrifice would be in the undeveloped nations who took advantage of a deviously worded environmental treaty. Canada would be weak under Kyoto. Industrial production would lower and eventually outsourced, and the economy based almost solely on resource extraction and export, and as such, subject to the wild shifts of the commodity markets. The Canadian economy would enter an eternal “boom-bust” cycle as a result, guaranteeing the maintenance of a highly mobile, unskilled workforce constantly pursuing work in different parts of the nation. This stands in stark contrast to the Canadian economy of 2006, diversified, with a solid base in resource extraction and refinement, and an expanding knowledge based category. There are no benefits to the Kyoto Protocol which could not be achieved in Canada, with Canadian innovation, without the damage to the economy that the developing world demands.


----------



## couchcommander (14 Mar 2006)

The introduction is very well done, it explores the basis of you are talking about in a (what comes across as) balanced fashion, while still making your point. On that note, I would look at bringing this exploration of issues to your entire paper. Describe where, in the body of research and opinions, the viewpoints you are expousing lie, and importantly, acknowledge prominent dissenting theories or ideas (where appropriate on major points). In the end, it strengthens the document, as it shows it is well researched and grounded.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2006)

"Most" scientists have a "consensus" about global warming, we are always told. Perhaps they have a consusus on where their funding comes from and don't want to rock the boat:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_ii&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/



> Science vs. political power,
> or, Why should we expect that scientists are any different than the rest of us?
> The issue of man induced climate change involves not the likelihood of dangerous consequences, but rather their remote possibility.
> 
> ...



_edit to include link from Scientific American_


----------



## bbbb (26 Mar 2006)

I have not read 'State of Fear' by Micheal Crichton. What is it about?


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2006)

More from the Manor house:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view408.html#global



> Tuesday, April 4, 2006
> 
> For a different view of Hansen the Global Warming Spokesman:
> 
> ...



From the link:



> But it is not a matter of industry's allies in government nullifying unanimous scientific opinion. The scientists are divided, and Hansen and his friends are using political tactics to try to prevail.


and


> Hansen sounded much the same alarm in 1988, when he energized the global warming movement by predicting a temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 10 years. When the actual rise in surface temperatures over the decade was only 0.2 degrees, Hansen stepped back from his earlier predictions.



Yet he is making pretty much the same prediction now ("the temperature will rise by 10C in ten years"). Given his record, I wonder why anyone takes him seriously?


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Apr 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Given his record, I wonder why anyone takes him seriously?



Because the environmental lobby groups and media reports it as fact, and make it seem like global warming/climate change is huge, terrible *crisis*    Just like they did with DDT, and the power-line cancer scare, etc etc... and by the time it's proved to be bunk, they'll have already moved on to the next terrible crisis, or catastrophe, etc etc...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Apr 2006)

Ever since someone got paid to look into cow farts ruining the ozone layer, I have been a bit skeptical of "pure science".  

http://www.agr.gc.ca/policy/environment/eb/public_html/pdfs/aei/Chap14E.pdf

Our tax dollars hard at work. :


----------



## exsemjingo (5 Jul 2006)

Worried about failing math?  That's okay, you're still qualified to be (former) Vice President of the United States.  If you haven't heard the story yet, here it is from www.630ched.com

ALBERTA/630 CHED - Not all influential Americans are thrilled by the tremendous reserves in the Oil Sands near Fort McMurray. 
Global warming opponent and former US Vice President Al Gore says what's happening in northern Alberta is "totally nuts". 
In an interview for next week's issue of Rolling Stone magazine Gore slams our oil sands mega projects. He says: "For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family's home for four days.  
And they have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil". 
Gore compares the extraction process to drug addiction and adds "junkies find veins in their toes. 
It seems reasonable, to them, because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives".
- Ed Mason 

But how much natural gas is that?  Heating bills vary, so let's use a generous estimate of $80/month.  Divide by 30 days, multiply by 4, and that equals $10.67 worth of natural gas.  At the end of last month, one barrel of crude cost this much:

Crude oil NYMEX 73.93 +0.41 +0.55% 6/30/2006
1:28:00 PM 

Now, I haven't factored in exchange rates, but isn't $73.93 far more than $10.67?  I'm no junkie, but I think that sounds economical.  Maybe Al Gore forgot that all industrial processes require energy, even energy extraction ones.  I guess he also forgot to look at a map of Northern Alberta, since we've preserved plenty of landscape in Wood Buffalo National Park, one of the largest national parks in the world.
Or maybe he's just being blindly partisan, and thinks that we are the ones who flunked math. :


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

Plus from what I have seen of the areas no longer in production, they have backfilled, and landscaped to the point you would never know that the area was once a vast pit.... :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Jul 2006)

But at least he can spell, unlike a certain other former Vice President of the US.

Or certain forum posters.  ;D


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

i wonder exactly, where you're getting he figure of 80 bucks a month to heat a house.  I've, in the past, paid close to 500 bucks a month for heating (granted it was an old house), and (500/30)*4 = $66.67 which is close to what  the price of crude is.

However, what Gore is trying to illustrate (and says quite plainly) is that we are junkies when it comes to Oil and we really need to start weaning ourselves off of it.  The sooner we get feasible alternative energy sources the better.


----------



## wotan (5 Jul 2006)

Hey, leave poor Al Gore alone!  After all, he invented the Internet!  And that definitely beats spelling potatoe with an "e", like I was taught in school.


----------



## acclenticularis (5 Jul 2006)

Regardless of what seems economical and regardless of the relative resources needed for extraction in the oil sands, there is far more at play here than arithmetic.  I don't see the relevance of comparing how much natural gas costs in the extraction process.  What seems relevant to me is the fact that natural gas is another non-renewable resource that we do not have ample supply of that must be used in the oil sands project.  There are many more consequences of the oil sands production than this.  It is really quite sad that people will jump on trivial details for the sake of ignoring the whole picture when issues such as environmental change is concerned.  Get acquainted with the whole issue.  There is plenty of information out there to form objective opinions re. what we are doing to the environment and will continue to do.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2006)

and why should the inane ramblings of a liar and a loser bother me? I had a brilliant and in-depth retort to the erstwhile former Vice-President, but in the interests of saving time I have boiled it down to the following pithy remark:

Hey Al! Bite me.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2006)

acclenticularis said:
			
		

> Get acquainted with the whole issue.  There is plenty of information out there to form objective opinions re. what we are doing to the environment and will continue to do.



For example, the average global temperature on Mars is increasing: 
http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html 
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

Vikings farmed in Greenland during the dark ages. How many farmers are working in Greenland today? http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=776
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

Dastardly Conservatives, Republicans and Neo-Cons are obviously going through space AND time to manipulate the climate.

And of course there is other historical data that can be accessed and understood if you know how to read and use critical though process to interpret the data. Al Gore and his friend's one sided climate change screeds will join the Ozone hole of the 1980's or the "Impending Ice Age" of the 1970's on the trash heap of history.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Dastardly Conservatives, Republicans and Neo-Cons are obviously going through space AND time to manipulate the climate.



The notion that climate has varied in the past is _obviously _ a lie perpetuated by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> The notion that climate has varied in the past is _obviously _ a lie perpetuated by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.



Well, if that's the case, we should invite them to the water thread, they'd fit right in. Might even be able to contribute !!  ;D


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

> Vikings farmed in Greenland during the dark ages. How many farmers are working in Greenland today?



Farming of today is VERY different from farming during the times of the vikings.  In fact farming back then is more akin to people putting vegetable gardens in their back yard, rather than the large scale farming you see in across the world.  So, I don't think that helps your argument at all.

As for the coming ice age, well, there is one coming, no one doubts that.  We're currently in an interglacial period and given enough time another ice age will start.  How and when will it start?  I have no idea.  I just know its going to happen at some point.  
  
As for global warming, yes we are altering he enivornment around us, and yes the temperature is rising, but is it permanent or directly the result of our activity?  I don't know.   What is knowning is that human activity has been linked to past increases in the global temperature, so it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that our increasing output of greenhouse gases is affecting the climate.  There was an interesting article published about a year or so ago (can't remember which journal) which suggested that the mephane released by upper paleolithic/mesolithic rice farmers in asia helped increase the global temperature, which in turn allowed for agriculture to be developed in Europe (leading to the neolithic revolution).   

And if global warming isn't a good enough reason to look into alternative fuel sources, then I suggest that smog and air quality is a damned good one.

The evidence is clear, we really need to change our ways.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Farming of today is VERY different from farming during the times of the vikings.  In fact farming back then is more akin to people putting vegetable gardens in their back yard, rather than the large scale farming you see in across the world.  So, I don't think that helps your argument at all.


the salient point is that 1,000 years ago, vegetation grew in Iceland and Greenland. They don't now (that's first-hand experience. By the way, Iceland? No freakin' ICE! Greenland? NOT green. And no big-breasted Xena-like valkyries either. DOn't bother going.)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Jul 2006)

The simple fact that these resources are non-renewable should be enough reason to change our ways, really. Klein wants to use oil and gas revenue for prosperity cheques again; I think the time is long past to start looking at effective battery powered cars, etc. The billion dollars he wants to blow on prosperity would be better spent on something like that. The bust may not come in my lifetime, but it will happen at some point.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin - if you want to argue that we should keep the neighbourhood clean and tidy, that it looks good, that it might even be good for our health and emotional well being - feel free, fill your boots.  

My issue with Al Gore, Michal Moore, Green Peace and the IPCC is that they are parroting the line of Malthus and the Club of Rome and millenias worth of other psychotics - "The end of the world is nigh." 

It ain't.

Stop panicing and deal with problems as they come.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Jul 2006)

My money is on a giant space rocks spinning us off into the sun long before I have to worry about coconuts falling off the palm trees in my yard hitting me on the head.


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

I don't think anyone, aside the use of rhetoric, actually believes that the world is coming to an end.  They just realise that if we don't change our ways some bad stuff will probably happen at some point in the future.  

As for vegetation, I can't say I have personal knowledge as i've enver been there, but from a quick google search I've found many sites that claim that there is in fact some vegetation there, generlly in the south around the fjords.  Apparently mushrooms grow there, according to another.
Along those lines, Greenland also supports various fauna such as caribou, so I really have to ask, if there is no vegetation then how do these animals survive?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin - cows and goats don't survive on mushrooms and lichen.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> if there is no vegetation then how do these animals survive?


McDonalds.


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

Who said anything about cows?  You said that vegetation does not grow on the island, that's why I brought up the fauna, which would question the veracity of you claiming that no vegetation grows on the island.  
But really this whole "conversation" on the vegetation of greenland is meaningless.  Stuff grows there, thats all thats required.


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Who said anything about cows?


Kirkhill did. Weren't you paying attention?



> You said that vegetation does not grow on the island, that's why I brought up the fauna, which would question the veracity of you claiming that no vegetation grows on the island.


  No, I said it. Not Kirkhill. You weren't paying attention, after all.



> But really this whole "conversation" on the vegetation of greenland is meaningless.


  actually, it's quite meaningful, which is why it was raised in the first place.



> Stuff grows there, thats all thats required.


I see. Only part of it matters, as long as that part supports your arguement. Got it!


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

I asked about cows becuase no one else had mentioned it.  I was wondering if that had something to do with the farming  activities that took place during the time of the vikings.  If not, I was wondering how cows specifically factored into this conversation as no one else had brought them up, or even implied that there was a sizable bovine population on the island.



> No, I said it. Not Kirkhill. You weren't paying attention, after all.



And exactly what does it matter who said what?  Someone claimed that nothing grows there, so I pointed out there were many animals that in fact habitated the island.  The presence of terrestrial animals, especially large game species would indiciate that there is some sort of vegetation growing on the island... therefore that totally disproves your contention that no vegetation is on the island.  



> the salient point is that 1,000 years ago, vegetation grew in Iceland and Greenland. They don't now (that's first-hand experience. By the way, Iceland? No freakin' ICE! Greenland? NOT green. And no big-breasted Xena-like valkyries either. DOn't bother going.)


  You did say that, right?
Whats your definition of vegetation anyway?


----------



## paracowboy (5 Jul 2006)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I asked about cows becuase no one else had mentioned it.  I was wondering if that had something to do with the farming  activities that took place during the time of the vikings.  If not, I was wondering how cows specifically factored into this conversation as no one else had brought them up, or even implied that there was a sizable bovine population on the island.


and I answered the question you asked.





> Who said anything about cows?


you asked, I answered. I'm good that way.


> And exactly what does it matter who said what?


.  I dunno. It was your question. If you didn't want the answer, why did you ask? Next time you ask a question you don't want answered let us know. 


> Someone claimed that nothing grows there,


 yeah, me remember? I reminded you of that a couple posts ago.


> so I pointed out there were many animals that in fact habitated the island.


  so you did.


> The presence of terrestrial animals, especially large game species would indiciate that there is some sort of vegetation growing on the island...


 so it would.


> therefore that totally disproves your contention that no vegetation is on the island


so it would seem.


> You did say that, right?


sure did. There it is, in green and black. Plain as day!


> Whats your definition of vegetation anyway?


Plants, Flora, Liberals. Non-sentient life, essentially.


----------



## Sheerin (5 Jul 2006)

Out of curosity whcih part of Greenland did you visit?


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

Vikings raised cattle, goats and horses (ponies) as well as pigs and sheep.  None of them are native to Greenland.  None of them survive on mushrooms.

Try Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed".  

The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....


----------



## acclenticularis (5 Jul 2006)

*The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....*

So we just go with it and react as consequences unfold?  What about a responsibility to future generations?  What about a responsibility to other nations?  Climate change knows no borders.  The remark about the ice age mania of the 70's and the ozone hole mania of the 80's is interesting.  It is also interesting to note that ozone depletion continues unabated and that, sure, the world is not coming to an end, however, people are and will continue to experience increased risk of skin cancer etc.  My question to nay-sayers is have you ever looked into the affiliations of the scientists that tend to minimize climate change and possible consequences?  Have you also investigated those that do not appear to minimize climate change studies' prognostications?  I am not a research scientist, I only have an undergrad. in meteorology to complement my degrees in business.  However, if there is something that I have learned in academia and from reading scientific journals, and that is that some scientists will mould interpretations of data for whomever they are on the payroll for.  Whenever I look at a new study or journal article, I check out who the author is and who they work for.  We know what is in it for the Bush administration, but what would the agenda of scientists who do not minimize the possible effects of climate change be?  I have seen friends go on to do research in oceanography/climatology and get hired by the Alberta provincial government.  Once on the payroll, they switch to the other end of the climate change spectrum.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

acclenticularis said:
			
		

> *The worst thing that is likely to happen is we do what the Nomads did - move to where the rain falls,  or what the Romans did - pipe water from where the rain falls to the cities - or some combination.  It depends how much you really like that Multi-Billion Dollar investment you made in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, New York....*
> 
> So we just go with it and react as consequences unfold?  What about a responsibility to future generations?  What about a responsibility to other nations?  Climate change knows no borders.  The remark about the ice age mania of the 70's and the ozone hole mania of the 80's is interesting.  It is also interesting to note that ozone depletion continues unabated and that, sure, the world is not coming to an end, however, people are and will continue to experience increased risk of skin cancer etc.  My question to nay-sayers is have you ever looked into the affiliations of the scientists that tend to minimize climate change and possible consequences?  Have you also investigated those that do not appear to minimize climate change studies' prognostications?  I am not a research scientist, I only have an undergrad. in meteorology to complement my degrees in business.  However, if there is something that I have learned in academia and from reading scientific journals, and that is that some scientists will mould interpretations of data for whomever they are on the payroll for.  Whenever I look at a new study or journal article, I check out who the author is and who they work for.  We know what is in it for the Bush administration, but what would the agenda of scientists who do not minimize the possible effects of climate change be?  I have seen friends go on to do research in oceanography/climatology and get hired by the Alberta provincial government.  Once on the payroll, they switch to the other end of the climate change spectrum.



Nothing like an adgenda to keep your spirits up !!!   :


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

Do something or do nothing - the earth will getter warmer or colder.  Whatever the cause there will be changes - you are better off protecting the future generations by adapting to the changes.  

One of MY ancestors, from South Africa, about 1,500,000 years ago figured out how to use fire.  As a result my relatives have managed to muddle through a number of ice-ages. Including the one that just peeled back from Toronto 12,000 years ago.  Others built boats to get away from floods.  Dams to recover land and contain water.  Canals and Aqueducts and Pipelines to move water.  Cisterns to store water.

And occasionally they picked up and moved when visited by the local Volcano god or itinerant asteroid.

How did you get here?

Edited to adapt to criticism.


----------



## HDE (5 Jul 2006)

There appears to be a considerable move toward alternative sources of energy already on the go.  I'm not sure that Al Gore isn't simply running to get in front of a process already underway.  I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact.


----------



## GAP (5 Jul 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> There appears to be a considerable move toward alternative sources of energy already on the go.  I'm not sure that Al Gore isn't simply running to get in front of a process already underway.  I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact.



You are forgetting Hydro Power. It's huge, getting larger, environmentally friendly, renewable, etc. etc. 

For heating, Geothermal is growing by leaps and bounds. People have finally twigged onto the fact the world does NOT become a ball of ice, just because you have.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

> I'd say one large problem is that it'll take an enormous number of wind turbines, solar panels, etc. to make much of an impact.



You could be right about Gore HDE - running to get to the head of the parade.  You are also right about wind turbines.  2 MW seems to be the size of the majority of turbines and they run about 25 to 30% of the time in high productivity areas.  That means that each on, on average, only puts out about 0.5 MW.

The Ontario Energy Gap is variously given as something between 10,000 and 24,000 MW.  That means that Ontario would have to erect, and service, something between 20,000 and 48,000 wind turbines.  Or we can do as GAP suggests and build dams.  Or we can get back into the uranium business.  A nice little nuclear powered steam plant with cogen capacity would go along way in the Tar Sands. Particularly if supplied by Saskatchewan uranium.


----------



## acclenticularis (5 Jul 2006)

_*Do something or do nothing - the earth will getter warmer or colder.  Whatever the cause there will be changes - you are better off protecting the future generations by adapting to the changes.  * _ 

Changes brought about artificially by man.  Present day Man and near future Man will _getter_ the climate warmer and future generations will _getter_ the resultant spoils.  Do whatever we feel regardless of consequences.  Sounds good, just do it.  Heck, using the same 'logic' might even help us in world politics.  Some country makes someone else angry, just nuke 'em.  To heck with the consequences.  Humanity is adaptable.  Nuclear winter would eventually clear up and we would learn to live through it.  We have come a long way and survived ice ages, mass extinction events, plagues, etc.  Things will work out.  Your little remark above offers little consolation to some countries that are already feeling the effects of global warming in a significant way.  Countries who did little to cause it.  Yes, there are cycles in nature and yes there are catastrophic events that significantly change climate, ocean currents, and landmasses, however, in the case of global warming *WE* are causing the change and it is not necessary.  Your point above makes it quite clear that there is no way to bridge the gap in opinions.  While responsibility for ones actions is important to some, it is obviously not to others.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2006)

Thanks for pointing out my error.  I will edit accordingly.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> You are forgetting Hydro Power. It's huge, getting larger, environmentally friendly, renewable, etc. etc.



Tidal power might be a better, longer lasting, more stable and least environmentally damaging option.


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Tidal power might be a better, longer lasting, more stable and least environmentally damaging option.



You might have to build it 1/2 mile inshore to allow for global warming floods


----------



## exsemjingo (6 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Ontario Energy Gap is variously given as something between 10,000 and 24,000 MW.  That means that Ontario would have to erect, and service, something between 20,000 and 48,000 wind turbines.  Or we can do as GAP suggests and build dams.  Or we can get back into the uranium business.  A nice little nuclear powered steam plant with cogen capacity would go along way in the Tar Sands. Particularly if supplied by Saskatchewan uranium.



Yeah, Ontario has an energy gap, but Dalton McGuinty just shut down all of their coal power plants.  Apparently no one told him about electrostatic precipitators (which remove dust) and, catalysts (which remove sulphur dioxide).
I'll go for the nuclear power-plant option as soon as the technology is invented to get the steam from the plant to the point of extraction.  Don't quote me on these numbers, but last I heard the distance required is 800m while the steam condenses in the pipes after 250m.
That, and highway 63 is crowded enough without trying to truck nuclear waste down it.

Or, we could ignore politicians who present bad ideas and use energy sources that have been proven to work.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2006)

Various forms of alternative energy have been proposed before, especially during the first energy shock in 1973 and thereafter. Dr Jerry Pournell put the hard numbers together for the various proposals in a series of articles and columns, eventually published together in a book called "A Step Farther Out", sadly long out of print.

Unfortunately, wind, waves, garbage and so on collectively could produce about 5-10% of the energy required to run the United States in the late 1970's when this was published. Many of the schemes tended to use more energy to prepare the system (for example sorting and drying garbage for energy conversion) than was possible to gain from extraction. The same sort of logic applies to things like ethanol "energy".

While there have been significant advances since then, the growth of energy consumption has probably consumed any net gains from better garbage conversion, wind turbines etc. Unless the laws of physics have changed since the 1970's, Dr Pournell's conclusions are probably valid today. (BTW, Dr Pournell wasn't _against_ doing any of this, in fact he felt this was worthwhile for reasons besides "Energy Independence"). One energy source which could change the balance of power in the 21rst century is called OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion). Google it and see how Hawaii and French Polynesia could be the "OPEC" of the future. 

As for suggesting human agency changes the global climate, there is a view of human power and technology steeped in _Hubris_. A single volcanic eruption can eject as much carbon dioxide, sulphur and particulate matter as the entire global output of human industry in a year. Looking at so called plans like "Kyoto", they are simply means of transferring wealth from rich industrial nations like the United States to collapsed economies like Russia (via "Carbon Credits"), which don't affect emissions, and of course exempt the greatest emitters of all, China and India, who have no incentive to EVER sign up. Give your head a shake and do something useful like turn down the air conditioner and convert to LED and compact fluorescent light bulbs.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2006)

I can't believe anyone is still taking this thread in any way seriously. For crying out loud it has "Al Gore" in the title! It's obviously meant to be a gag thread. And then we get "The Apocalypse is Nigh!".

Sheesh! Would you be debating as hard if it said "Kermit the Frog"? Same relevence! In fact, considering the years of childhood indoctrination, and that ol' Kermie lives in a swamp, I'd probably be far more inclined to listen to the muppet. :


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> You are forgetting Hydro Power. It's huge, getting larger, environmentally friendly, renewable, etc. etc.



James Bay ... Three Gorges ... there is no such thing as environmentally "friendly" sources of energy: it's more about people pretending to themselves that they are saving the world.




			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for suggesting human agency changes the global climate, there is a view of human power and technology steeped in _Hubris_. A single volcanic eruption can eject as much carbon dioxide, sulphur and particulate matter as the entire global output of human industry in a year.



Volcanoes have (and do) cause many multiples of the amount of damage to the ozone layer than humans do ... IIRC Kīlauea is still the largest polluter in the United States ... Laki produced 10 times as much CO2 as Europe does in a year (now) ... not to mention Pinatubo ... climate change models have yet to prove abnormal climate change, let alone causation!


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2006)

Sorry Para, I believe that a good dose of sunshine (in the form of coherent, logically rigorous and factually correct arguments) is the best way of dealing with this sort of thing. Perhaps it doesn't change people's minds, but the screams of "The light! It burns!" is fairly satisfying as well.

More of the same:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html



> *Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth*
> 
> By Robert J. Samuelson
> Wednesday, July 5, 2006; A13
> ...


----------



## exsemjingo (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I can't believe anyone is still taking this thread in any way seriously. For crying out loud it has "Al Gore" in the title! It's obviously meant to be a gag thread. And then we get "The Apocalypse is Nigh!".
> 
> Sheesh! Would you be debating as hard if it said "Kermit the Frog"? Same relevance! In fact, considering the years of childhood indoctrination, and that ol' Kermie lives in a swamp, I'd probably be far more inclined to listen to the muppet. :



Sorry, that's what he actually said.  It would be very funny indeed, if the less-informed among us didn't stand to be swayed by his obviously flawed arguments.
Al Gore's argument sound plausible until one actually thinks about it, and many people will not.
He has become a full time lobbyist, and his arguments are based on half-truths.  If I were an environmentalist, I would not want this kind of nonsense lumped together with my message.  As a Canadian, I find his attack on our industry somewhat asinine.  The Oil Sands are a viable resource, and their utilization helps make both Alberta and Canada wealthy.

Here it is from the Globe and Mail (www.theglobeandmail.com).  I am sure even Paracowboy will like this one:
Canada in Brief
Klein is said to tar Gore over oil sands view
Ottawa -- Ralph Klein has reportedly scorned former U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore over his scathing sketch of Alberta's massive oil sands industry as wasteful and a blight on Canada.
Mr. Gore says in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine that processing Alberta's bitumen into crude oil requires almost as much energy as is produced and causes huge environmental damage.
Mr. Klein, who was in Washington last week to promote the oil sands as a secure and reliable source of energy, rejected the criticisms.
"I don't know what he proposes the world run on, maybe hot air," he is quoted as saying. "The simple fact is America needs oil." AFP

I refuted Gore's reasoning directly.  The Globe and Mail did not even report his reasoning!  They instead took the subtext of what he was trying to get across (which contradicts what Gore actually said), and then buried it in interpretation.  Where are the numbers?  I ran them for all to see, and they did not match.  No bias, no political sympathies, only truth.
My original post put something out there that was missing in the media.


----------



## squealiox (7 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for suggesting human agency changes the global climate, there is a view of human power and technology steeped in _Hubris_. A single volcanic eruption can eject as much carbon dioxide, sulphur and particulate matter as the entire global output of human industry in a year.



since we are on the topic of "math illiteracy", could someone please explain to me how:
22 BILLION tonnes (yearly _average _ manmade co2 emissions)  
is a smaller number than 
200 MILLION tonnes (yearly _average _ co2 emitted by volcanoes)? 
(figures courtesy of the u.s. govt: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html)

i just don't get it. no matter how many times this and _all the other _ specious objections to global warming are duly exposed as a complete crock, some people can just keep on clinging to them as if they're still real arguments. just like paul hellyer and his ufos.

granted there's plenty room to disagree about how to deal with global warming (and the security implications), but the problem itself and its cause are pretty firmly established by now.

or are some of you guys just students at one of those postmodern humanities faculties, where everybody gets to have his own facts if the standard issue ones are too "offensive"?


----------



## Infantry_wannabe (7 Jul 2006)

A lot of you make some excellent points. I no longer worry about global warming. Just think of all the money we can save on airfare, travelling to tropical destinations. Instead, just stay home in Nunavut with the palm trees. I can't wait.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

Another long post well worth reading, since it gives the hard numbers of the problem, plus references and links to Steven Den Beste's site, which has (or had, I understand he no longer posts due to health issues). This information may be troubling for the innumerate and arithmetically challenged, but the *rest of us* can consider this as a sort of planning guide. What works, what doesn't, where to go, what to invest in, what to avoid (and knowing that, which people to listen to and who to ignore).

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008761.php

This thread also has some useful information:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Another long post well worth reading, since it gives the hard numbers of the problem, plus references and links to Steven Den Beste's site, which has (or had, I understand he no longer posts due to health issues). This information may be troubling for the innumerate and arithmetically challenged, but the *rest of us* can consider this as a sort of planning guide. What works, what doesn't, where to go, what to invest in, what to avoid (and knowing that, which people to listen to and who to ignore).
> 
> http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008761.php
> 
> ...



Well, taking a brief look at the link, I see this:



> 2. Why electric cars are not the answer:
> But if the goal is to reduce emission of CO2 overall, they are actually worse than using gasoline. That's because electricity isn't an energy source.
> 
> Electricity is the most versatile form of energy we have, but all the electricity we use is created from other things. The majority of the electricity used in the United States is generated by burning coal. ...
> ...



So ok, it says most electricity is generated by burning coal.  Is there some reason to believe that will always be the case? Is coal not as non-renewable as petroleum? What I mean to say is - eventually, coal and petroleum are both going to be gone. I have no idea when, no one does, but if we are going to run out of it anyway, doesn't it behoove us to think seriously about replacing it sooner rather than later?

Wikipedia says "In the United States, for example, the coal power plants generate 50% of the electricity produced" which is half, not the majority, though 50%+1 would technically be a majority, if wikipedia is to be believed, and hell, they even thought James Doohan was in the RCAF...

Anyway, point being that just because coal is used for 50%, or even the majority of electricity production, what reason is there to believe it has to be that way, and is it not true there is no reason to believe it will always be that way, given that coal resources are finite?

Why all the argument about whether fossil fuels and non-renewable resources are good or bad for the ozone, global temperatures, etc. - basically, who cares? We need to replace them anyway, or restructure our society so we don't need them anymore - that alone should be incentive to scale back their use and find alternatives.  Even if global warming is a "crock" (and it seems to me those of us engaged in the debate here are doing so by selecting one group of sources they've read over other sources) aren't the imperative for reversing it the same imperatives for the simple fact we're using up our other resources?  

Given the reliance of leading economies on oil, I understand the economic imperative not to do anything - which would explain the vigorous attacks on global warming Chicken Littles - seems a lot to me like the cigarette industry and the defence of their own bread and butter for nefarious purposes.


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2006)

The only true renewable electric generating processes are
    hydro electric
    geothermal
    tidal action
    wind power

There is a capital outlay for each of these, but they are all truly renewable, and will outlast any other form. 

  added one...sorry...magnetic forces


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2006)

You will have to follow the links or Google Steven Den Beste, but the point isn't so much that we may eventually extract energy from space/time wormholes; the problem is the sheer magnitude of the installed base and the capital outlay to change it. If every single new vehicle sold starting today was a hybrid, there would still be SUV's and other fuel hogs on the road for more than a decade, just based on the normal life cycle of the rolling stock.

The process of changing from coal fired thermal energy plants will be a vast undertaking, 50% of the US electrical base is measured in Gigawatts (or maybe even a Terrawatt by now), so whatever is being proposed had either be equally big (i.e. Megawatt generating stations), or really cheap and quickly available (Mr Fusion's in aisle 35 of Canadian Tire), and preferably both.

Even counting on improvements in efficiency is really running up against the laws of diminishing returns, there are very few dramatic breakthroughs like LED lights, most process take place at pretty much the maximum practical levels of efficiency possible now. To suggest that somehow we can stop using coal fired thermal energy plants without causing major disruptions in people's lives (hey Dalton, remember that?), or convert from oil to some other non hydrocarbon fuel, or go solar, is arithmetically challenged. Even really practical alternatives like OTEC only help in specific situations, like being anchored off the coast of Hawaii, unless you use the energy from the process to make synthetic oil and ship it to wherever there is a market for energy (and of course you loose a lot of the energy value in each step of the conversion process). Smart people in the right part of the world will eventually build strings of OTEC plants in the ocean and churn out synthetic oil for the rest of us.

My summary: Yes we are living in interesting times (in the Chinese sense), and human ingenuity will pull us through yet again. There will not be "one" solution to the global energy problem, but a large cascade of solutions of various scales. Global warming or cooling will finally be demonstrated to be some sort of natural cycle, and unless Al Gore is capable of changing the energy output of the Sun, we will have to adapt like our ancestors did during the previous warming and cooling cycles.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (8 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> My summary: Yes we are living in interesting times (in the Chinese sense), and human ingenuity will pull us through yet again. There will not be "one" solution to the global energy problem, but a large cascade of solutions of various scales. Global warming or cooling will finally be demonstrated to be some sort of natural cycle, and unless Al Gore is capable of changing the energy output of the Sun, we will have to adapt like our ancestors did during the previous warming and cooling cycles.



In other words, you agree completely with Gore's conclusion (not really his, rather, the only sensible conclusion) that we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels.

I guess I am saying that no matter what the arguments, and who is making them, everyone in the end has no possible alternative to agreeing with the bald fact that we need to "get off of" oil, gas, and coal.

The rest is simply quibbling over how badly it is going to hurt to do it.  Is this not so?  If Gore et al are playing loose with the facts in Chicken Little style, it doesn't invalidate that conclusion that everyone else necessarily has to reach.


----------



## squealiox (8 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> My summary: Yes we are living in interesting times (in the Chinese sense), and human ingenuity will pull us through yet again. There will not be "one" solution to the global energy problem, but a large cascade of solutions of various scales


no argument there. although i think that nuclear power will probably have to play a key role in any sensible approach (to _both _ problems).



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Global warming or cooling will finally be demonstrated to be some sort of natural cycle,


how could you possibly know this? and despite the mountain of evidence and a clear theoretical mechanism already pointing pretty conclusively to manmade global warming.

and before you post yet another objection that you think hadn't occurred to the scientists actually studying the phenomenom, do make sure to check first that it hasn't been utterly debunked already by those working in the field 
(handlily categorised at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/ or http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html. and if you think these guys may be "ideologically suspect", then you can just follow their links for yourself.)


----------



## HDE (8 Jul 2006)

a_majoor

    Well said!  I'm really not clear what Gore is actually contributing to finding a workable solution to what he's claiming as a crisis.  Global warming is widely recognized as an issue in need of being dealt with; the problem is that there's no "magic bullet" to  resolve the issue of a massive dependence on current sources of energy.  I'd be far more impressed if Al Gore had been sounding the call a couple of decades ago, like some people were.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2006)

squeeliox said:
			
		

> how could you possibly know this? and despite the mountain of evidence and a clear theoretical mechanism already pointing pretty conclusively to manmade global warming.



A bit of research on my own (did you know that according to the London weather office and cross checked against Erie Penn, the average temperature in this region of the world seems to have decreased by 10 since the 1950's?), and cross checking various global warming "assertions" against other data sets, like historical records and archeology.



> and before you post yet another objection that you think hadn't occurred to the scientists actually studying the phenomenom, do make sure to check first that it hasn't been utterly debunked already by those working in the field
> (handlily categorised at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/climate-science/ or http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html. and if you think these guys may be "ideologically suspect", then you can just follow their links for yourself.)



Or you can follow this one link, which pretty handily summarizes the flaws in the Mann "Hockey Stick" graph (the gold standard for Global Warming alarmism): http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm (beware, it has numbers 'n stuff), or perhaps this one, which demolishes the methodology as mathematically flawed: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech, or this one, which demonstrates the "Hockey Stick" shape can be generated from random numbers: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/. If this is the sort of stuff "scientists studying the field" are using to demonstrate man made global warming, then they are trying to defraud the taxpayers who fund the research, and should be stripped of their tenure and jailed.

And how about a link that shows Global Warming is happening in other parts of the Solar System (that Karl Rove gets around, doesn't he?): http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

The only debunking that needs to be done is the idea that changes in the Earth's climate are caused by human activity.


----------



## squealiox (9 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A bit of research on my own (did you know that according to the London weather office and cross checked against Erie Penn, the average temperature in this region of the world seems to have decreased by 10 since the 1950's?), and cross checking various global warming "assertions" against other data sets, like historical records and archeology.
> 
> Or you can follow this one link, which pretty handily summarizes the flaws in the Mann "Hockey Stick" graph (the gold standard for Global Warming alarmism): http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm (beware, it has numbers 'n stuff), or perhaps this one, which demolishes the methodology as mathematically flawed: http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech,


like i said already, every single point made on those (rather old) links you provide has been demolished long ago. the "hockey stick" graph has long since been superseded by numerous other (and far more important) models, studies and datasets that show the same results anyway. solar radiation has NOT been increasing, regional temperature trends are NOT global temperature trends (what percentage of the earth's surface does lake erie cover, anyway?), etc etc etc... 
i could play whackamole with the whole litany of discredited objections till the cows come home, but i know that each one quietly discarded along the way would magically keep reappearing anyway. but why take my word for it? you can examine the links i've provided. they don't bite.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> or this one, which demonstrates the "Hockey Stick" shape can be generated from random numbers: http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/.


incidentally, if this guy, tim lambert, was sceptical about global warming, rather than just the hockey stick, he has since changed his mind: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/. there seems to have been quite a bit of that in the last couple of years, btw.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> If this is the sort of stuff "scientists studying the field" are using to demonstrate man made global warming, then they are trying to defraud the taxpayers who fund the research, and should be stripped of their tenure and jailed.


if all those scientists are conspiring to "defraud the taxpayers", they sure aren't going about it very smart, are they? otherwise, they would be saying they still have no conclusive data either way and that the question "needs more study", just to string us along for more funding. but hey, a good old-fashioned purge and show trial of the intellegentsia would teach them to think correctly now, wouldn't it?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2006)

GAP - perhaps there is one more 

It's based on something called the Carbon cycle - Sunlight + CO2 creates plants via something called photosynthesis  - it works well in forests, fields, oceans and greenhouses (some greenhouses have even been known to create/buy CO2 in order to improve their crop yields)  At night plants excrete a deadly toxin - a metabolic by-product of building all that green carbon based material - the toxin is oxygen.  Animals breathe the oxygen which along with the carbon they ingest from the plants allows them to extract energy and release CO2 back into the atmosphere feeding more plants which feed more animals.  The solution to excess quantities of CO2 is excess quantities of plants.  Building green houses in association with power plants is already a strategy being employed on small scales.

Another option is to bubble CO2 into a tank full of algae and watch it grow - more food, more fuel, no free CO2.  

If you don't want to go to the capital expense just wait a bit - warmer temperatures and more CO2 will result in algal blooms at sea volunteering to absorb all that spare CO2.  In fact there is a colony off the West Coast of BC as we speak.  And more have been sighted elsewhere.  

Algae to or plankton, plankton to krill, krill to salmon, salmon to my table - pass me another Chinook and I will do my bit to decrease CO2.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill, Nooooo! You will ruin my banana plantations and ability to corner the global banana market!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jul 2006)

Most unfortunate Artorius - line forms to the right.  

PS don't tell anyone but I am working on moving "London Bridge" from Arizona to Great Slave Lake - I reckon there should be water up there long enough for me to make a killing on waterfront and hotels - I just need a feature and what good is a bridge without water?  Arizona want be needing it much longer.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2006)

Looking how far back this goes, I can conclude that the problem is people are Historically challenged.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WilliamRusher/2006/07/20/fire,_or_ice



> *Fire, or ice?*
> By William Rusher
> Thursday, July 20, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Jul 2006)

Bring on global warming.  I have a cunning plan to develop an alternate fuel source from coconut milk, and 1/4 section of Alberta to plant em on....


----------



## couchcommander (20 Jul 2006)

Am I reading this? A global warming debate thread, I really don't know what to say.

Listen, this has been done ad nauseum before.

The earth has natural warming and cooling cycles, yes. Thus the last ice age.

During a period of warming there may be even decades long period of relative cooling (ie the 1970's) - the key is in the long term. As well, during periods of global warming some regions actually decrease in temperature or will see more rain, etc. It's not called "regional warming" for a reason. 

Yes, the sun, and volcano's, etc. etc. all do have an effect on global warming and cooling.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of respected climatologists will agree that none of these factors can adequately account for the startling, neverbefore seen rise over the last 150 years which so happens to coincide with the explosion in CO2 production by human factors. 

This trends IS PRESENTLY being confirmed, and is actually accelerating faster than previously thought. 

As Time put it (a not entirely correct article, but the cover is nice):








Next are we going to debate whether CFC's really deplete the ozone layer?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2006)

couchcommander, lets assume that you are correct in your belief that man-made interventions have increased the rate of climate change beyond the natural -always assuming that man is not natural, a separate debate.

The same climatologists argue that the damage has been done, that no amount of most kyoto-esque tinkering is going to materially change the outcome, and as you yourself acknowledge, sooner or later mankind would face the impact of climate change regardless of origin.

Assuming that we are going to face a flood, whether the cause of the flood is the result of the tide coming in, a natural "Lake Agassiz ice-dam" event or a poorly maintained man-made dam breaking the fact remains that if and when the water rises  the appropriate response at the time is to:

a, move to higher ground
b, build a dyke
c, build a boat
or d, park your chair at the water's edge and wave like King Canute while everyone prays for a miracle.

Option e, looking for witches and sacrificing virgins has been proven to be an unsuccesful strategy in the past.

By all means clean up the environment, do as little harm as possible (you can't "do no harm" any more than you can have a "zero-discharge facility").  I like my skies and my lakes clear as much as the next person.

By all means look for mechanisms by which the environment is changed - then we can stop doing things to the environment that harm us and also stop the environment doing things to us to harm us.

I assume you don't have a problem with us adjusting our environment to suit our needs or would you rather move out of your home now and ditch those clothes?

Lets not kid ourselves that we are going to stop change.  Change happens. It has happened.  It will happen.  The only successful survival strategy has been to adapt to the reality and not what might have been or what could have was.

Cheers,


----------



## couchcommander (20 Jul 2006)

I couldn't agree more Kirkhill. The earth does have it's cycles whether we like it or not, and all we can do is adapt to it. At the same time, i don't think we need to be poking it with a stick...

I am not a believer that we should all go live in the forest and eat only fruit that has fallen, etc. etc. however. 

I, personally, would like "sustainability" to be the key environmental concern. It's pretty simple. If you take something like air, or water, put it back the way you found it. If you use a renewable resource like trees, or take arable land for agriculture - do it in such a way as to ensure that these resources, as far as you can control, will in fact be there 200-300 years from now pretty much how they are now. If you take non-renewable resources - limit your supply so that you will be able to use this resource in the future. 

Oil is a big thing for me. What are the current projections, 50 years left of Alberta tar sands? Even less for more conventional sources? To me, that seems just plain dumb. 


We should limit the supply so that this resource will be around for a few more centuries at the least - then, based off of that, let the market decide whether oil is still such a good fuel. Unfortunately we need oil for more than just cars - pharmaceuticals, plastics, etc. etc. all use this resource as well. If we run out anytime soon, we'll have more to think about than how are we going to fill up our SUV.

IMO, we can accomplish all of this and maintain our current standard of living.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2006)

> It's pretty simple. If you take something like air, or water, put it back the way you found it.



It's not that simple.  Taking something is an action.  Action requires energy.  To undo an action requires more energy.  You can't do anything without having a further impact. 

I'll take the personal out of this and use standard journalistic conventions for the discussion.  There are those who would argue (I'm sure I can find him'her if I look long enough) that mother nature is so intricate that man (seldom woman it seems) just can't begin to fathom how all the bits and pieces fit.  As a result of this lack of understanding we are recommended to adopt the precautionary principle and do nothing.

The corollary seems to be that when we do something, whose effects we don't understand, we are supposed to reverse those self-same effects not knowing what they were in the first place.

Alright, I'm being obnoxious again.  

I accept the general principles that we should clean up after ourselves, do as little harm as possible and correct those things we can regardless of who caused them: man, woman, mother nature, God or random chance.

Along the lines of angels on a pin - let's assume that we have all been good little boys and girls.  We have done nothing.  We have had zero impact on the environment.  Lets say it is a time akin to the period before the last ice-age but this time we have capabilities to impact the environment.

When the water starts receding, the deserts start expanding and the ice starts coming south is the environmentally correct thing to act to mitigate those changes, acting in opposition to the environment, or should we just succumb?


----------



## couchcommander (20 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It's not that simple.  Taking something is an action.  Action requires energy.  To undo an action requires more energy.  You can't do anything without having a further impact.



Yes of course, but I think you get my point. If you use water, remove the pollutants before you put it back in the river. 



> When the water starts receding, the deserts start expanding and the ice starts coming south is the environmentally correct thing to act to mitigate those changes, acting in opposition to the environment, or should we just succumb?



Good question. I don't know at this point.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2006)

There are lots of good reasons to live lightly off the land, and as Kirkhill says, we have choices to make when the situation changes. By training and inclination, I (and I suspect many people on this board) will be out there taking action when the situation changes; it's the human thing to do.

As for the constant assertion that this is somehow unique or caused by human agency (despite even greater temperature swings in historical periods like the Little Ice Age or the European Warm Period, long before there were great numbers of humans in the world), well all I can say is this seems driven more by an agenda than science in the way it is commonly understood (examine the evidence, propose a hypothesis, test it against the evidence. Can you make predictions based on your hypothesis? Are your results reproducible?)

As for the "consensus" mantra, there was a "consensus" many years ago about the existence of "luminiferous either", which also *seemed* to explain a great many things about the way the universe worked, but once some careful experiments and observations were made, the "consensus"  disappeared.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Jul 2006)

Re: the scientific method, not true. There is a vast, vast, vast amount of "traditional" science that has been done. If you want, PM me, and I will give you access to the university ejournal archive and you can go looking through it all you want (it's over my head). The climatologists do "test" their hypothesis. They will create a model, input historical factors, see if they can predict what has already happened. If that works, then they throw in what is happening now and try and "predict the future"  (crudely put, it's so much more complex than that I really have no idea). This is being refined all the time. No, not perfect. Unfortunately for us, the better the models are getting though, the worse it's looking.

Re: we've been wrong before, who's saying we are right now? 

Nothing. We have been wrong before, we could be wrong now. This, however, is the best we've got. You could also be sitting in a vat hooked up to an evil genius' machine. You really know nothing - all just a bunch of best guesses. 

Despite that, I am sure you still trust what you see and hear fairly regularily. 

In the end though I, personally, am not smart enough to understand things like:



> The general circulation model (GCM) that we used is based on the third Hadley Centre coupled ocean–atmosphere model, HadCM37, which we have coupled to an ocean carbon-cycle model (HadOCC) and a dynamic global vegetation model (TRIFFID). The atmospheric physics and dynamics of our GCM are identical to those used in HadCM3, but the additional computational expense of including an interactive carbon cycle made it necessary to reduce the ocean resolution to 2.5° times 3.75°, necessitating the use of flux adjustments in the ocean component to counteract climate drift. HadOCC accounts for the atmosphere–ocean exchange of CO2, and the transfer of CO2 to depth through both the solubility pump and the biological pump8. TRIFFID models the state of the biosphere in terms of the soil carbon, and the structure and coverage of five functional types of plant within each model gridbox (broadleaf tree, needleleaf tree, C3 grass, C4 grass and shrub). Further details on HadOCC and TRIFFID are given in Methods.



(too lazy to do proper reference, so Nature, Volume 408, Nov 9 "Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model")

However, I do understand a statement like:



> The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate. About half of the current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems, but this absorption is sensitive to climate as well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle models that do not include climate change. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon-climate model, indicating that carbon-cycle feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first century



This makes me go- oh no! So I look at the source, _Nature_, a well respected, peer reviewed scientific journal (hard to find a better type of source). However, knowing that even articles in peer reviewed scientific journals get things wrong, I run an EBSCO search for the title of the article, and then the authour (to see if anyone else has published a rebuttal in another peer reviewed scientific journal). Nope. However, I did find this little tid bit by the same author 5 years later:



> Atmospheric aerosols counteract the warming effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases by an uncertain, but potentially large, amount. This in turn leads to large uncertainties in the sensitivity of climate to human perturbations, and therefore also in carbon cycle feedbacks and projections of climate change...
> Strong aerosol cooling in the past and present would then imply that future global warming may proceed at or even above the upper extreme of the range projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



(once again too lazy: Nature, Volume 435, June 30, "Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future")

UH OH! 

My point being I am really not smart enough to understand the science behind all of this. I am however smart enough to understand abstracts and search engines. Thus, when presented with a scientific question such as this, I will find articles in peer reviewed scientific journals, read them for what I can, and then look for rebuttals from people who are way smarter than I am in other peer reviewed scientific journals. When held up to these, editorials or op-ed pieces really don't compare unfortunately. 

With global warming, you'll find that in the vast vast vast majority of cases, the "consensus" as it is, is for global warming; and now recently, global warming even worse than we thought. Once again Mr. Majoor - don't trust me in this regard - I will give you access to these journals to make up your own mind and confirm that there really is "science" behind it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2006)

>There is a vast, vast, vast amount of "traditional" science that has been done.

In terms of the complexity of the subject, we still have very little knowledge.  Don't be intimidated by what appears to be a large volume of work.  If the sum of human knowledge of a complex subject (eg. climate, the brain, gravity) is sparse, being an "expert" isn't particularly meaningful.  The difference between what we know and what we need to know is what matters.

>The climatologists do "test" their hypothesis. They will create a model, input historical factors, see if they can predict what has already happened.

If a model accurately reproduces results for only a narrow set of initial conditions then it has probably been tuned to produce that result, which makes it nearly worthless as a basis for general speculations.  What we need are models into which we can plug any known initial conditions and reproduce, over the long term, the general known climate.

The real sniff test for this is on your TV every night.  How far in advance can weather be accurately predicted?  If it's not very far, then it means the experts don't really understand climate and weather very well.


----------



## couchcommander (21 Jul 2006)

There is a difference between a global climactic model over a century and trying to figure out if it is going to rain or just be cloudy for edmonton on x night. The systems and models used are vasty different. 

re: What we need are models into which we can plug any known initial conditions and reproduce, over the long term, the general known climate.

For this model I believe they were using 1860 information and testing it against current or near current conditions. My offer to you is the same, if you want, PM me and I can give you access.


----------



## acclenticularis (21 Jul 2006)

There is a difference between a global climactic model over a century and trying to figure out if it is going to rain or just be cloudy for edmonton on x night. The systems and models used are vasty different. 
+1 

We are definitely talking two completely different animals there.  Even so, the vast majority of the populace does not know that short term forecasts are more accurate than they think.  Forecasts are for a geographic area that usually makes up a considerable amount of real estate.  If the forecast calls for precipitation in a forecast area and it precipitates anywhwere for any duration in that area, then the forecast is correct.  If the forecast adds an accumulation component, then it becomes harder to stay accurate.  So, if it rains somewhere in the geographic area encompassing Edmonton, the foreceast is correct, even if it did not rain directly over your house.  In terms of comparing the global climate model long or short term to small area short term forecasts, they just are not comparable.  Some introductory climatology or meteorology reading would dispel that notion fairly quickly.

In terms of scientific agreement on global warming (the term 'climate change' seems politically motivated), I am sure that you can find articles that point to the rarity of agreement on findings that we are experiencing today.  I too do not understand the nitty gritty science behind the models and findings, but, can also understand coles notes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2006)

You sort of missed the point.  Predicting local weather patterns is a much less complex problem than predicting global climate.


----------



## acclenticularis (22 Jul 2006)

I did get the point.  It was quite clear.  I just don't believe that the two are comparable.  Since I am not a climatologist nor a meteorologist, I cannot go on ad nauseum about the science behind the differences, other than offer gross generalizations that are bound to fail to convince.  However, the scientific community that deals with climate could do.  Maybe you should contact someone in the know to get an educated explanation as to why they are not comparable and further, maybe some information on what the scientific community agrees on with respect to global warming.  Unless, of course, it is as it appears, and you think it is a pile of rubbish and the scientists involved have no business conspiring to offer such predictions.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jul 2006)

Brad, he is relying on the power of statistics.  You remember.  The science of averaging that proves that one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in boiling water results in you feeling comfortable with an average temperature of 50C or warm bath water.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2006)

Although it is accepted that the Global temperature has risen 1.80 over the last century, there is no mechanism to account for this (despite reams of papers). The 1.80 figure is so small that I wonder how it was teased out of the data (the temperature in my office fluctuates more during the day), but I will let the scientists fight over that one.

The reason I am so adamant in saying this is agenda vs science driven is you have to account for ALL the data. The European Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well documented through historical records, as well as physical data such as ice cores and pollen counts, they show far wider swings than are happening now at a time when human agency was very limited. 

Going farther back, historical records and climactic data suggest (although do not prove) that similar warming and cooling periods were responsible for the rise and fall of various civilizations, such as a global cooling is thought to have resulted in widespread famine and the end of the Bronze Age civilizations in the Mediterranean and Middle East.

Since human agency is the only mechanism suggested for Global Warming (only approved method anyway), but it is historically demonstrated human agency was not possible for past occurances of Global warming, then the hypothisis is not proven (at the very best). Alternative models such as variations in solar output have a lot more in their favor; for example the Sun underwent the "Maunder minimum " which rougly coincides with the Little Ice Age, nuclear physics predicts the Sun's luminosity increases over time and current Global warming is mirrored on the planet Mars, which suggests an external factor is at work. If this is indeed the cause of Global Warming, then we can spend the trillions of dollars needed for the Kyoto Accords to build an occultation disc in the Earth/Sun L-1 point instead.


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jul 2006)

Mr. Majoor, this current period of warming is unique in how pronounced it is. Though, as you are right, there have been many, drastic swings before, none have happened *so quickly over so short a time*, in fact this is something along the lines of *10 times faster than ever previously recorded.* 

Re: the sun - solar influences would fail to produce the rise we have experienced - though it may very well be a contributing factor, it cannot account for it. 

In fact, and very importanty, there *does not exist * a climate model, only using natural factors, that can account for the rise we are experiencing. 

This all brings up a big question for me to you.... please explain how a 30% rise in the second most important greenhouse gas (behind water) would NOT lead to increasing global temperatures?

I should add that references can be found, if you want them, for the above statements.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Mr. Majoor, this current period of warming is unique in how pronounced it is. Though, as you are right, there have been many, drastic swings before, none have happened *so quickly over so short a time*, in fact this is something along the lines of *10 times faster than ever previously recorded.*



The ten times faster figure is very suspicious, since the Mycenaeans and the Vikings did not practice the science of climatology. Even given that, the abrupt collapse of Bronze age civilizations across the Middle east and Mediterranean and the sudden end of the Viking settlements in Greenland and Labrador suggest whatever happened, happened quickly. The onset of the European Warm Period roughly coincides with the rapid re establishment of trade and the growth of human population, agriculture and industry in the norther part of Europe, very suggestive that this happened quickly as well. Actual accurate records only go back about a century, a very short baseline to be working from. Historical data is usually from inference, the archeological data suggests the collapse of Bronze age civilization happened within a human lifetime, but cannot say it happened September 10, 1400 BC.

Even the Ice ages began and ended in relatively short time periods, and of the four most recent ice ages, Homo Sapiens missed the last three. Once again, the hypothesis that human agency is responsible for climate change is unable to account for historical and geological evidence, so armies of learned scribes who either don't know or ignore these facts are not doing the "human agency" model any good.


----------



## couchcommander (23 Jul 2006)

Mr. Majoor, climactic models can simulate past changes all the way back to the last glacial maximum. "Natural", as opposed to human interference, *DOES* adequately explain the previous warming and cooling trends.



> A coupled atmosphere-ocean-sea ice-land surface climate system model developed at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) is used to investigate the response to glacial ice-sheet topography and decreased CO2 representative of the last glacial maximum (LGM, roughly 21,000 years before present).



_Climate Dynamics, "A coupled climate model simulation of the Last Glacial Maximum, Part 1: transient multi-decadal response", August 2002, Volume 19, numbers 5-6_

The current trend *cannot be explained without taking into consideration human activities, even in models which have been validated by correctly simulating previous climactic trends as well as taking into account all the factors you have listed and more*



> Simulation results using an atmosphere-ocean general circulation model that includes estimates of the radiative effects of observed temporal variations in greenhouse gases, sulfate aerosols, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols over the past century agree with our observation-based estimate of the increase in ocean heat content. The results we present suggest that the observed increase in ocean heat content may largely be due to the increase of anthropogenic gases in Earth's atmosphere.



_Science, "Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System", April 2001, Volume 292, number 5515. _ 

People are putting numbers out there way higher than 10 times faster as well.



> But Tim Flannery, a respected Australian paleontologist and author of previous books on science for the public, argues persuasively in "The Weather Makers" that the time for "controversy" is past. And, he laments, "one of the biggest obstacles to making a start on climate change is that it has become a cliche before it has even been understood." ....
> ....*He further notes this is a rate of change 30 times faster than ever recorded, including during previous ice ages.*



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/02/RVGHAHTD511.DTL&type=books

And there are MANY MANY ways that we can determine what the temperature was long before written records.

Here is a paper on it, including methodology for more recent determinations as well. 

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/mann_etal_1998.pdf


----------



## acclenticularis (23 Jul 2006)

Just for information as to what the scientific community is up against.  And a bit of why there is so much opposition to believing in man-effected global warming and consequences:

http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam

This is by a well respected and influential spin doctor in Canada.  A BS artist who finds the anti-global warming BS spinners too much to bear.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2006)

acclenticularis said:
			
		

> Just for information as to what the scientific community is up against.  And a bit of why there is so much opposition to believing in man-effected global warming and consequences:
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
> 
> This is by a well respected and influential spin doctor in Canada.  A BS artist who finds the anti-global warming BS spinners too much to bear.


  

From Jim Hoggan's website: http://www.desmogblog.com/about



> Jim Hoggan, founder of James Hoggan & Associates, one of Canada's leading public relations firms





> His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions.





> He is a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2006)

acclenticularis said:
			
		

> Just for information as to what the scientific community is up against.  And a bit of why there is so much opposition to believing in man-effected global warming and consequences:
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/slamming-the-climate-skeptic-scam
> 
> This is by a well respected and influential spin doctor in Canada.  A BS artist who finds the anti-global warming BS spinners too much to bear.





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From Jim Hoggan's website: http://www.desmogblog.com/about





> He is a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.



Priceless!

Over at Chaos Manor, some more discussion about the research:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view423.html



> I was referred recently to the real climate web site as authoritative. http://www.realclimate.org/
> 
> When there I saw first thing:
> 
> ...



and:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail423.html



> Subject: Further on the Wegman Report /buffy willow
> 
> Dear Jerry,
> 
> ...



I doubt this will change your minds, but at least know there is no monolithic consensus about the state of the Earth's climate, and when scientists use scientific methods to analize the data sets, they are not coming up with the results so eagerly reported in the popular press (point g above).


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

Hey Mr.Majoor - thanks, I wasn't aware of the particular problems with that study. Surely, however, you do not believe that an entire field of science is limited to one flawed paper?

Anyway, that fails to address the substance of the last few of my posts. 

Please post a scientific paper, several to be convincing, from a peer reviewed scientific journal in good standing that clearly says that natural factors can account soley for the current warming. 

Unfortunately a comment to a blog regarding hersay about an ad hoc committee doesn't really hold much weight with me. 

I have shown that climate models exist which account for the previous warming and cooling trends. 

I have shown that the current warming cannot be accounted for without considering human actions.

I have shown that the current warming trend is unique as far as we can tell.

Is there anything about the above you'd like to dispute?

*edit* In the end, I am confused as I am not sure where your absolute insistence upon this not being true despite vast vast amounts of evidence to the contrary comes from. Yes, Mr. Majoor, you will find loads and loads of various persons on the internet posting about irregularities or "it doesn't account for this!"....  allow me to say though that would be like me going across the internet finding all of the posts about how the American's did not land on the moon. If you're going to dispute the contents of these reports, don't just say they don't do this or this, or they're bunk science, etc. please provide a credible informed reference for it - as really, if they are out there, I would like to hear about them. Barring that, I urge you to take my offer of access to the journals. I think just seeing the vast vast vast amount of research that has been done will change a lot of your thinking. It's not a bunch of NDPers sitting around a table with a calculator making up theories, this is science done by tens of thousands of people who've spent their entire life doing this using amazingly advanced technologies and methodologies. 

Yes, you are right that this is not 100%. This is a scientific topic, and like anything, we are not 100% sure. It's not the "Law of Global Warming". 

There will always be discourse, and there will always be dissent or debate. Theories will change; right now they are saying that things will get even worse than we thought. In a few years they could say that things will be not as bad as we think. 

However, right now there is a widely held scientific view which is supported, as far as the best and brightest of our time can tell, by the evidence (please don't reference the 1970's "They thought we were cooling down"... that has little to do with this). 

Do you choose to "not accept" relativity as well?

I don't really know why this was turned into such a politicized topic - though I suspect it's because it threatened the livelihood of a lot of rich people with connections, thus it was turned into something for "the right" to "attack" or "not believe".

In the end, I just ask that you please look at the research itself, examine it, and see it with your own eyes. Don't go into it thinking "oh this global warming is a thing for lefties". 

Please though, if you do choose to address this post, make sure to address the substantive part of it that I began with.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Here's the report referred to in the obscure blogreport.   

US Congress, Committee on Energy and Commerce.  Sub-Committee on Oversight and Investigations.

Short form:  Mann didn't know enough stats to be able to prepare a case.  The available evidence doesn't support conclusions.

Please send resume, list of financial contributors and explain why supporting findings have come from 43 co-authors and you apparently have not released the algorithm employed for analysis.

Yours truly etc.  14 July 2006.

Now, about your models again.   Please prove there is a problem.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2006)

Thanks Kirkhill.


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

Nevermind, there is no problem.

One report from 1998 has methodological issues identified by a US political subcommittee. Thus decades of research by thousands of individuals DO NOT, in fact, provide any meaningful evidence - no we don't need to actually publish anything to prove that either. The entire thing was invented to deprive people of their cars, and force them to ride bicylces wearing birkenstocks like good boys and girls. 



> *Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants*
> 
> ...Indeed, more than 80% of the species that show changes are shifting in the direction expected on the basis of known physiological constraints of species. Consequently, the balance of evidence from these studies strongly suggests that a significant impact of global warming is already discernible in animal and plant populations.



_http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12511952&dopt=Abstract_



> *Relative contributions of greenhouse gas emissions to global warming*
> 
> ....On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html



> *Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already apparent?*
> 
> ....Evidence from long-term monitoring studies is now accumulating and suggests that the climate of the past few decades is anomalous compared with past climate variation, and that recent climatic and atmospheric trends are already affecting species physiology, distribution and phenology.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10652556&dopt=Abstract



> *Further evidence of the effects of global warming on lichens, particularly those with Trentepohlia phycobionts.*
> 
> Increasing evidence suggests that lichens are responding to climate change in Western Europe. More epiphytic species appear to be increasing, rather than declining, as a result of global warming



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16697507&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum



> *Weakening of tropical Pacific atmospheric circulation due to anthropogenic forcing*
> 
> Since the mid-nineteenth century the Earth's surface has warmed, and models indicate that human activities have caused part of the warming by altering the radiative balance of the atmosphere...Observed Indo-Pacific sea level pressure reveals a weakening of the Walker circulation. The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16672967&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum



> *Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations.*
> 
> Anthropogenic changes in tropical rainfall are evaluated in a multimodel ensemble of global warming simulations....we find a number of measures, both global and local, on which reasonable agreement is obtained, notably for the regions of drying trend (negative precipitation anomalies



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16606851&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_DocSum



> *The relative roles of sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gases in climate forcing*
> 
> Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols contribute a globally averaged annual forcing of -0.3 watt per square meter as compared with +2.1 watts per square meter for greenhouse gases



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993Sci...260..311K



> *The ice record of greenhouse gases*
> 
> Changes in the levels of greenhouse gases during the glacial-interglacial cycle overall paralleled, at least at high southern latitudes, changes in temperature; this relation suggests that greenhouse gases play an important role as an amplifier of the initial orbital forcing of Earth`s climated and also helps to assess the feedbacks on the biogeochemical cycles in a climate system in which the components are changing at different rates.



http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6884382



> *Sun and dust versus greenhouse gases: an assessment of their relative roles in global climate change*
> 
> Many mechanisms, including variations in solar radiation and atmospheric aerosol concentrations, compete with anthropogenic greenhouse gases as causes of global climate change. Comparisons of available data show that solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming...



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v346/n6286/abs/346713a0.html



> *Simulation of recent northern winter climate trends by greenhouse-gas forcing*
> 
> Here we use several different climate-model versions to demonstrate that the observed sea-level-pressure trends, including their magnitude, can be simulated by realistic increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations.



http://atm.ucdavis.edu/~grotjahn/Arctic/Papers/shindell_etal_99.pdf



> *External Control of 20th Century Temperature by Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings*
> 
> More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings. Anthropogenic global warming under a standard emissions scenario is predicted to continue at a rate similar to that observed in recent decades.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;290/5499/2133



> *Modern Global Climate Change*
> 
> Modern climate change is dominated by human influences, which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability. The main source of global climate change is human-induced changes in atmospheric composition. These perturbations primarily result from emissions associated with energy use, but on local and regional scales, urbanization and land use changes are also important



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/302/5651/1719

Now, this is important:



> *CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES*
> 
> Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present
> in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The
> ...



http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL66903.pdf

(I was hoping you'd spend the 45 minutes and come across this yourselves).

But yea, don't worry about it, it doesn't exist, it isn't really happening, there is no greenhouse effect we need to worry about, it's all bunk, a straw man, no real science behind any of it. 

(if you somehow feel that the above isn't enough to convince you, once again, feel free to PM me and I will give you access to the journals).


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2006)

>some information on what the scientific community agrees on with respect to global warming.  Unless, of course, it is as it appears, and you think it is a pile of rubbish and the scientists involved have no business conspiring to offer such predictions.

The scientific community "agrees" that we are currently in a warming phase (at any point in time, we are always in either a warming phase or a cooling phase) and "agrees" that what people do makes a contribution (that should be self-evident; everything we do has an impact on something).  Whether or not a majority continues on to "agree" they know exactly what the problem is and what should be done about it is meaningless right now; what is important is that they prove the hypothesis.  What currently passes for a debate has been reduced to a bunch of bar bouncers standing around puffing up their chests and tensing their biceps - "we have more publications than you".

>I have shown that climate models exist which account for the previous warming and cooling trends.

Your claim is overly broad.  I doubt very much that there exists a model which can take any set of initial conditions and produce the conditions at a later point in time (see the last sentence of this paragraph).  If you are prepared to accept that what amount to kludges are sufficiently representative of the actual climate, you have my sympathy.  If you ever have to review a model, I suggest you head straight for the assumptions, the simplifications, the missing data, and the fudge factors.  (From experience, I assure you there will be fudge factors.)  Those will give you guidance as to how reliable the model may be expected to be.  How the general public has been conned into accepting the phrase "computer model" as an approximation of "infallible" I can't imagine.  Find the paper that lays out all the coupled equations that explain climate and a model which solves those equations - that is the model that is needed.  If we knew the equations and had the model, we'd also have near-perfect weather prediction, because the weather solutions would just be a subset of the climate solutions.

>I have shown that the current warming cannot be accounted for without considering human actions.

No one has accounted completely for the current warming.   That should be a clue that there is more work to be done.  Energetically researching only part of a question isn't a very sound methodology.  From a policy formulation perspective, it isn't sufficient to come to the table with only decision factor.

>I have shown that the current warming trend is unique as far as we can tell.

"As far as we can tell."  That spells it all out right there, doesn't it?  "We assume."  The mother of all unpleasantness.

>Do you choose to "not accept" relativity as well?

Bad example.  Special relativity is derived from two simple, if insightful, assumptions and a simple process of deductive reasoning.  The math isn't even particularly complex; you can work out most of the important results with algebra (ie. without resorting to calculus).

>One report from 1998 has methodological issues identified by a US political subcommittee.

The advocates who share your views staked a lot on the "hockey stick".  I expect there are many who would like to forget it ever happened.  What I found interesting in the recent Wegman report was not so much the confirmation of the statistical errors and sloppy methodology, but the examination of the tendency of some climate scientists to behave like an echo chamber.  A positive feedback loop of research bias doesn't necessarily give correct answers, but it does yield a lot of papers which say the same thing and sound like "concensus".


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

Brad, 

If you want, please look at some of the other 20 papers I've posted. They are by no means exhaustive. You will find, just by looking at the excerpts, they do in fact use a wide array of methodologies, and approach the subject of climate change from different angles (I specifically looked for that). They use different models, look at different aspects, even examining climate change in terms of things like it's effect on plants or animals. 

Yes, you are right to question it. Yes, you are right that there are fudge factors, simplifications, etc. etc. The term "account" was used in this sense to mean that theories, backed up by research, have been able to reasonably approximate the events. No, they cannot tell you if it is going to rain on that particular Tuesday. However, the models used are getting more and more complex, and more and more accurate as time goes on. Unfortunately, they are continuing to support the previous conclusions.

Special relativity is actually a great example. Greenhouse effect IS that easy. We learned it grade 10 chemistry. Certain gases have an insulating effect and absorb and re-emit IR radiation. I hope you do not question this simple process. 

The human influence is equally easy. CO2 in the environment before has been shown to coincide with warmer periods. C02 has increased 30% in the last few decades. The mean surface temperature is increasing WAY faster than it should..... connection? 

Again, please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas, or that it's influence is marginal. If you accept those two points, then the rest should follow.  

In the end, I have posted some 20 papers backing up my opinion with research and evidence from everything from ice core samples, to analysis on how plants, and animals are reacting, to yes, computer models, all from respected journals. If you choose to ignore them, then that is your choice. 

However, at this point I am done arguing "opinion". Please provide evidence to support your "side" - no that doesn't mean pointing out "flaws" in a few more articles, no that doesn't mean editorials, that means finding research that actually backs up "the projected rise in C02 would not in fact have a statistically significant impact on the temperature of the earth."


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

couchcommander:

Please prove that you have stopped beating your wife.

I accept that plants and ice-bergs, lakes and deserts respond to warm temperatures.  I accept that plants react well to increased levels of CO2 and that animals react poorly.  I accept that temperatures, CO2 and 02 levels, not to mention H20 levels vary considerably over time and location and with human activity.  Cities reduce CO2 uptake and generate more heat locally.  All accepted.

I don't accept that there is a demonstrated problem.  No control system, no matter how well regulated, achieves stasis.  The term is dynamic balance.  You are always working to achieve stasis and never quite get there.  The point is that things always change.  In process control systems in factories and vehicles temperatures oscillate around a set point.  Devices add energy or remove energy to keep them there.  Without that active effort the balance is upset.  Sometimes the set point changes and efforts have to be taken to move system back to the desired set point (ie a comfortable living temperature).  Sometimes the set point stays the same but the oscillation becomes extreme.  One second it is very hot.  The next it is very cold.  Efforts have to be taken to try and restore the equilibrium. 

Demonstrably in the past great changes have occurred and life has continued.  Life ultimately has had to adapt to the changes.  In the process it created an impact on the environment.  Plants producing all that noxious oxygen killed off all those poor sulfur loving bacteria that created the conditions that allowed the plants to grow in the first place.

If we don't act, we die.  If we do act we may not die.  To survive we have to change our environment.  That is how we got this far.

If you choose to believe there is a problem, then that is your choice.

By the way - have you decided what you are going to do once the glaciers advance again?


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

I don't have a "wife" ;D, want me to post the first page of my taxes?  (....I do have a common law partner of five years...., but she's not a wife, is she now? ). 

Actually you're absolutely right re: the cycle. There was an interesting paper on that. 

http://www.springerlink.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/media/78u409g6rg6xwj8ahb7j/contributions/l/0/2/m/l02mm8757231t250.pdf

Assuming a peak in C02 concentrations in the 22nd century, they actually do predict that the warming will, in the end, either lead to a temporary cooling of North America and Europe and then a recovery, or a complete collaspe of the system and a semi-permanent cooling of these two continents (along with a drying). So yes, things *may* eventually return back... at this point we don't know.  

Either way we're in for a few centuries of real trouble, and that is the problem for me. I have no doubt the world will go on... but will it be able to sustain 11 billion humans? 



> We present global warming scenarios computed with an intermediate-complexity
> atmosphere-ocean-sea ice model which has been extensively validated for a range of past climates
> (e.g., the Last Glacial Maximum). Our simulations extend to the year 3000, beyond the expected peak
> of CO2 concentrations. The thermohaline ocean circulation declines strongly in all our scenarios
> ...



Just goes to the complexity of the climate, and to show that "warming" will in fact lead to cooling in many places. In the end, the problem is distruption of agriculture and our way of life.

Re: the glaciers... probably live with it. My concern is humans screwing up the planet, not the planet doing it's natural own thing. At this point I don't think we are S-M-R-T enough to try and fuck with it - better just to try and leave it alone, and don't do anything dumb like pour massive amounts of greenhouses gases to mess up the plumbing.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

> but will it be able to sustain 11 billion humans?



That then becomes what is known as a "self-regulating system".


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

lol, touche


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2006)

>If you want, please look at some of the other 20 papers I've posted.

I haven't the time.  But, let's examine what you propose: that 20 papers, or 200, or 2000, mean anything.

Climate scientists must be the most productive and intelligent humans in the history of the planet by several orders of magnitude.  In any other branch of science, the author (or team) which publishes a paper generally advances science by a small amount: measuring a constant to a new precision, examining a heretofore unknown or little known property of something, telling us a little bit about a small part of the function of some subsystem of the human body, etc, etc.  Once in a while, a real genius (eg. Einstein, Hawking) produces something profound.

And what about other complex subjects: how many papers have been published about human psychology, political science, social science?  There must be hundreds of thousands of papers out there by now, and who knows how many detailed computer models of the mind, of political systems, of social systems.  I suppose they've figured out all the answers and I've just missed the announcement that human behaviour, politics, and human social interactions are all reliably and boringly predictable now.

But these climate science guys?  Hey, a few papers, and WHAM!; we've got all the answers to a highly complex system laid out in front of us.

Put another way: what the fcuk did they do to manage such a suspension of disbelief and skepticism, and such a broad and uncritical acceptance, among so many people?  Organized religions everywhere want to know.

Here's what I think: climate science is in its infancy; the big names today are tomorrow's footnotes to luminiferous ether, phlogiston, and Freudian analysis in the obligatory "history of our subject and where our predecessors went wrong" five-minute introduction to the semester.  I don't leap to believe when someone loudly proclaims he's discovered cold fusion, or "proved" that children fare better in non-profit public childcare, or decreed that "conservatives" are psychologically unbalanced, or any one of any number of fashionable modern beliefs underpinned by a gnat's eyelash worth of evidence.

>Special relativity is actually a great example. Greenhouse effect IS that easy. We learned it grade 10 chemistry. Certain gases have an insulating effect and absorb and re-emit IR radiation. I hope you do not question this simple process.

Easy to describe a simplified or special case is not easy to predict, nor easy to describe how it works.  Special relativity is called that because it's a special case.  Care to take a crack at describing gravitation (how it works, I mean; not merely describing what you see)?  There's probably a Nobel Prize in it for you. 

>CO2 in the environment before has been shown to coincide with warmer periods. C02 has increased 30% in the last few decades. The mean surface temperature is increasing WAY faster than it should..... connection?

Solar output has been shown to coincide with warmer periods.  Solar output has increased.  Warming effects appear to be observable on Mars and Jupiter.  Connection?  Correlation is not causation.  That in stressed even in the "soft" sciences.

>please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas, or that it's influence is marginal. If you accept those two points, then the rest should follow.

I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, although H20 is the dominant GHG.  You've overstepped the bounds of logic if "the rest should follow" simply from the influence being non-marginal.  Do you understand that *GHGs are not the only influence and accept the likelihood that there are coupled relationships between GHGs and everything else that influences climate?*  Here's a novel idea: don't stop with the first explanation conceived; develop other ideas and test them.

>Please provide evidence to support your "side"

My "side" is that we know very little and need to learn more, and is certainly not any straw man that you care to create.  For your part, you could explain how you come by your confidence that we already know everything we need to.  Follow the herd if you wish.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jul 2006)

>In the end, the problem is distruption of agriculture and our way of life.

Why do you assume the result must be a net loss rather than gain?


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

Climtology is a science in it's infancy, so are a lot of other sciences really.... does that mean we should automatically disregard their concluions because they are new and scary? 

My point through all of this Mr. Sallows is that this isn't based on a gnat's eyelash of evidence - this is decades of research, hundreds, if not thousands of papers. I don't know why you continue to think otherwise. 



> I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, although H20 is the dominant GHG.



Really... now, I wouldn't have posted that... oh say like 7 posts ago:



> This all brings up a big question for me to you.... please explain how a 30% rise in the second most important greenhouse gas (behind water) would NOT lead to increasing global temperatures?



continuing....



> You've overstepped the bounds of logic if "the rest should follow" simply from the influence being non-marginal.  *Do you understand that GHGs are not the only influence and accept the likelihood that there are coupled relationships between GHGs and everything else that influences climate?*  Here's a novel idea: don't stop with the first explanation conceived; develop other ideas and test them.



No, of course not. Though I do remember something about it from the excerpts I took the time to highlight for you...



> *Many mechanisms, including variations in solar radiation and atmospheric aerosol concentrations, compete with anthropogenic greenhouse gases as causes of global climate change. Comparisons of available data show that solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming...*





> Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols contribute a globally averaged annual forcing of -0.3 watt per square meter as compared with +2.1 watts per square meter for greenhouse gases



In the end, please at least take the time to at least read the excerpts. It's been explored Mr. Sallows, by people a lot smarter than you and I.  

RE: special relativity, you're the one implied it was easy! I was just agreeing with you. You don't need more than grade 7 math to do mass-energy conversions, just like you don't need more than grade 10 chem to understand greenhouse effect. 

So, let us just then be sure where we stand though... you admit that C02 is a greenhouse gas, but you question it's role in global warming despite the research to the contrary?

Not to mention, no one has yet to accept my challenge to provide research backing up the assertion that: "the projected rise in C02 would not in fact have a statistically significant impact on the temperature of the earth." You'd think if this was all so straw man and garbage, at least one reputable person would grab onto it.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jul 2006)

> In the end, the problem is distruption of agriculture and our way of life.



Actually couchcommander, in that one sentence I believe you have the problem.  The problem is the disruption to our way of life.  Particularly urban life as opposed to a nomadic life.

We have invested so much in the urban lifestyle that that is what puts life at risk: all our eggs in one basket.

Cities die. Nomads survive.  When cities die millions die with them.  When nomads die it is individuals that are affected. 

People concentrated in cities are at risk if:

Their supply of raw materials, including food and water goes away;
Their wastes accumulate creating a toxic environment;
Their lines of communication are cut isolating them from their raw materials;
Some portion of their divided and specialized labour force is removed by strike, disease, natural disaster or commercial considerations;
Earthquake, Flood or Volcanic eruption occurs.

Nomads are equally at risk but dispersion makes them less susceptible to the threat and their mobility makes them more able to adapt to the change.

From that it would seem to me that folks in Vancouver, eg, that are calling for greater "densification" at the same time they are demanding more heroic efforts be taken to protect them from the massive earthquake they fear are barking up the wrong tree.  The simple solution to all of their problems, smog, allergies and ill-health included is to disperse.  Get an SUV and head to the hills and communicate via internet.  ;D


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

You're right about the challenges facing cities. Cities, however, also do provide a lot of advantages for humanity as well. 

I suppose I'm just too attached to my fresh roasted coffee...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2006)

This is a lot like the analysis of why Socialism still exists despite its catastrophic record during the 20th century, this is a belief system more than iti is an idiology or science:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/7/24/72528.shtml?s=lh



> Reprinted from NewsMax.com
> 
> *Al Gore's Own 'Tower of Babel' *
> David Klinghoffer
> ...


----------



## couchcommander (24 Jul 2006)

Well, that may be this gentleman's, and your, way of looking at it. It appears to be gaining popularity amongst "the right".

Let me be clear though, there is nothing religious about any of it. I do have a "religion" as it may be understood by the western world, but it has nothing to do with this. 

Quite frankly, turning people's viewpoints into "religions" is nothing but these individuals trying to explain others using their own decision making model. They see the world through "faith" and so they superimpose this upon other people's actions and viewpoints when it is nothing of the such.


----------



## exsemjingo (25 Jul 2006)

"What was so wrong with constructing the ancient Near Eastern equivalent of a skyscraper? The Talmud, in tractate "Sanhedrin," has an illuminating answer. When the notion of building a tower was decided upon, it was thanks to the collaboration of three groups of citizens."

Eh!  Wrong!  Genesis may have been called a mythical allegory by scholars trying to dis-credit the Bible, but mainsteam scholarship says otherwise.  This is no skyscraper from a fantastical past.  The Tower of Babel refers to the Zigguarts that the Babylonians really did build, many of which survive to this day.  The thinking was that high places were holy places (read up on it, you'll see), so if they got high enough they could take God on.  It is this blasphemous attitude that would have offended YHWH, or if you rather, the writer of the Biblical account.
Secondly, if you say Judeo-Christian values are environmentalist, what you really mean is that you hold both these values and want to make the one support the other.  All it takes to dismantle this argument is someone else with different beliefs to do the same.  When the political wind changes, people will say Judeo-Christian values reflect something else.
Do not cheapen the Bible so.

If you want to tangle on this issue, start a new thread and we'll do it.  This one is for discussing global warming, alternative fuels, and the politics and fallacies thereof.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2006)

>My point through all of this Mr. Sallows is that this isn't based on a gnat's eyelash of evidence - this is decades of research, hundreds, if not thousands of papers. I don't know why you continue to think otherwise.

There are large portions of the planet's surface, under the seas, and in the atmosphere in which measurements have rarely if ever been taken, if taken at all, and certainly not across long intervals of time.  Furthermore, some of it hasn't been taken particularly systematically.  To me, that's a gnat's eyelash.  We have access to lots of proxy data, but that's only as useful as our understanding and assumptions about all the factors that created it.

>I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, although H20 is the dominant GHG.
>Really... now, I wouldn't have posted that... oh say like 7 posts ago:

My main point is that I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, so perhaps you could give me a direct explanation why you wrote "Again, please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas,".  Why are you trying to situate the estimate?

Since you accept the presence of other factors, do you or do you not think it prudent to explore other hypotheses and gather more data?  I'd like to know where you fit in between "We know almost nothing and must first learn more" and "We have the answers; spend as we dictate and divert no more funding in wasteful research that might prove us wrong"?

>In the end, please at least take the time to at least read the excerpts. It's been explored Mr. Sallows, by people a lot smarter than you and I.

Why do you assume they are smarter than you and I?  You're confusing intelligence with subject matter experience.

>So, let us just then be sure where we stand though... you admit that C02 is a greenhouse gas, but you question it's role in global warming despite the research to the contrary?

I don't question that it has a role - and I wish the people excited about C02 would stop trying to pretend the majority of doubters are in denial of that - but I do question the role attributed to it by its enthusiasts.  I would mistrust any assessment that attempted to persuade me that one factor of a complex system is responsible for what we observe or is the magic lever by which we can change the performance of the system.

>Not to mention, no one has yet to accept my challenge to provide research backing up the assertion that: "the projected rise in C02 would not in fact have a statistically significant impact on the temperature of the earth."

Why should anyone?  C02 likely does have a statistically significant impact on temperatures.  Two unanswered and more interesting questions are: what other factors have more statistically significant impacts on the temperature of the earth; and, what if anything can we do to mitigate the effects?  I'd like some sort of response other than the usual blank stare and regurgitation of the litany: "Do you deny C02 makes a contribution; do you deny C02 is contributed to by people; why won't you do something about C02?"


----------



## couchcommander (25 Jul 2006)

> My main point is that I didn't claim C02 is not a greenhouse gas, so perhaps you could give me a direct explanation why you wrote "Again, please post a few papers that show CO2 is not actually a greenhouse gas,".



I was under the impression you did not take the greenhouse effect, or more specifically, CO2's role in the greenhouse effect seriously. I was challenging what I saw as your assumptions in order to determine where exactly you stand. 



> Since you accept the presence of other factors, do you or do you not think it prudent to explore other hypotheses and gather more data?  I'd like to know where you fit in between "We know almost nothing and must first learn more" and "We have the answers; spend as we dictate and divert no more funding in wasteful research that might prove us wrong"?



I stand in the middle. To me, it seems that we are at the point where have a *fairly* good idea about certain processes on the macro scale. I think there is indeed a lot more research to be done as well. We have barely begun to scratch the surface of what is going on with this planet. However, like how one does not need to understand special relativity to predict the flight of a ball across a yard - it seems from the research and that we are at a "good enough" stage, especially given the potential implications of what is happening, and the present virtual absence of a large scale dissenting opinions. 

Research should never stop. If future research shows us to be imbiciles, then great! To me though, the decision is pretty simple. We could a) ignore what we are being told by the people we pay to research such things and, as far as we can tell, seriously disrupt our way of life. or b) accept that we "may be wrong", but also accept that this is the best we've got, and go ahead and start transitioning to a cleaner method of energy production.

It has to happen at some point, oil reserves are finite. Not to mention all of the other bad things that come with burning impure hydrocarbons, ie nasty smog and the related illnesses, acid rain. As well, to me importantly, freeing ourselves from the world oil charade. From my viewpoint, it's almost worth it even if there is no global warming. Yes, wealth will change hands, putting a lot of people out, but it will also create a lot of new opportunities. It will make for cleaner, healthier cities and a more stable base for our economy. 



> Why do you assume they are smarter than you and I?  You're confusing intelligence with subject matter experience.



Habit, I suppose. I usually take that view of most people I meet until they prove otherwise (or, i should say, I strive to.. but my bigotry does get the better of me on occasion). 



> I don't question that it has a role - and I wish the people excited about C02 would stop trying to pretend the majority of doubters are in denial of that - but I do question the role attributed to it by its enthusiasts.  I would mistrust any assessment that attempted to persuade me that one factor of a complex system is responsible for what we observe or is the magic lever by which we can change the performance of the system.



Fair enough. You are absolutely right that there are many many many many influences on our climate, and no we have not accounted all of them. 

However, once again these scienticest have managed to account for most of the ones we can think up. 

An important fact, to me at least, is their ability to use the models they have generated to simulate past conditions. Yes, as you have pointed out, there are fudge factors and assumptions - but even with these taken into account and a range of error produced, even the low end will drastically change our world. 

To me, it seems, that if they were missing a large, vital part of our climate, it would show when they try and simulate it. Once again, no, the simulations are not perfect, they are off slighty, but they are getting better all the time. Unfortunately, and something that is particularily damning, to me, is that as they get better, our outlook gets worse. It would seem, once again to me, that if we were actually looking in the wrong direction, as we got closer to being able to correctly simulate and predict historical changes, the opposite would be happening. 



> Why should anyone?  C02 likely does have a statistically significant impact on temperatures.  Two unanswered and more interesting questions are: what other factors have more statistically significant impacts on the temperature of the earth; and, what if anything can we do to mitigate the effects?  I'd like some sort of response other than the usual blank stare and regurgitation of the litany: "Do you deny C02 makes a contribution; do you deny C02 is contributed to by people; why won't you do something about C02?"



Well, re: the first.

Aerosoles, ocean currents, the sun, airborne dust, water, methane etc. all play a very important role. In fact, through history, they have played a greater role than CO2 in many instances.

Once again though, our researchers have been working on this, and once again, for everything they can think up, it does not account for the current warming. CO2, however, when put into the equations, does. As far as we can tell with regards to the current massive upsurge in warming, it's the culprit, and far as we can tell, our actions are what are causing it to be the culprit.

re: the second

The problem being that while the earth does warm and cool and warm and cool due to many reasons over time - these current changes are happening much faster than they should, and the speed at which they are happening threatens to undermine our ability to adapt to them. Further, it appears, as far as we can tell, that it's our own actions that are causing this trouble for us. 

What is so frustrating for "us" is that we CAN affect change, but we are choosing not to.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2006)

A lighter note about effecting change:


----------



## couchcommander (25 Jul 2006)

Mr. Majoor - Don't worry, I share your contempt for the politicization of this issue.


----------



## acclenticularis (25 Jul 2006)

His client list includes real estate development companies, high tech firms, pharmaceutical, forest industry giants, resorts and academic institutions.

Quote
He is a Board Member of the David Suzuki Foundation.

Thanks, hardly a scoop, that information is readily available via the link I provided.  Regardless of whether he is associated with the Suzuki Foundation or not, there is a smear campaign against the science pointing to human effected climate change.  Hoggan got fed up and created the site so that the public could peruse for themselves the steps that have been taken to debunk with rhetoric and without scientific grounding.  

Please, if there is some scientific work done that has been peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community that debunks global warming as human influenced, post the link.  I sincerely hope that this is all BS and that we are not influencing our climate.  If there was debate on the issue among those most knowledgable in the study of climate, then I would certainly reconsider 'following the herd'.  What would it take for the skeptics posting in this thread to reconsider following their particular herd?  

A gulf between how our climate operates and what we understand will never close fully.  How many hundreds of years of data is required to legitimize long term climate forecasts?  How much climate knowledge is necessary?  Can it be quantified?  What findings would make skeptics accept the consensus in the scientific community?  In general, I ask the following question, what evidence would suffice to convince the skeptics in this thread that humans are effecting climate (to the extent proposed by the scientiifc community)?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jul 2006)

>Please, if there is some scientific work done that has been peer reviewed and generally accepted in the scientific community that debunks global warming as human influenced, post the link.

Whether global warming is human influenced isn't a useful question.  The question is, by how much?  It's very important to stop treating this as an either-or debate: the idea that either people are, or aren't responsible, is a false assumption.

It would help if the scientific community would police itself and sort out those who insist on publicizing the most extreme projections imaginable.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Jul 2006)

Chaos theory: check it out some time.*  The only thing we know for sure is that we don't understand weather or climate, let alone how we affect it (actually the point is that just as likely that our actions may be having the opposite effect (to what now seems "scientific")).  Mr. Suzuki, _et.al._, have an agenda and hard science isn't it!

*A very accessible (i.e., on a conceptual level, for non-quant jocks) introduction to the topic: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0140092501/701-0900919-7599555?v=glance&n=916520&s=gateway&v=glance


----------



## acclenticularis (25 Jul 2006)

Whether global warming is human influenced isn't a useful question.  The question is, by how much?

*In general, I ask the following question, what evidence would suffice to convince the skeptics in this thread that humans are effecting climate (to the extent proposed by the scientiifc community)?*

Sorry if in my prior info. posted I indicated that I thought this was an either or debate.


----------



## couchcommander (25 Jul 2006)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Chaos theory: check it out some time.*  The only thing we know for sure is that we don't understand weather or climate, let alone how we affect it (actually the point is that just as likely that our actions may be having the opposite effect (to what now seems "scientific")).  Mr. Suzuki, _et.al._, have an agenda and hard science isn't it!
> 
> *A very accessible (i.e., on a conceptual level, for non-quant jocks) introduction to the topic: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/0140092501/701-0900919-7599555?v=glance&n=916520&s=gateway&v=glance



You may also be sitting in a vat hooked up to a machine. Do you still get up in the morning?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> You may also be sitting in a vat hooked up to a machine. Do you still get up in the morning?



Huh?


----------



## couchcommander (25 Jul 2006)

Look up Decartes, _Meditations on First Philosophy_. 

The point is you cannot be sure of anything. Decartes would say "Je pense, donc je suis", but even that has come under fire, especially when you look at the notion of "self" from the perspective of eastern philosophy. "self" could be yet another delusion in the mind. In the end, you actually _know_ nothing. 

Despite this, I'm sure you do still manage to get up in the morning and pick your cocopuffs over the count cocula.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (25 Jul 2006)

Actually, the point is that no model exists to explain climate variation, except to show that it is (very) non-linear.  We know that it happens, but any supposition as to why (anthropogenic or not) is a guess ... we don't even know how good of a guess because we don't know how much we don't know. 

_ /Merde, I think I'm channeling Rumsfeld/_


----------



## couchcommander (25 Jul 2006)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Actually, the point is that no model exists to explain climate variation, except to show that it is (very) non-linear.  We know that it happens, but any supposition as to why (anthropogenic or not) is a guess ... we don't even know how good of a guess because we don't know how much we don't know.
> 
> _ /Merde, I think I'm channeling Rumsfeld/_



No, not 100% of course... MY point was that we are effectively guessing about everything... that doesn't change the situation. "good enough" is "good enough" at some point when the error become insignificant in relation to the problem. 

*edit again* Once again I'm not interested in debating opnions. If you want, please post a few papers outlining how what you are saying affects our ability to model global warming.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> *edit again* Once again I'm not interested in debating opnions. If you want, please post a few papers outlining how what you are saying affects our ability to model global warming.



It's not a question of opinions: climate is Chaotic ... no one debates that (in the mainstream, anyway).  Thus, any model of such is inherently flawed (the part that is generally left out).  We don't even know what all the variables are.  Trying to pretend that we should be destroying (many billions of dollars of) wealth on the basis of junk science is folly (at best).

It is not a case of saying that there is _no_ anthropogenic warming (or cooling, according to the last consensus that wasn't really a consensus): we _really _do not know.  Consensus exists only in the absence of provable fact: how much are we willing to bet?

The point about local weather is a good one: the earth's climate could be described the sum total of all local climates ... it is _at least_ as complex as any local weather system: we don't know, for example, if it will be warmer or cooler (or rainier or be sunnier) two weeks from now than it is today (not even a meterologist would make the bet).  It is the height of hubris to pretend that we can model climate over decades when we can't even reliably model local weather systems for a week.  Ask any Pilot what PIREPS are and why they are necessary ("weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers ...").


----------



## couchcommander (26 Jul 2006)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> It's not a question of opinions: climate is Chaotic ... no one debates that (in the mainstream, anyway).  Thus, any model of such is inherently flawed (the part that is generally left out).  We don't even know what all the variables are.  Trying to pretend that we should be destroying (many billions of dollars of) wealth on the basis of junk science is folly (at best).



The point of the Chaos theory is that even systems which seem chaotic are in fact following a deterministic nature.

No, we have no accounted for all of the variables. No we cannot precisely predict weather. 

You seem to have this in your head that because the climate is complex, and not completely understood, then anything we do is completely useless.

I had hoped to avoid this, but for example do you need to know exactly how the air will flow over the surface of a tennis ball in order to catch it when it is thrown at you? Uncertainly in fact tells us that you will NEVER know everything, and there will always be an infinitely small chance that that ball will end up on the other side of the universe or just go straight through your hand. However, the 99% chance (assuming you can catch that is) is that you're going to be able to put your hand more or less where the ball will end up, despite the fact you really know basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, about how it got there.

My point, *you do not need to be able to predict or understand every micro level event when it becomes relatively insignificant to the macro scale system you are concerned about*. We do not need to be able to predict whether it will rain on Tuesday, July 12, 2152 in Edmonton - all we need to know is whether or not the mean surface temperature will be higher.. or lower...due to a limited series of variables which we can *reasonably* assume, due to past occurrences, to have enough of an effect so that other variables influence will be insignificant. 

Further, we can verify our assumptions by simulating past occurrences. 

THIS WAS ON OF THE WAYS CHAOS THEORY WAS DEVELOPED. Computers would try and predict whether systems, and find their simulations or predictions were widely wrong. This was due to insufficiently precise measurements and not taking into account a sufficient number of variables, not to mention shoddy computing. 

We HAVE advanced since the days of analog computers, and we can now make, as I have pointed out again and again, reasonable approximations of the climate on the grand scale that correspond enough to reality to be useful. We HAVE validated these models over tens of thousands of years of change - more than enough to try and "predict" a few hundred years into the future.

If we have a model that can, starting 21,000 years ago, reasonably predict what happens over those 21,000 years, why are you so skeptical of it's ability to start now, and go 200-300 years into the future? 

We have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk. 

Once again though, if you feel that the error is too large, or knowledge insufficient, please post a paper challenging the conclusions reached by some of the other papers I posted. 

Right now the score is sitting at your opinion on how this affects global climate trend models vs. 30 years of research.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> The point of the Chaos theory is that even systems which seem chaotic are in fact following a deterministic nature.
> 
> No, we have no accounted for all of the variables. No we cannot precisely predict weather.
> 
> You seem to have this in your head that because the climate is complex, and not completely understood, then anything we do is completely useless.



Not at all ... but we do have to stop pretending that we know.



> I had hoped to avoid this, but for example do you need to know exactly how the air will flow over the surface of a tennis ball in order to catch it when it is thrown at you? Uncertainly in fact tells us that you will NEVER know everything it, and there will always be an infinitely small chance that that ball will end up on the other side of the universe or just go straight through your hand. However, the 99% chance (assuming you can catch that is) is that you're going to be able to put your hand more or less where the ball will end up, despite the fact you really no basically nothing, in the grand scheme of things, about how it got there.
> 
> My point, *you do not need to be able to predict or understand every micro level event when it becomes relatively insignificant to the macro scale system you are concerned about*. We do not need to be able to predict whether it will rain on Tuesday, July 12, 2152 in Edmonton - all we need to know is whether or not the mean surface temperature will be higher.. or lower...due to a limited series of variables which we can *reasonably* assume, due to past occurrences, to have enough of an effect so that other variables influence will be insignificant.



"Reasonably assume"?!?  Maybe, maybe not ... the only fact is that we don't know ( and your example is an over-simplification: it would be more akin to determining how fast the ball's rotation was slowing due to drag or something).  Moreover, the existence of reports like PIREPS demonstrates that we do not (and cannot) assume (reasonably or otherwise) that we we have weather figured-out!



> Further, we can verify our assumptions by simulating past occurrences.
> 
> THIS WAS ON OF THE WAYS CHAOS THEORY WAS DEVELOPED. Computers would try and predict whether systems, and find their simulations or predictions were widely wrong. This was due to insufficiently precise measurements and not taking into account a sufficient number of variables, not to mention shoddy computing.
> 
> ...



The age of the earth is (maybe) 4.5 billion years .. we do not know with any accuracy (bearing in mind that at least some of the studies you've linked-to talk about "unusual" variations of tenths of degrees) what happened during _any _200-300 year period (let alone a 50 or 20 year period, depending on who is doing the shouting), except to a very limited degree, the last one.



> However, we have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk.


No we haven't. 



> Once again though, if you feel that the error is too large, or knowledge insufficient, please post a paper challenging the conclusions reached by some of the other papers I posted.
> 
> Right now the score is sitting at your opinion on how this affects global climate trend models vs. 30 years of research.



30 years of conflicting research proves nothing except that we don't know enough to make definitive statements (or are we going to go back to believing in eugenics, the ether, and bodily humours).


----------



## couchcommander (26 Jul 2006)

> 30 years of conflicting research proves nothing except that we don't know enough to make definitive statements



Conflicting? 

There is a widely held scientific viewpoint that has been backed by research. The reason many of us feel so strongly about this is because there is in fact relatively little conflicting evidence.

But please, do enlighten me and post some of this conflicting research. 

Further, when you say simply "no we haven't" to a statement of mine that I have backed up by numerous high quality sources...... I'd suggest putting a reference behind it. 

Where is the series of studies that demonstrates the models are not accurate enough to draw the conclusions they have?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Conflicting?
> 
> There is a widely held scientific viewpoint that has been backed by research. The reason many of us feel so strongly about this is because there is in fact relatively little conflicting evidence.
> 
> But please, do enlighten me and post some of this conflicting research.



Your own sources say that global warming as either been 0.6 degrees C in the last 100 years or 0.3-0.6 in the last 150: does this not strike you as a little inconsistent?  ... in any case, a range of 0.3-0.6 is, statistically speaking, "well, assuming our data is accurate, and we know it isn't, we think we can extrapolate an increase of 0.45, but we are equally likely to be out in either direction by a factor of 33%."



> Further, when you say simply "no we haven't" to a statement of mine that I have backed up by numerous high quality sources...... I'd suggest putting a reference behind it.


You made an arbitrary and unsupported statement: I refuted it in kind.



> Where is the series of studies that demonstrates the models are not accurate enough to draw the conclusions they have?


Why?  The data used for every long-range climate study ranges from inconsistent to 'derived by proxy', and the models don't even agree on the interpretation of that.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2006)

The conflicting evidence you believe is not there is simply swept under the rug. This is very easy to do in a very politicized subject like climate change, as demonstrated in this article. If opinion makers and politicians are bombarded with this sort of data (as opposed to Information or Knowledge), then they will be making choices based on a limited data set, including choices on who to fund, what policy options to persue and so on.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=OWZkMDU5NmM4MzVmNDQ2NGNhYjcxNjY3NGJiZWU2Njc=



> *Public Disservice*
> Melting myths.
> 
> By Patrick J. Michaels
> ...


----------



## couchcommander (26 Jul 2006)

Mr. Majoor,

That is definitely an interesting article, and it does a good job of showing a particularly confusing aspect of global warming, which John has already pointed out for us, namely that it is non linear.

The effects of warming are not necessarily what one would associate with it, to the point of at times being counter intuitive. Take for example that study I posted for kirkhill - it suggests that global warming may in fact lead to a cooling and drying of Europe due to changes in ocean currents.

Though the article does do a good job of attacking those ads, which, I might add, I find unhelpful as all they do is further dramatize the issue and take it further away from a factual debate - it does little to discredit the research I have poted.

I_am_John_Galt:



> We have accounted for enough of the variables whereby we can make a reasonable prediction of macro scale events, in which even the lower end of the probable bounds of error represent a severe risk.





> No we haven't....
> 
> You made an arbitrary and unsupported statement: I refuted it in kind.



From some of the things I have ALREADY posted (because I am far too lazy to go finding new sources for things that I have ALREADY referenced... you will have to read the previous posts to get the link if you want it).



> More than 80% of observed multidecadal-scale global mean temperature variations and more than 60% of 10- to 50-year land temperature variations are due to changes in external forcings.





> Many mechanisms, including variations in solar radiation and atmospheric aerosol concentrations, compete with anthropogenic greenhouse gases as causes of global climate change. Comparisons of available data show that solar variability will not counteract greenhouse warming...





> Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols contribute a globally averaged annual forcing of -0.3 watt per square meter as compared with +2.1 watts per square meter for greenhouse gases





> *The size of this trend is consistent with theoretical predictions, is accurately reproduced by climate model simulations and, within the climate models, is largely due to anthropogenic forcing*



I assume you're questioning the accounting for other variables part, not the effect part (if you are, let me know, I'll be happy to oblige).

In the end, reference your statements, or I am done.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2006)

>In general, I ask the following question, what evidence would suffice to convince the skeptics in this thread that humans are effecting climate (to the extent proposed by the scientiifc community)?

A model which accurately reproduces the curves of the various major sets of proxy data for the past couple of millennia and shows a difference accounting for the alleged amount of change when human factors are scrubbed out would do.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (26 Jul 2006)

CouchCommander: we are talking about "garbage-in, garbage-out" ... the data is inherently suspect.  

E.g.:





> 20 February 2005
> *Bring the Proxies Up to Date!!*
> 
> I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use “multiproxy” reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980 and bring the proxies up-to-date. I would appreciate comments on this note as I think that I will pursue the matter with policymakers.
> ...


 http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

I encourage you to check out some of the questions raised under "categories" on the right-hand side (particularly those under "proxies" and "modelling") ... there are many issues that Al Gore would prefer to ignore.

My point earlier about "arbitrary and unsupported statements" was that you (like many others) are drawing conclusions from weak models which are based upon spurious data.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Aug 2006)

"Dammit, well tweak the models _again_ ... I'm sure there's some way to spin this as being proof of global warming."   :-[



> *2006 Tropical Storm Season Now Below  Normal *
> 
> 
> (21 August 2006) What a difference a year makes. After the record-breaking 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the 2006 season is now below normal.
> ...



http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm


----------



## couchcommander (21 Aug 2006)

I actually posted a paper, oh 3 or 4 pages back, that discussed the possibility of a shutdown, permanent or temporary, of thermohaline circulation. 

I'm no climatologist, but I suspect this would have something to do with that - that or it's just "noise". 



> "Dammit, well tweak the models again ... I'm sure there's some way to spin this as being proof of global warming."



...The fact that it was predicted before it happened....

Heh, this is amusing..."OH, LOOK, SOMETHING STRANGE IS HAPPENING! GLOBAL WARMING IS A FARCE!"... well actually...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Aug 2006)

I'm reluctant to go here - but I just can't help myself - It's an addiction.

Mother nature discovers sea waters getting too warm - throws a couple more ice cubes in from Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctic. Water cools.  Air above water cools.  Clouds form blocking sun and dropping temperatures.  At northern and southern latitudes snow falls replenishing supply of ice cubes.  The world continues.

Likewise with Carbon - CO2 increases trapping heat but also blocking solar heating.  Warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels means more greenstuff grows, not necessarily the types desired or the places wanted but it sucks up Carbon.  CO2 level falls.

These things are not new.  

Call me when we have a couple of hundred years of modern monitoring procedures so that we can determine what "normal" variation is.  

We can't use proxy measurements and compare them to current day to day monitoring.  You need time to compare actual instrumentally monitored results to actual impacts on tree growth, ice accumulation and CO2 incorporation to determine how the proxies stack up to the instruments - in the real world of process design the exercise is known as calibration and it takes time.  Nobody would dream of adjusting their process until they determined that their instruments were properly calibrated.  In fact the matter is considered so critical that often companies are reluctant to throw out "inadequate" measuring regimes for "better" new regimes because it renders their entire history invalid and thus it makes it difficult to predict the performance of the plant in the future.  This leads to more guesswork, often erroneous, which in turns leads to poorer performance and profitability.

Often the best action is no action at all.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Aug 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> _Nobody _ would dream of adjusting their process until they determined that there instruments were properly calibrated.



Ah, and therein lies the rub: Global Warming is more about Politics than Science.


----------



## exsemjingo (22 Aug 2006)

Last time I put up a link, it expired.  So here it is from the Globe and Mail:

"Ignatieff hopes to help drivers go green
JANE TABER 

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Michael Ignatieff's environmental plan, to be released Monday, calls for a “polluter pays” system that would include lower taxes at the pumps for consumers who use greener fuel.

The perceived front-runner in the Liberal leadership race will also concede that Canada cannot meet the Kyoto Protocol's target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Instead, his plan would reduce Canada's carbon dioxide emissions to at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, with interim targets set for each decade, according to a senior campaign official familiar with the plan. This would set the country on a path to an “eventual carbon-neutral economy,” he will argue.

Mr. Ignatieff will take on the Conservative government, saying that not being able to meet the Kyoto target is not “a licence” for the Tories to “abandon” it altogether, according to the official. He will suggest that the Harper government has created an “irresponsible policy vacuum,” sending the wrong message to Canadians, business and the world.

Mr. Ignatieff plans to release his environmental platform at a private roundtable with leading climate-change experts at the University of British Columbia. 

The discussions will be followed by a news conference and the public release of the action plan he wants Liberals to take into the next election.

Mr. Ignatieff mused in June about bringing in a carbon tax, but never spelled out exactly what he meant. Even suggesting such a tax on fossil fuels angered Albertans and the Conservatives jumped all over him, arguing it would cause economic and regional grief.

Other Liberal leadership candidates, such as Stéphane Dion, said they would not consider a carbon tax, promoting instead a series of environmental-policy tax reforms.

Mr. Ignatieff's new plan explains his musings in greater detail. 

He would gradually lower the GST and excise taxes for fuel that is lower in carbon content. 

One such fuel is ethanol, produced in the United States from corn and in Brazil from sugar. Only two gas stations in Canada now sell ethanol.

“He is deeply committed to putting a price on emissions so that the atmosphere does not continue to be a free garbage dump,” said the campaign official. 

“So, [an] excise tax at the pump is gradually cut for low carbon fuel and rises for fuel with higher carbon content. But, and it's a big but, the shift has to be revenue neutral.”

This means that the increase will offset the decrease in such a way that the price difference will drive consumers to choose the more environmentally friendly fuel. 

Mr. Ignatieff is also proposing a cap on maximum aggregate greenhouse gas emissions for major industrial emitters, according to the official. 

It would require industry to buy tradeable emission permits. 

Companies that find ways to reduce their emissions below the limit could sell their unused room as “credits to companies that are over the limit, creating an economic incentive to reduce emissions.

“The absolute cap would decrease over time,” said the official. “This puts a price on the costs of industrial emissions and is an example of ‘polluter pays.'”

The Ignatieff plan is the result of months of consultation with experts, including: Mark Jaccard, a Simon Fraser University energy economist; the David Suzuki Foundation; Matthew Bramley, director of climate change at the Pembina Institute in Gatineau, Que.; and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Mr. Ignatieff wants Canadians not to be afraid of talking about the use of “tax instruments to reduce emissions,” the official said. 

“Any policy must have quantifiable measures of success and be adjusted as needed over time,” the official said.

Mr. Ignatieff's plan will also suggest a program that requires car manufacturers to increase the market share for low, ultra-low and zero-emissions vehicles. That would include “hybrid” vehicles that use an internal combustion engine combined with an electric drive, such as the Prius and versions of the Toyota Highlander, Ford Escape, Honda Accord and Civic and a GM pickup.

In his statement Monday, Mr. Ignatieff will also urge the Liberal Party to make sustainable development a key plank in the party's election platform.
"

*Idiocy*:  Ethanol is sold in far more that 2 gas stations across Canada.  Go on down to your local Mohawk station and you can buy gasoline blended with 35% Ethanol.  Just passed into law recently (by the Conservatives) was a requirement for 5% ethanol in all gasoline everywhere.  Ethanol is inferior to gasoline.  It is a viable alternative only when gasoline is not available, such as in Brazil (for trade reasons, not environmental), or in the future when we finally do run out of oil.  Even then, it really is harder on your car.  That is why only 2 gas stations in the country sell 100% (?) ethanol.

*Malice*:  A cap on CO2 emissions, gradually lowered arbitrarily until we are a "net-zero emitter?"  What country does Ignatieff think were are living in?  Such blatant power over free-enterprise has never been exercised in this country.  Basically, CO2 emissions controlls = energy use controls = economic activity controls.  This sounds to me a little more than socialist.  There is no industry in this country, including Ethanol plants, that does not lead back to the production of CO2.  An exception might be nuclear plants, as long as no one working there drives to work, and they make deliveries by horse and cart.

*Idiocy*: He does not have to concede that we cannot meet the 2012 goals as set by the Kyoto accord; everyone already knows this.  It is not a matter of political opinion, but an objective fact.  That the Globe and Mail expresses it a '6% under 1990 levels' means that they also are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.  A more telling figure would be how far under current emissions the 2012 goal would be, somewhere around 30%.

*Malice*: The terms 'polluter pays policy" and "major industrial emitters".  These belong in discussions about actual pollutants, mercury dumping.  CO2 is only technically a pollutant, since the government changed it's legal definition to 'toxic' a few years ago so that it could legally control it's production.  Carbon Dioxide has nothing to do with actually toxic 'toxins', like, cyanide. 

*Idiocy*:  You do not have to be an engineer to know that hauling a redundant engine is less efficient, not more efficient.  Hybrid vehicles will not achieve anything along the lines of what is being discussed.  Once again, these will become useful in the future, when the oil supply really does run out.

*Malice*:  CO2 is not garbage.  The "atmosphere as garbage dump" is a concept he borrowed from discussions about actual pollution.

*Idiocy*:  The shift can be revenue neutral while still having crippling economic consequences.  Shall the unemployed oilfield workers take up farming after everyone starts using Ethanol?  The kicker is that government revenues will be affected anyway, indirectly.  Once the majority of energy sources becomes more expensive or less efficient, there will be fewer profits from business for tax coffers, and less income available from tax payers.
Actually, under this scenario, revenue neutral would mean only the tax-payer looses out.  

*Can't decide*: CO2 emissions goal to be 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.  How?  Will we all move to other countries?  Will we just shut down most of our economy?  (more than half, remember Canada emits more CO2 now than it did in 1990).  This is not sustainable development -it is moving backward economically; negative development.  No environmentalist I have ever heard has made such an outrageous claim as what they would like to see, let alone as to what they think will really happen.

What does everyone else think?  I have listed every reason that comes to mind for Ignatieff's proposed carbon tax.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2006)

Idiocy =4
Malice=3

How does a guy who says such things in public get a reputation for being smart anyway? I'll bet the next proposal will be to control the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, since that is far and away the most potent and important greenhouse gas by many orders of magnitude.....


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Nobody would dream of adjusting their process until they determined that their instruments were properly calibrated.



+1 Kirkhill!

The fairly simple proof of principle that I offered (dozens of pages ago, I'm sure) was the "Hockey Stick" showed relatively constant temperatures over the past millenia, while historical and archeological records covering the same period did not. Obviously something is out of whack, and until that something is discovered and sorted, making policy or predictions on suspect data is very dangerous.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (22 Aug 2006)

Interesting to see Mann (et.al.) (aka "Mr. Hockey Stick") are starting to blame others for their lack of disclosure (Letter to Nature magazine): 



> Sir:
> Your News story "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph" (Nature 441, 1032; 2006) states that the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel "concluded that systematic uncertainties in climate records from before 1600 were not communicated as clearly as they could have been". This conclusion is not stated in the NAS report itself, but formed part of the remarks made by Gerald North, the NAS committee chair, at the press conference announcing the report.
> 
> The name of our paper is "Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations" (Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 759–762; 1999). In the abstract, we state: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats" and note that "expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400". We conclude by stating: "more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached." It is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction; indeed, that was the point of the article!
> ...


 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/full/442627b.html

and M&M reply: 





> Sir:
> In their recent correspondence, (Nature, 442, 627, 2006) Mann et al. claim that "it is hard to imagine how much more explicit we could have been about the uncertainties in the reconstruction" (Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998). In fact, it is not hard at all. They could have disclosed and explicitly discussed the lack of statistical significance of the verification r2 statistic for reconstruction steps prior to 1750, values of which were approximately 0 (S. McIntyre and R.McKitrick, GRL, 32, doi:10.1029/2004GL0217502005, 2005; E. Wahl and C. Ammann, Clim. Chg, accepted, 2006). Such disclosure would have shown that the uncertainties of their reconstruction were substantially underestimated, as the National Academy of Sciences panel recently concluded (p. 107).
> 
> Mann et al blame "poor communication by others" for "subsequent confusion about uncertainties", but ignore the fact that Mann was a lead author of chapter 2 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, which stated that the Mann et al. reconstruction had "significant skill in independent cross-validation tests," without mentioning the verification statistic failures. They likewise ignore their own press releases, issued by the University of Massachusetts, and contemporary press articles linked at Mann’s website, which set the overconfident tone they now apparently regret. There is no evidence that Mann et al made any effort to correct these "poor communications" either at the time or subsequently.
> ...


 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=775

To be sure, none of this will matter to Kyoto junkies and the rest "invested" in global warming, but couchcommander, you'd do well to have a look through your links to see how many of those studies from so many pages ago are actually based on the MBH Hockey Stick (or even the modified Hockey Stick, after they corrected some of the more egregious methodological errors, in response to _some _ of M&M's criticisms).


----------



## begbie (22 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> *Idiocy*:  Ethanol is sold in far more that 2 gas stations across Canada.  Go on down to your local Mohawk station and you can buy gasoline blended with 35% Ethanol.  Just passed into law recently (by the Conservatives) was a requirement for 5% ethanol in all gasoline everywhere.  Ethanol is inferior to gasoline.  It is a viable alternative only when gasoline is not available, such as in Brazil (for trade reasons, not environmental), or in the future when we finally do run out of oil.  Even then, it really is harder on your car.  That is why only 2 gas stations in the country sell 100% (?) ethanol.



You are incorrect that the government recently passed a law that mandates the inclusion of 5% blend of ethanol in all gasoline.  The government already had the legal authority to issue such a mandate under the regulatory provisions (section 140(a)) under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.  The government created a mandate (essentially a regulation) for fuels to contain 5% biofuel content.  It's even more watered down than you think.  Each pump won't have a 5% blend, the mandate only requires there be a 5% content average across all fuels sold in Canada.  Some will have it, some will not.  



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Malice:  A cap on CO2 emissions, gradually lowered arbitrarily until we are a "net-zero emitter?"  What country does Ignatieff think were are living in?  Such blatant power over free-enterprise has never been exercised in this country.  Basically, CO2 emissions controlls = energy use controls = economic activity controls.  This sounds to me a little more than socialist.  There is no industry in this country, including Ethanol plants, that does not lead back to the production of CO2.  An exception might be nuclear plants, as long as no one working there drives to work, and they make deliveries by horse and cart.



You're missing the nuance here.  If you want the market to manage their emissions on there own, then a cap is needed.  It is common sense that some sectors, on the aggregate, will have an easier time making reductions than others which translates into that it will be more expensive for some than others.  The cap he speaks of is likely setting caps for individual sectors.  The cap is only required if you will allow firms to purchase 'offset' credits.  Keeping in mind what I wrote above, individual firms could sell credits (too any sector) for any reduction they achieve which is below their cap.  Firms who can't achieve their reductions can purchase these credits.  In the end, because emissions reductions are a zero-sum game, it doesn't matter who achieved what because the national goal would have been met.  This set up gives flexibility to industry, sends clear and consistant regulatory signals, and provides an economic incentive for firms who can go deeper, to go deeper.



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Malice: The terms 'polluter pays policy" and "major industrial emitters".  These belong in discussions about actual pollutants, mercury dumping. CO2 is only technically a pollutant, since the government changed it's legal definition to 'toxic' a few years ago so that it could legally control it's production.  Carbon Dioxide has nothing to do with actually toxic 'toxins', like, cyanide.



The government did not change the legal definition of 'toxic' a few years ago.  It used the same definition that currently exists for treating 'actual pollutants' in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.  Check out sections 64(a) and 64(b).



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Idiocy:  The shift can be revenue neutral while still having crippling economic consequences.  Shall the unemployed oilfield workers take up farming after everyone starts using Ethanol?  The kicker is that government revenues will be affected anyway, indirectly.  Once the majority of energy sources becomes more expensive or less efficient, there will be fewer profits from business for tax coffers, and less income available from tax payers.  Actually, under this scenario, revenue neutral would mean only the tax-payer looses out.



Again, you missed part of the nuance of his idea.  He suggests tinkering with already existing federal excise taxes applied to automobile fuels.  He wants to create a tax-differential between fuels that contain biofuels and those that don't.  This can be achieved by lowering the GST and the federal excise tax on some fuels and leaving them untouched for others.  This would create an incentive for consumers to switch to less harmful fuel.  

He's not talking about applying a carbon tax to industrial emitters.  If he was, the oil & gas and oil sands mining sectors would be worried due to the associated cost-drag on their industry.  In the end, it wouldn't be the industry paying the tax, it would be the consumer anyway.  Its well known that companies always pass on their tax costs to consumers.  However, I suggest that your assertion that this will cripple oilfield workers and that they would have to go back to their agrarian roots is a little too doomsday for me.



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Can't decide: CO2 emissions goal to be 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.  How?  Will we all move to other countries?  Will we just shut down most of our economy?  (more than half, remember Canada emits more CO2 now than it did in 1990).  This is not sustainable development -it is moving backward economically; negative development.  No environmentalist I have ever heard has made such an outrageous claim as what they would like to see, let alone as to what they think will really happen.



I have seen work that suggests that this is entirely possible.  You should look at the report recently prepared by the National Roundtable for the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE).  Their underlying assertion is that technology and the rate of technological change that the world is experiencing is what will drive the reduction in emissions.  The technological aspect of environmental policy in this country is always absent from discussions.  

In the end, Climate Change is very real but it is not solely an environmental problem.  It is also harder for people to understand it.  It's not as clear as say, tainted water or smog.  It is also an industrial and energy problem.  That is why when people put forth credible ideas worthy of discussion, it will always include an industrial and energy component to their plan.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2006)

If a tax advantage is to be granted to biofuel purchasers, then biofuel producers should be taxed for whatever hydrocarbons they consume.  I see no point to encouraging the use of hydrocarbons - either directly, or indirectly via thermal electricity generation plants - as part of a process to produce biofuels.  There is also this to consider: if biofuel production draws more energy from either the electrical grid or the oil supply than it returns, what is the point?  Biofuels make sense if a previously untapped resource is converted to usable fuels using formerly unexploited sources of energy.


----------



## begbie (22 Aug 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If a tax advantage is to be granted to biofuel purchasers, then biofuel producers should be taxed for whatever hydrocarbons they consume.  I see no point to encouraging the use of hydrocarbons - either directly, or indirectly via thermal electricity generation plants - as part of a process to produce biofuels.  There is also this to consider: if biofuel production draws more energy from either the electrical grid or the oil supply than it returns, what is the point?  Biofuels make sense if a previously untapped resource is converted to usable fuels using formerly unexploited sources of energy.



You have nailed the fundamental critque of biofuels perfectly.  And you also raise an intersting point how taxation might apply to the producers of ethanol and biodiesel if such a carbon tax was introduced.


----------



## big_johnson1 (22 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> *Malice*:  A cap on CO2 emissions, gradually lowered arbitrarily until we are a "net-zero emitter?"  What country does Ignatieff think were are living in?  Such blatant power over free-enterprise has never been exercised in this country.  Basically, CO2 emissions controlls = energy use controls = economic activity controls.  This sounds to me a little more than socialist.  There is no industry in this country, including Ethanol plants, that does not lead back to the production of CO2.  An exception might be nuclear plants, as long as no one working there drives to work, and they make deliveries by horse and cart.




Net-zero means that our absorption and our emission cancel out. Plants convert carbon dioxide into its base constituents: carbon, and oxygen. Plants grow on the ground. Canada, has lots of ground to grow plants on. Hence, more ground equals more absorption. When absorption equals emission, there is a *net-zero* emission of carbon dioxide by the country. It's pretty simple. It does not mean that we eliminate all emissions of CO2. And what is wrong with a little control over what is being spewed into the atmosphere? Do you pour motor oil down your drain? And maybe the industry needs a little push in the right direction, towards sustainable energy. Look how the asian auto market took advantage of high oil prices in the 70s to change how cars were made. If the government forces the industries to adapt, instead of being complacent, we may suffer a bit in the short term but we'll benefit in the long term.




			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> *Idiocy*:  You do not have to be an engineer to know that hauling a redundant engine is less efficient, not more efficient.  Hybrid vehicles will not achieve anything along the lines of what is being discussed.  Once again, these will become useful in the future, when the oil supply really does run out.



You also don't have to be an engineer to realize that the efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 20%, not including the loss of energy to the mechanics of the engine etc. Hybrid vehicles aren't the end-all solution but the fact is, a lot of the energy it requires to slow your car down is reused by converting it into electricity. Electric motors are still inefficient, due to a large amount of heat loss, but they are more efficient that IC engines in city driving, which is where most of todays SUVs and 8 cylinder trucks are driven. Why not use the hybrids NOW to extend the use of our oil supply? Do you look at your paycheck and think "Well, I'm not going to use my 10% military discount now, I'll wait until I don't have any money left to do so."? That's *idiocy*.




			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> *Idiocy*:  The shift can be revenue neutral while still having crippling economic consequences.  Shall the unemployed oilfield workers take up farming after everyone starts using Ethanol?  The kicker is that government revenues will be affected anyway, indirectly.  Once the majority of energy sources becomes more expensive or less efficient, there will be fewer profits from business for tax coffers, and less income available from tax payers.
> Actually, under this scenario, revenue neutral would mean only the tax-payer looses out.



Where in the article does it say that we're just going to instantly drop fossil fuels and take up ethanol? 

I'm sorry, but uninformed opinions cause problems on both sides of the issue. It doesn't have to happen all at once, but a gradual adjustment to more renewable energy sources and better living practices will benefit all in the end. Economically, it'll probably boost the country as new technologies are researched and old technologies are perfected or made more efficient to maintain their competitiveness. Ignatieff doesn't have all the answers (neither do I), but we've got to start somewhere.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2006)

Feral said:
			
		

> Net-zero means that our absorption and our emission cancel out. Plants convert carbon dioxide into its base constituents: carbon, and oxygen. Plants grow on the ground. Canada, has lots of ground to grow plants on. Hence, more ground equals more absorption. When absorption equals emission, there is a *net-zero* emission of carbon dioxide by the country.



Much of Canada's land mass is the Canadian Shield or Tundra, not exactly hospitable for large scale plant growth. What you see there is about all that the local ecology can support. Dense plant growth suitable to absorb the amount of CO2 on the scale being discussed here can only happen in massive plantations using the most advanced agribusiness techniques. Unless you are for a Manhattan Project to genetically engineer plants to utilize sunlight more efficiently, agribusiness involves lots of petrochemicals to push up yields.



> You also don't have to be an engineer to realize that the efficiency of an internal combustion engine is about 20%, not including the loss of energy to the mechanics of the engine etc. Hybrid vehicles aren't the end-all solution but the fact is, a lot of the energy it requires to slow your car down is reused by converting it into electricity. Electric motors are still inefficient, due to a large amount of heat loss, but they are more efficient that IC engines in city driving, which is where most of todays SUVs and 8 cylinder trucks are driven. Why not use the hybrids NOW to extend the use of our oil supply? Do you look at your paycheck and think "Well, I'm not going to use my 10% military discount now, I'll wait until I don't have any money left to do so."? That's *idiocy*.



Most alternatives to the IC motor sacrifice convenience for efficiency. Are you going to wait for a boiler to raise steam, or a fuel cell to reach operating temperature before you can even leave the driveway? How about a very noticeable lag between pressing the gas pedal and actually accelerating? While individual systems have specific strengths and weakness, overall the reason the internal combustion engine displaced electric and steam cars early in the 20th century was that drivers are not willing to sacrifice convenience. You may debate the morality or sensibility of such behaviour, but nevertheless, there it is.



> I'm sorry, but uninformed opinions cause problems on both sides of the issue. It doesn't have to happen all at once, but a gradual adjustment to more renewable energy sources and better living practices will benefit all in the end. Economically, it'll probably boost the country as new technologies are researched and old technologies are perfected or made more efficient to maintain their competitiveness. Ignatieff doesn't have all the answers (neither do I), but we've got to start somewhere.



Actually, all these things are happening all around us. Alternative energy is still a niche market, so these changes will creep up on us. In the mean time, as oil prices rise, the market also provides increasing incentives to produce more oil (reactivating old wells with new technology, harvesting oil sands, liquefying coal etc.), and since the oil industry is about a century and a half old, they have a huge technical and capital base to work from, compared to the guy in the basement lab scratching at the edges of the laws of physics. Coercion or conscription by government fiat is not needed at all, indeed by using tax dollars to support "approved" research and development, we can be forced down the wrong path (such as producing ethanol from corn, a net energy sink), while stripping away resources that could be used to support other ventures.

(_edit to fix quotes_)


----------



## TCBF (23 Aug 2006)

Amazingly, the real threats to democracy are through the misuse of environmental law, rather than criminal law.  If you want a real scary read, try The Fisheries Act.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Aug 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> try The Fisheries Act.



The fisheries act is the single most powerful piece of legislation in this country


----------



## begbie (23 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Coercion or conscription by government fiat is not needed at all, indeed by using tax dollars to support "approved" research and development, we can be forced down the wrong path (such as producing ethanol from corn, a net energy sink), while stripping away resources that could be used to support other ventures.
> (_edit to fix quotes_)



While I agree with this statement for sectors that are well entrenched and those that are enjoying a commodity boom thus overflowing with profits do not necessarily require government R&D funding to improve their production processes.  However, I disagree with this statement for fledgling industries such as those working on nanotechnology and biotechnology.  

My personal view on environmental issues and climate change is that the solution will lie mostly with technological innovation.  The government cannot, nor should not, attempt to massively influence consumer behaviour to solve these problems.  It can tinker at the edges but it would be impossible to dramatically change consumption patterns.  So, how do we get these changes.  We assume business as usual but insist on doing things better.  Firms can still make their widgets if they want to but you'll have to make them in a way that cause the least environmental impacts.  It's that constant improvement, through time, and through technological improvements that this can occur.

So, it should be policy that any government use their resources to act as a backstop for R&D should a lack of R&D occur in areas where promising achievements could be made.  Purists will say that if the market won't direct investment there, than there is no need.  However, markets have short term needs when environmental problems require long-term solutions.


----------



## big_johnson1 (23 Aug 2006)

To answer a_majoor, I'm not advocating converting large scales of Canada's wilderness to produce plants, I'm just saying that we have a large land mass that sustains a large plant population, and this plant population already takes a lot of CO2 out of the air. As for hybrids, I suppose I should have clarified that I mean gas/electric hybrids. I've never driven one, but I've taken gas/electric hybrid cabs a few times and I didn't notice any problems with the driving. Technologies like this that have become economically feasible ($25k-38k for Accord, Civic, or Camry hybrids), and I'm of the opinion that if you can afford a new SUV or truck, you can afford a hybrid (granted some people require certain vehicles for their jobs, but for others they have just become status symbols). The convenience factor doesn't seem to matter in gas/electric hybrids (I don't know anything about hydrogen fuel cells other than that they are being trialed on some BC Transit buses right now, so I won't comment on that), so the largest hurdle I see is getting the price down so that the technology is accessible for everyone. Many technologies aren't ready for commercialization, but given enough of an incentive to develop them, in a few years there could be several viable alternatives to fossil fuels, or at least suppliments to them.

I agree with Begbie in that we need to encourage R&D into areas not touched by the large corporations by providing funds to small scale university researchers and government labs, in order to stimulate interest in these areas. It's just hedging our bets, giving better chances of coming up with something worthwhile.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (23 Aug 2006)

Edward Wegman, Chairman of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics, supports M&Ms conclusions ... as quoted by them in today's National Post (emphasis mine):



> Anyway here’s our Op Ed entitled "Statisticians Blast Hockey Stick".
> 
> The recently released final report of a panel of three independent statisticians, chaired by an eminent statistics professor, Edward Wegman, Chairman of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics, has resoundingly upheld criticisms of the famous “hockey stick” graph of Michael Mann and associates.
> 
> ...



http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=789


----------



## exsemjingo (24 Aug 2006)

I'm not sure some of you fully realize what Ignatieff is proposing.  Perhaps you are cynical enough to know that if he becomes leader of the Liberal party and gets elected, there is a good chance that he will back away from his proposal and not actually implement it, as the Liberals under Chretien and Martin did with the Kyoto accord.
That said, I have evaluated his proposal at face value, along with it's natural extentions (ex. implications for coal, though it is not mentioned directly.)  Such restrictive measures and harsh taxes can only be destructive, in addition to being ineffective.  Canada cannot affect global warming on it's own, and other countries would never dream of ham-stringing their economies so profoundly.  That is why I have not addressed that aspect.
A punitive carbon tax would discourage, and eventually squash, the energy sector and all the economy with it.  He has also suggested taking unprecedented central control of the economy.

Slowly and gradually, I believe we will phase out fossil fuels, and technological innovations will even reduce CO2 emissions.  This will be realized many years into the future, since we do have the resources to continue using and producing hydrocarbons at the present level.  Ignatieff has proposed nothing of the sort.  He has in mind quick, arbitrary changes brought about by draconian measures.
The only ways I could come to terms his proposal were that either: A) he does not understand industry, the environment, or the economy, or B) His intent really is to ruin things.


----------



## big_johnson1 (24 Aug 2006)

We're never going to make everyone happy: it's not green enough for the hippies, it's too limiting for the rednecks, etc etc.. But even if Canada alone won't affect global warming, it's all about setting an example. Fixing this problem needs to start somewhere. Yes, a gradual phasing in of taxes and restrictions is a much better solution that coming down with the hammer suddenly and shutting off all CO2 sources. The biggest problem though is that the damage is done. CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere, and even if we stopped polluting completely today, we'd still feel the effects for a hundred years to come. I know this is largely political posturing in order to pull the green vote away from the Conservatives, and some of it hasn't been thought out properly and is only used for shock value. My payday analogy still stands: no one waits until they're out of money to use their discounts, just like we shouldn't shy away from moving towards renewable energy sources even though we still have ample supplies of hydrocarbons.


----------



## begbie (25 Aug 2006)

Feral,

I doesn't help matters when people refer to stereotypical names for people.  There's no need to call people hippies & rednecks.  It only forces people to retreat from the debate.

On another note, here is an article I found in the Ottawa Citizen spinning a different angle of his plan. 

Shared IAW the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

Ignatieff's green thumb
Publication: CIT - The Ottawa Citizen 
Page: A12
Section: News
Edition: Final

Blowhards have dominated Canada's public discussion of environmental policy. In one corner, politicians hide behind the Kyoto Protocol while doing nothing to implement it; in another, politicians dismiss global warming and remain unconvinced that a mass species die-off might be a bad thing. 

Into this noisy vacuum marches Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff, carrying a policy brief with some interesting ideas. 
The Conservatives have ceded the field on climate change and environmentalism generally. They've been honest about ignoring Canada's Kyoto Protocol commitments, which is an improvement over the last crew, but have yet to replace them with anything meaningful. For Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, climate change is a joke -- when it's not a leftist conspiracy against his province's petroleum industry. Meantime, methane and carbon dioxide keep billowing into the atmosphere while the ice caps trickle into the sea. 

Prudence advises preparing for the day when the last well runs dry and the last load of oily sand has been boiled. Canada has been blessed with petroleum; it makes sense to invest some of the windfall in the prosperity of 2106, not just of 2006. We need a plan. 
The ideas Mr. Ignatieff puts forward aren't new -- many will be familiar to his leadership rival Stephane Dion, who advocated them with little effect when he was Paul Martin's environment minister, and others are plundered from the Green party. They're still good ideas, waiting for the right person to take them up and make them reality. 

The predictable Liberal approach would be to announce a clean-fuels program consisting of a massive subsidy for corn farmers, in the vague hope that gross overproduction would make it cheaper to make ethanol out of all those cobs and kernels. Instead, Mr. Ignatieff wants to reward consumers for choosing low-emission fuels by cutting the GST on them and raising the tax on polluting fuels such as regular gasoline; he emphasizes that this would be a tax "shift," not a hike, with the goal of changing behaviour rather than increasing government revenue. 

He also advocates an emissions cap for large industries, with a trading system so that more efficient companies could sell unused capacity to less efficient ones. Administering such a system properly would be a challenge, but it's being done elsewhere; in principle, it's an effective way of imposing costs on greenhouse-gas polluters. 

The goal of a sound environmental policy should be to make sure that people and companies that consume non-renewable resources, or pollute, pay the associated costs instead of transferring them to other Canadians and the rest of the world. If they do, they'll have a financial incentive to cut back and find alternatives. 

Making this happen, especially without unfairly punishing resource extractors, won't be easy, but as Mr. Ignatieff says, it's imperative that Canada do it. Not just for soft abstract reasons like feeling good about treading lightly upon the earth, but for our own future prosperity.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2006)

"Setting an example" only works if the people who you are setting an example for either share your values or respect your stand, propositions which are explicitly false in the case of China, the world's biggest polluter. The Chinese will weigh the loss of the Canadian market for finished Chinese goods (do the the collapsing standard of living under Liberal energy policies) against the benefit of being able to purchase Canadian raw materials and energy resources relatively cheaply.

On the balance, I expect the Chinese are big fans of Ignatieff.


----------



## big_johnson1 (26 Aug 2006)

I didn't mean any offence by the "rednecks and hippies" comment. Just my attempt to break up the argument into two seperate camps. It's all too easy to stereotype these kinds of issues into a black and white argument, but you're right when you say there is a lot more depth to the situation. I extend my apologies to any hippies or rednecks that I may have offended.   

Great article Begbie, I agree.. I think that given the option and a slight incentive, most consumers will shift towards greener solutions. Granted, it might take some time, maybe even a whole generation before it fully catches on, but it seems that the past has shown that the only way for stuff like this to take hold is for it to become integrated into a culture or the identity of a country.


----------



## exsemjingo (26 Aug 2006)

Right on, a_majoor.  For the record, the Chinese have absolutely no plans to limit their CO2 emissions.  The best case scenario for our compliance to Kyoto, or to Ignatieff's ridiculous idea, is to send all of our industry there.

As far as this debate being a two sided argument, there is an objective measure: the market.  Even if everyone in Canada (had a stroke or something) voted for the Green Party and adopted a similar plan, they would still have to contend with the devastating economic consequences.
Finally, if Ignatieff wants to engage in political posturing, he can do it on AM talk radio.  Political platforms are for stating what you actually intend to do if elected, though the Liberals seem to have forgotten this completely.


----------



## Zarathustra (26 Aug 2006)

I'm a big fan of taxing pollution. *IF* we want to seriously reduce CO2 emissions and such, we need strong incentives. Not just talks, ads and challenge. Otherwise we will fail miserably, like we are failing now. People will not change their way of life for a few degrees over 100 years. We need motivation here and now, and taxes do that just fine. (I would dare saying that if some oppose it so badly it's because they know it would have an impact on their life.)

I do agree though that the short term impact on economy will be bad and that there's no point in going faster than our neighbours since we are such a small country.


----------



## TCBF (27 Aug 2006)

A Carbon Tax would just be another big stick to hammer Alberta (etc) with.  UNLESS: The tax was so configured that it would be spent on projects in the cities/municipal districts/counties in which the activity took place.

Note that I wrote the ACTIVITY.  If your oil sands upgrader is in Northern Saskatchewan and your head office is in Toronto, the money gets spent in N. Sask, in the area of the activity.

Otherwise, it's just rape.


----------



## exsemjingo (27 Aug 2006)

I was an Economics minor in college, and one of the courses I took was "Economics of the Environment."  
 The tried and true method in Free Market societies is to let the laws of Supply and Demand decide where these go.  If a resource is scarce, for example, and many people want to use it, the price will be high.  

Economics of the Environment is concerned with finding the appropriate allocation of resources by taking into account factors not obviously part of supply and demand.  

The inclusion of environmental impacts, or Externalities, in Economic decisionmaking has generally been successful in reducing pollution.  Hidden costs are flushed out, and dealt with appropriately.  Also, some pollution is always toll erated, since as more is removed, the removal become more expensive.

Carbon Dioxide emissions are a different case than other forms of pollution. For example.
It is possible to remove soot and dust from coal plants through certain equipment.  
It was possible to find alternatives to CFCs for aresol cans.  
It was possible to adjust vehicle designs to eliminate lead from exhaust.
It is possible to reduce the amount of wastes going to landfills through recycling.
It is possible to use cess-pools for dumping effluence.

In all of these, some small specific part  of the industrial process is removed, altered, or re-directed.  
 CO2 production, on the other-hand, is along with water the main  waste of fuel-burning.  That is why the discussion jumps right away  from releasing less into the environment to producing less to begin with.

This is where another fundamental difference arises.  In the above examples, the beginning problem saw 0% of the pollution dealt with.  With CO2, industrial processes are already designed for efficiency.  The percentage of the CO2 emissions being dealt with can be expressed as the efficiency of the process.  Even the most in-efficient processes are more than 0% efficient.

Ignatieff's policies, do not call for initial CO2 emission reduction, but rather for a reduction above and beyond the steps already taken.  A lot of good ideas have already been implemented, which leaves less room for improvement.  There is no individual component of production that can be changed or eliminated; the problem lies in the fundamental nature of production. 
 The goals he has set forth are unrealistic, the costs are unbearable, and the benefits uncertain at best.

This is why a Carbon Tax cannot work, and why one must never be implemented.


----------



## Zarathustra (27 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> CO2 production, on the other-hand, is along with water the main  waste of fuel-burning.  That is why the discussion jumps right away  from releasing less into the environment to producing less to begin with.



Maybe there are ways to trap CO2  and not release it in the air. But anyway, I don't see how it's relevant. If we want to reduce CO2 emissions and if reducing oil production is the only way to do that, then we need to reduce oil production. Taxes will help do that.



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> There is no individual component of production that can be changed or eliminated; the problem lies in the fundamental nature of production.



I don't understand this part. 



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> The goals he has set forth are unrealistic, the costs are unbearable, and the benefits uncertain at best.



I think we will fail to reduce CO2 emissions. Everybody is blaming someone else for it. 

The costs are bearable, just very unpleasant. Mankind can survive with less oil. It survived with no oil for quite long and will have to do it again in a few hundred years anyway. We have just grown addicted to comfort and we don't want to let it go. 

The benefits are uncertain, I agree. But there's a lot at stake, and personally I think we should play safe.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> The costs are bearable, just very unpleasant. Mankind can survive with less oil. It survived with no oil for quite long and will have to do it again in a few hundred years anyway. We have just grown addicted to comfort and we don't want to let it go.
> 
> The benefits are uncertain, I agree. But there's a lot at stake, and personally I think we should play safe.



So *YOU* are willing to spend several hours a day walking to find wood for your fire, drink untreated water from the St Lawrence river, do without fresh fruit and vegetables in winter, eat meat only once a week (if that), wait in place for hours or days until a paramedic can walk over to you when you are hurt....human civilizations in low energy eras was pretty nasty. I see your profile says you are from Montreal. Do you remember the Ice Storm? Have you considered what it would be like if those conditions lasted from November to March every year? 

Without a high energy civilization somewhere in the neighbourhood disasters like the Ice Storm or Tsunami would be never ending nightmares, with no possibility of rescue or help. Even Army.ca would not be possible without the resources of a high energy civilization.

As for your last line, *you* may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.


----------



## Zarathustra (28 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> So *YOU* are willing to spend several hours a day walking to find wood for your fire, drink untreated water from the St Lawrence river, do without fresh fruit and vegetables in winter...



It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> As for your last line, *you* may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.



That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive.



Considering that a huge portion (perhaps as much as 70% or more) of the global electricity budget is generated from thermal energy (burning coal, oil and natural gas) and all forms of transportation (road, rail, air and sea) are also highly dependent on fossil fuels (particularly liquid hydrocarbons) your breezy prediction is really out in left field. See this thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html and look up the percentages in the CIA World Fact book: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook



> That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.



Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors). Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones. 

Let the market work and you will see lots of solutions emerge. It worked in the 1860's (replacing whale oil with crude oil) and it worked in the 1500's (replacing wood and wood charcoal with coal), so why wouldn't it work now?


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2006)

>The best case scenario for our compliance to Kyoto, or to Ignatieff's ridiculous idea, is to send all of our industry there.

Which is what may happen on a case-by-case basis if it makes business sense.  We can tax pollution right out of Canada if we choose.  We won't have taxed it right off the planet, but we'll look good as a nation in statistical rankings against other nations.

There's no point taxing pollution in Canada unless we levy tariffs on goods coming into Canada based on our own evaluation of the producer's adherence to our imposed standards of environmental stewardship.  It would certainly motivate the Chinese if they were unable to compete effectively because we judged their pollution controls too lax.  Of course, it means higher expenses for the consumer at the end of the supply chain, regardless.

>We have other sources of energy.

Yes.  It's too bad that people with sufficient influence seem to be opposed to developing the sources.


----------



## TCBF (28 Aug 2006)

"That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time."

- So much for initiative and individualism.  Don't you know that "Every little bit helps"?


----------



## exsemjingo (28 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> It wouldn't be that bad. We have other sources of energy. There would still be electricity, cars, etc, they would just be more expensive.
> 
> That's the thing, if I reduce my emission and others don't, I'm wasting my time. It's a prisoner dilemma, we all have to do it or nobody will do it. I and friends were wondering once if there would be violence and wars over this some day. Maybe.



Oy! People think gasoline prices are high now, but Zarathustra seems not to mind, and maybe is willing to pay even more. A Carbon tax levied with the CO2 reduction goals presented above would bring economic ruin on us.  It is not just a matter of using energy more efficiently: we have been trying to do that all along.  For example the difference between cheap and efficient lightbulbs and the expensive candles and lanterns we used to use is that now everyone can afford light.  Previously, this was not so, and to be frank, life stunk.
As far as wars over energy, just ask the Anglo-Iranian petroleum company.
But I do not mean to insult you, we have Micheal Ignatieff for that...

Back to the focus of our thread.
When Ignatieff first announced his policy, it was over the radio.  I have not been able to find transcripts, but when he said "We should not use our atmosphere as a garbage dump" it was more like 
*"We should not use our atmosphere, which the Good Lord gave us, as a garbage dump."*
Is this what Ignatieff honestly believes?  Does his religious faith inform his environmental political policy?  Or is it more like the Lie-beral Liberal rhetoric of governments past?  
It sounds to me like he wants religious Canadians to vote for him, but at the same time, holds them in such contempt that he appeals to them with hollow sentiment.  Either that, or he knows who will oppose his policy, has pigeon-holed their other beliefs, so he has thrown in a veiled insult.

It is similar to the way Paul Martin tired to get David Kilgore's vote a few years ago by promising to send a token force to Sudan.  The implications of that one should have angered many voters than it actually did.  Canadian involvement in Sudan would have been an enormous undertaking (as has been shown in these forums already), but he cheapens the whole idea by pretending 100 troops would make a significant difference.  All this for a single vote!  It is futher disheartening to know that it took Kilgore a whole day to announce that his vote could not be bought with arrogant lies.
The Liberals should have lost the support of the African-Canadian community, the Military, and anyone else who was paying attention.
But it works because there are so many of these offensive little tidbits, and they go by quickly.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> you[/b] may choose to play it safe, but kindly refrain from attempting to conscript me, my family and friends, or forcing us to live a medieval lifestyle.




Count me and mine in on this also.


----------



## Zarathustra (28 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Let the market work and you will see lots of solutions emerge. It worked in the 1860's (replacing whale oil with crude oil) and it worked in the 1500's (replacing wood and wood charcoal with coal), so why wouldn't it work now?



I'm not familiar with those events. I don't think the market can work because polluting is free. There's no incentive to reduce your CO2 emissions. A tax would create an incentive and then solutions would emerge. The good thing is oil price is going up on its own, and we are seeing solutions already. But if it's not enough to meet the objectives we'll set for ourselves, then a tax would help us I think. 

I agree though that this tax should not increase the size of government even more, and there should be tax cuts elsewhere to balance for this new tax. Like you would pay more for your gas but you'd pay less tax on your income. 



			
				exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Oy! People think gasoline prices are high now, but Zarathustra seems not to mind, and maybe is willing to pay even more. A Carbon tax levied with the CO2 reduction goals presented above would bring economic ruin on us.



Do you oppose the tax or the reduction goals ? I support the idea of a tax, if needed, to meet our goals. But what exactly the goals should be, I don't know. Who really does ?

Remember that we will run out of oil at some point. So all the bad things you foresee will happen. Why not start moving toward a sustainable economy now, since we'll have to do it anyway ? I propose we start now because we don't know exactly what global warming will bring.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Count me and mine in on this also.



I'm telling you, wars !!


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> I don't think the market can work because polluting is free. There's no incentive to reduce your CO2 emissions. A tax would create an incentive and then solutions would emerge. The good thing is oil price is going up on its own, and we are seeing solutions already. But if it's not enough to meet the objectives we'll set for ourselves, then a tax would help us I think.





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Increasing taxes works on the demand side of the equation (higher prices reduce usage and drive consumers to seek lower cost alternatives), but since the price mechanism is taxation, *the money is siphoned out of the productive economy, energy producers see no incentive to move towards alternatives (and less money is availalbe for alternative energy investment anyway, since it is in the "General Revenue" pot of the government, not in the hands of individual investors).* Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones.


----------



## Zarathustra (29 Aug 2006)

I think your point is valid and that why I said income tax or other tax should be lowered as the carbon tax goes up. So no money disappears, the amount available for investment stays the same. But the incentive for that investment is higher. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Imprisoning us all through a coercive carbon tax means pulling revenues out of the productive economy and delaying the ability of investors to seek out new, more efficient process to replace the high cost ones.



Maybe that's where we disagree. I don't want to replace the high cost ones, I want to replace the polluting ones. I want to move the price of pollution up so that polluting energies become the high cost ones and get replaced by the market forces.


----------



## larry Strong (29 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> I think your point is valid and that why I said *income tax or other tax should be lowered as the carbon tax goes up*. So no money disappears, the amount available for investment stays the same. But the incentive for that investment is higher.


So if you cut taxes  to kept the tax base down, which programs are you going to cut?


----------



## Zarathustra (29 Aug 2006)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> So if you cut taxes  to kept the tax base down, which programs are you going to cut?



I wouldn't cut programs. If I collect 1$ of pollution tax I would reduce let's say income tax by 1$. Government spending would stay the same. But people would have an incentive to pollute less. (Instead of the current incentive to work less.)

If you think that in real life someone would claim the 1$ for a new program and we would never see the income tax reduction, you could very well be right. I'm not into politics or promoting Ignatieff here, I'm just discussing the theoretical benefits of a pollution tax. In theory it's a great tool I think. What use politicians would make of it, that I have doubts about too.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2006)

There are *no* theoretical benefits to a pollution or carbon tax, since it places a very large distortion in the supply/demand equation. The money which is being extracted from the consumer may change the demand curve, but since there is no corresponding benefit to the supplier, the research and development work that you believe will happen will not get done.

Having bureaucrats fund R&D through tax dollars will result in non starters like ethanol being pushed on the public, despite being a net energy sink, since the ethanol lobby is organized enough able to extract tax dollars from government. (The reason there are no ethanol plants prior to this is market forces would punish anyone foolish enough to spend private money on non competitive solutions).

This plan is a fantastic way to ensure energy shortages in the future, and I suppose if your goal is only to reduce pollution, then idle cars, factories and electrical generators will indeed fulfill your desire. I am unclear how mass unemployment and potential food shortages fit into this plan, however. Reducing income taxes *by itself * will put money in the productive economy, so the only effective plan is much simpler: cut government spending and income taxes.


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2006)

The very last thing we need to do for Ottawa, is encourage them with new "Tax" ideas. "Tax" = to take and NOT give back.


----------



## warspite (29 Aug 2006)

It is time we went to the end all be all solution... nuclear reactors in cars


----------



## Zarathustra (29 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> There are *no* theoretical benefits to a pollution or carbon tax, since it places a very large distortion in the supply/demand equation. The money which is being extracted from the consumer may change the demand curve, but since there is no corresponding benefit to the supplier, the research and development work that you believe will happen will not get done.



I don't understand. The purpose of the tax is to create that distortion. As we say in computer science, it's not a bug, it's a feature. 

The demand changes and the supplier has to adapt. Let's say gas price goes up to 3$. Everyone would switch to hybrid right away. The suppliers of car who produce the best hybrid cars would make a lot of money, those who don't adapt would die. The emissions of CO2 would go down a lot. There would be large incentive for everyone to use less gas or provide technology using less gas. 

I agree with you the bureaucrats managing that money is a back idea. I want the market to find the solution, but for that I need to create a distortion of the supply/demand equation since the current equation doesn't care about pollution. Polluting is free.


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2006)

Take a look at this link posted in another thread



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I came across this interesting link, apologies if it has already been posted.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM
> 
> I especially liked the part where the guy says that the power from the car could run your home.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> The demand changes and the supplier has to adapt. Let's say gas price goes up to 3$. Everyone would switch to hybrid right away. The suppliers of car who produce the best hybrid cars would make a lot of money, those who don't adapt would die. The emissions of CO2 would go down a lot. There would be large incentive for everyone to use less gas or provide technology using less gas.



You are missing the supplier half of the equation, since the government gets the money, the supplier has no incentive to change the way things are done, and indeed has lots of negative incentives to pack it in and stop producing. 

How will everyone switch to a hybrid "right away" when they only exist in limited numbers and are very costly to produce? The manufacturers will not have any real incentive to build them, consumers will have less money available to buy them and investors will be a bit cash strapped to support any company which is willing to step up to the plate. The real rational adaption to a tax induced price spike would be to reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels, but since fuel use underpins the industrial economy, high intensity agriculture, the production of medicine, chemicals, synthetic materials etc. there are consequences i.e. many medicines will become unaffordable, fewer crops can be grown and harvested or transported to market, public and private transit will become prohibitively expensive. Suppliers will be reluctant to step up since their customer base has been drastically narrowed, investment funds will be highly limited and they will fear arbitrary government fiat should they be successful in meeting the needs of the consumers.

In the end, your arguments sound a lot like the ones being advanced in the United States against Wal-Mart. Despite abundant empirical evidence that Wal-Mart is a net benefit to producers, consumers and employees, there exists a strong sentiment among the limosine liberal crowd that somehow Wal-Mart is bad for the consumers, producers and employees, and that the government should impose some sort of controls on the company. The extra costs that will lead to higher prices to customers, the layoff of employees and potential economic hardships of companies in Wal Mart's supply chain are blithely discounted, despite the very real hardships that would result.

The study of economics is very edifying, and I would suggest you look up the works of  Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, George Reisman, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who can explain these concepts in far greater breadth and depth than I can.


----------



## begbie (29 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The study of economics is very edifying, and I would suggest you look up the works of  Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Israel Kirzner, George Reisman, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who can explain these concepts in far greater breadth and depth than I can.



Of course, most of these works, if not all of them, fall in what economists call the 'Austrian' school of economics.  However, there are many other schools of economic thought out there that differ; sometimes dramatically.  The Austrian school falls very much in line with most Libertarian thinking (as I know it).  Hands-off government thinking and let the market handle everything.  But there are atleast 6 other schools of thought.  All of which is complicated and not for the faint of heart. There's a reason why its considered a social science and not a pure science like physics... there is just no consensus to be had among economists.  There's an old joke about a priest, an engineer, and an economist being stranded on an island.  To make a long joke, short, it's the economist who is the punch line.

This thread has been going back and forth over the merits of using fiscal policy to address a problem that is environment, industrial, and energy related.  No credible person would suggest that we all give up our current way of life.  Such an adjustment would not be bloodless and it's senseless to suggest that it would be (I once heard Jeffry Sachs say this).  So how do we address this problem without jeopardizing the status quo (economically speaking)?  My belief, and it's been touched upon in this tread, is that it's technology related.  Modifying our means of production through technological innovation is the way to go. 

So I say forget trying to change consumer behaviour, it's not going to work.  During the nasty heat wave we suffered in Ontario through July, I had my air conditioner on.  Only a few weeks ago I got my hydro bill for the summer to date and it was a mere 20 bucks more than usual.  That's not enough to get me to change my behaviour and I'd bet that most people would feel the same way.  20 bucks is 20 bucks but for me personally, it was money well spent so that I could sleep comfortably at night.  Unless you want to jack up the price of energy to levels where it would change consumer behaviour, nothing would change.  Besides, that's politically unfeasible.  No politician would jack up the price of energy like that.  It's not an option.


----------



## Zarathustra (29 Aug 2006)

begbie said:
			
		

> Modifying our means of production through technological innovation is the way to go.



I agree. But I think an artificial incentive for this is needed. There's no incentive to reduce pollution now because polluting is free. We could make it illegal, but I prefer a tax because it's more flexible.

Your point that a tax would need to be so high that it would be political suicide is valid. I think we will fail to reduce CO2 emissions. We like comfort, we dislike change, we all blame someone else for global warming, and it only works if a large portion of the population does it. I agree that a politician would have a hard time getting elected with a serious plan to cut down emissions. 

But if we wanted to succeed, I think a tax would be a great tool.


----------



## Zarathustra (29 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> How will everyone switch to a hybrid "right away" when they only exist in limited numbers and are very costly to produce? The manufacturers will not have any real incentive to build them, consumers will have less money available to buy them



The price of hybrid would go up, profit on hybrid motors would be higher than regular motors, and here's your manufacturer incentive. Consummer would have the same money if taxes were lowered elsewhere. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> The real rational adaption to a tax induced price spike would be to reduce the use of hydrocarbon fuels, but since fuel use underpins the industrial economy (...) there are consequences



This reduction is exactly what I'm trying to achieve. I agree that there would be consequences. What I propose is less efficient than free market. Since I distorted the supply/demand equation the ressource allocation is less efficient and wealth is reduced. Just like in your example about Walmart.

Where we differ I think is that I'm willing to accept those consequences while you and exsemjingo are not. I'm willing to accept them because of the unknown threats of global warming and because we will run out of oil anyway. Also, I foresee less negative consequence than you. Maybe I'm wrong. But life now is so easy, I'm totally willing to give green technologies a try. Let's rock the boat and see what happens. Honestly, I just see this as a big challenge for our brightest minds. Problem solving at its best. For those working on the transition, it will be great fun ! 
[/quote]


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2006)

Strictly speaking, we're never going to run out of oil.  It'll just become too expensive to burn.  I don't imagine for a second that 400 million people in the US and Canada alone are just going to collectively throw up their hands and wail because they can't afford to drive a hydrocarbon-fueled car anymore.  People will try alternatives as thresholds of tolerance for expense are reached, and the successes will be emulated.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, we're never going to run out of oil.  It'll just become too expensive to burn.  I don't imagine for a second that 400 million people in the US and Canada alone are just going to collectively throw up their hands and wail because they can't afford to drive a hydrocarbon-fueled car anymore.  People will try alternatives as thresholds of tolerance for expense are reached, and the successes will be emulated.



Brad is just stating in simple terms what I am trying to get at empirically: people will change their behavior and the market will adjust. 

Radical changes and enforced adoption of "green" technologies will lead to huge inefficiencies and the destruction of taxpayer wealth. The last time this sort of thing was tried in a big way was the adoption of nuclear energy; we now have massive plants which cost billions to refurbish, and left Ontario with @ 30 billion dollars in "stranded" debt, but there is no alternative since not only is the sunk cost so vast but something like 40% of Ontario's energy budget comes from nuclear generators. No rational market would have ever allowed such a state of affairs to exist, government regulation and subsidy did.



			
				Zarathustra said:
			
		

> The price of hybrid would go up, profit on hybrid motors would be higher than regular motors, and here's your manufacturer incentive. Consummer would have the same money if taxes were lowered elsewhere.
> {/quote]
> 
> Hybrids are a clever marketing ploy. The US government provided $800 million dollars the the "Big Three" to create hybrid cars, the most practical offering by Chrysler was a five passenger sedan which cost @$70,000 and was the equivalent to a $20,000 Intrepid. Toyota and Honda aggressively promote their hybrids, but actually make very few, since it is estimated each car is sold at a $20,000 loss to the company (a Prius costs @ $36,000 new here, so it tracks the US experience fairly closely). There are niche markets where a hybrid makes sense (military and security vehicles come to mind, since they require lots of on board electricity and may need to move silently for short distances), but those customers are willing to pay for the special features.
> ...


----------



## Zarathustra (30 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Brad is just stating in simple terms what I am trying to get at empirically: people will change their behavior and the market will adjust.



Yes, they will change their behavior because the price will go up, not because their behavior pollutes. That's why I propose to artificial set a price on pollution, to create market incentives for the people to change their behavior. 



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Radical changes and enforced adoption of "green" technologies will lead to huge inefficiencies and the destruction of taxpayer wealth. The last time this sort of thing was tried in a big way was the adoption of nuclear energy;



That's why I want a market solution, not a government solution. And don't want Ignatieff or others to decide what technologies we should use and what we shouldn't use anymore. I want the people to decide, based on their priorities, and I want companies competing with different technologies so that the best solutions can emerge. That why I propose a tax, it's flexible. 

Anyway, I think we have discussed this enough. There's no need for us to agree on these since we have no power over it. But it was a nice talk, I love arguing over economics. And let's hope there will not really be wars over this.


----------



## larry Strong (30 Aug 2006)

Well there might be wars over it, however I seriously believe the wars of the future will be fought over fresh water!!


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/tofino_water_060830/20060830?hub=TopStories


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2006)

Larry, don't forget that water is heavy and inert; you need lots of hydrocarbon energy to either distill it in place or transport naturally occuring fresh water to places where it is scarce! (That includes building pipelines or cannals, or shipping it around in supertankers....)

Yes indeed, it is _still_ all about the oil.........


----------



## larry Strong (30 Aug 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Larry, don't forget that water is heavy and inert; you need lots of hydrocarbon energy to either distill it in place or transport naturally occurring fresh water to places where it is scarce! (That includes building pipelines or canals, or shipping it around in supertankers....)
> 
> Yes indeed, it is _*still*_ all about the oil.........



And the *Oildrilling* industry better stay busy until I retire


----------



## exsemjingo (30 Aug 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think we have discussed this enough. There's no need for us to agree on these since we have no power over it. But it was a nice talk, I love arguing over economics. And let's hope there will not really be wars over this.



I agree.  Let's get back to slamming Ignatieff and the Liberal party he wishes to lead.  Does anyone have any new material about him for discussion?  Macleans had an article on his leadership; that should be good for some tangents.  
I won't go into detail just now, since I want to re-read it first, but my first impression is that he either loves his lofty platitudes too much, or has serious megalomaniac tendencies.


----------



## Zarathustra (31 Aug 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> I agree.  Let's get back to slamming Ignatieff and the Liberal party he wishes to lead.



*lol* Why do you dislike him so much ? In Quebec he's not very well known. Well, he's totally unknown actually... *lol* 

I worry more about Bob Rae. I'm afraid he will spend spend spend.


----------



## Osotogari (31 Aug 2006)

From a policy standpoint, the Liberal party of Canada's view (and for that matter CBC and MacLean's view as well) of the country is the sum total of surface area than can be seen by the observation deck of the CN Tower in Toronto.  Toronto likes the Kyoto accord, even though it would do nothing to reduce the number of smog days in that city, so that's why we were stuck with it.  The sooner it's gone the better.  I don't know what would be a good replacement but there's no point in syphoning off billions that could be used eleswhere.   

Depsite it's lofty goals, the Kyoto accord is nothing other than a wealth transfer scheme.  The fact that Russia, China, and India, are excluded and qualify as "developing" is ludicrous.  It is nothing more than an attempt by inefficient and/or corrupt states to extort or guilt money out of us.  

As an Albertan old enough to remember the ravages of the uber-Marxist Trudeau's NEP, Ignatieff's policies would be disastrous for the Canadian economy and unity as well.  It shows Ignatieff's complete lack of understanding of how the econcomy of the country operates, and verifies why the Libs are beneath the contempt of anyone who pays taxes, much less anyone who's ever worn the uniform. 

A pox on all their houses and those of anyone stupid to vote for them in future.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2006)

One thing I got out of the Maclean's article was the repeated reference to "group rights" and regionalism. Ignatieff is using/creating artificial divisions (since groups and regions are fairly arbitrary) to do the old Liberal "Divide and Conquer". 

+1 for Malice


----------



## couchcommander (5 Sep 2006)

Hrm, a new study going back through 800,000 years of ice records....



> .... Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.
> 
> The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow *shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.
> *
> ...



And, *like most of the other studies I posted*, this has nothing to do with Mann et al (once again, a couple of faulty studies out of hundreds means little to nothing...sorry...) 

So....precidence over 800,000 years of earths history enough, or is this still a natural phenomon that will just go away? If you want to wait, they're looking at some records that could go back 1.5 million years. 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Sep 2006)

One still has to buy the underlying assumption is that the Greenhouse effect _exists_; the argument is not whether concentrations of "Greenhouse Gasses" are increasing (although that is not a given, either), it is whether any "Greenhouse Effect" has been demonstrated in the models.

The propensity (in the "pro-Greenhouse" camp) to turn a blind eye to this logical trap is nothing new: if you theorize that warming is a function of the changes in the levels of certain gasses, you cannot use changes in those gasses to _prove _ (iby way of proxy) that the warming exists.  It is a circular argument that (perhaps) seems to confirm the watming argument, but actually is meaningless.


----------



## couchcommander (6 Sep 2006)

> *...When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change...*


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Sep 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> ...When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change...



Yes, that is my point: they start with the assumption of climate change (Hockey Stick), try to show covariation, and then claim that the covariation is proof of the original assumption.


----------



## couchcommander (6 Sep 2006)

le_coq_rapide,

There is no assumption about it. 

It's effects were theorized more than 30 years ago, explored through hundreds of models, and confirmed by cooberating evidence. 

This isn't "hey look, the earth warms evertime CO2 goes up"... (despite the fact that is a pretty good connection, unless you can demonstrate that raising temperatures causes C02 build up, enough to account for the increase?)... it was "Hey, I think C02 warms the planet, lets test this"..."hey, our models confirm this, with radiative forcings we can reasonably simulate the macroscale environment"..."hey look, ice samples over 800,000 years conform to this thinking, along with many many other observations, some of which couchcommander was nice enough to link to on page 6"...

The greenhouse effect has been thoroughly researched and validated. Even Mr.Sallows admits it (), he just questions human effects. 

From three pages back (there is actually a list of about 19 related papers, you should read them):



> CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES
> 
> *Infrared (IR) active gases, principally water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone (O3), naturally present
> in the Earth’s atmosphere, absorb thermal IR radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. The
> ...



http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL66903.pdf


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> It's effects were theorized more than 30 years ago, explored through hundreds of models, and confirmed by cooberating evidence.



Like the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice age....... :


----------



## couchcommander (7 Sep 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Like the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice age....... :



I couldn't agree more! What a great point!

The fact that the models correctly simulate these apparently "anomalous" periods is a great indicator we are on to something. 

Crowley, in _Causes of Climate Change over the Past 1000 Years_, makes note of the warming and cooling trends in the past millennium...



> Despite the different number and types of data and different methods of estimating temperatures, comparison of the decadally smoothed variations in each reconstruction (Fig. 1) indicates good agreement (r = 0.73 for 11-point smoothed correlations over the preanthropogenic interval 1005-1850, with P < 0.01). *Both records [and the Jones et al. ( 13)and Briffa ( 14) reconstructions] show the "Medieval Warm Period" in the interval is similar to 1000-1300, a transition interval from about 1300-1580, the 17th-century cold period, the 18th-century recovery, and a cold period in the early 19th century.* Even many of the decadal-scale variations in the Medieval Warm Period are reproducible ( 12), and both reconstructions [and ( 13, 14)] indicate that peak Northern Hemisphere warmth during the Middle Ages was less than or at most comparable to the mid-20th-century warm period (is similar to 1935-1965)....



With this, he compares his model:



> .... *Combining all forcing (solar, volcanism, GHG, and tropospheric aerosols) results in some striking correspondences between the model and the data over the preanthropogenic [pre-1850] interval (Fig. 4)*....



And he thus concludes:



> *One way to highlight the unusual nature of the late-20th-century warmth is to subtract all forcing other than CO2 (solar, volcanism, and tropospheric aerosols) and examine the late-20th-century residuals within the context of the previous 1000 years (Fig. 6). There is an unprecedented residual warming in the late 20th century that matches the warming predicted by GHG forcing. *Projection of the "Business As Usual" (BAU) scenario into the next century using the same model sensitivity of 2.0 Celsius indicates that, when placed in the perspective of the past 1000 years, the warming will reach truly extraordinary levels (Fig. 6). The temperature estimates for 2100 also exceed the most comprehensive estimates ( 50) of global temperature change during the last interglacial (is similar to 120,000 to 130,000 years ago)--the warmest interval in the past 400,000 years.



So yea, as I said, excellent point a_majoor. 

The fact that previous variations can be accounted for without anthropogenic forcings, but the current trend can ONLY be modelled if human influence is taken into account is really a great demonstration of how natural factors do not account for the present warming.



(yes, I know that's not what you were going for, but I couldn't resist).


----------



## couchcommander (7 Sep 2006)

Signs of a drastically changing climate, once again, nothing to do with Mann, et al...



> Scientist: Planet going back to dinosaur era
> 
> NORWICH, England (Reuters) -- *Global warming over the coming century could mean a return of temperatures last seen in the age of the dinosaur and lead to the extinction of up to half of all species, a scientist said on Thursday.*
> 
> ...



http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/07/climate.change.reut/index.html


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Sep 2006)

So the plants and animals are on the move are they?

And we're the intelligent ones?  ;D

"......They flock into the cities; love to receive and communicate knowledge; to show their wit or their breeding; their taste in conversation or living, in clothes or furniture. Curiousity allures the wise; vanity the foolish; and pleasure both....." David Hume, 'Of Refinement of the Arts' 1758.

And there you have the rationale for the city. Reason enough to keep all your eggs in one basket, and on low ground for that matter?  Or is it time to think about heading for higher ground and dispersing?  

Of course you could head over to Holland and get some hydraulic engineering skills under your belt.  Could be a good market for them.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2006)

And here is _absolute proof_ that human agency is involved:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4266474.stm



> *Mars 'more active than suspected' *
> 
> New images of Mars suggest the Red Planet's surface is more active than previously thought, the US space agency (Nasa) reports.
> Photographs from Nasa's orbiting spacecraft Mars Global Surveyor show recently formed craters and gullies.
> ...



Got to hand it to the big oil companies and the evil Republicans, they don't own the world, they own the Universe!


----------



## couchcommander (8 Sep 2006)

DAMN! I always new something was up with those "mars missions"... I mean, how did NASA get all that fuel huh??? Should have figured. Next, you'll see, they'll be sending someone OVER THERE to do their dirty work... then we'll know...

However, the climate does change on it's own, and CO2 levels go up and down and up and down, all natural like. 

The issue is the entire human influence since 1850 pushing CO2 levels "well outside their natural ranges" leading to environmental changes that would happen "at a faster rate than ever before in evolution"...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2006)

All those camp fires "forced" the climate.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1867936,00.html



> *Climate change caused civilisation, scientist says *
> 
> Alok Jha, science correspondent
> Friday September 8, 2006
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Sep 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060912.wxcowent12/BNStory/National/home's 

Margaret Wente - Today's Globe and Mail



> ...All the evidence says no. In fact, the notion that we can meaningfully alter the course of climate change any time soon is a piece of stupefying hubris. You might as well expect King Canute to turn back the tides...





> What might adaptation look like? Better flood defences and tougher rules about building on flood plains, for example. (Watch out, New Orleans.) Developing more drought-resistant crops and trees that will thrive in hotter weather, especially for the poorer nations of the world. If the polar bears (which aren't really drowning) are ingenious enough to adapt to climate change -- as they have done several times in the past few hundred thousand years -- maybe we are too.





> Ms. Cairncross has one other case to make. She argues that we desperately need to improve scientific literacy among the public, so that citizens will have a better understanding of environmental issues. I'll second that. Maybe we can include the politicians too.



Hydraulic Engineering and lake front property north of 60.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2006)

Some more commentary by Jerry Pournell over at Chaos Manor. Using light coloured roofing and paving material (to reflect solar energy ratehr than absorbing it) is probably the most useful and effective way of effecting local climate changes (and of course a large "cool spot" over North America could make for interesting changes world wide); but of course producing light coloured shingles, paint and paving materials would involve using energy and releasing CO2....... :

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view431.html#Thursday



> Russell Seitz called yesterday to tell me that Greenlanders brought in the first barley harvest in over 600 years. That's global warming.
> 
> Viking settlements in Greenland endured if not exactly thrived between approximately 1000 AD and 1300 AD. From 1330 to 1410 they dwindled and died. While there are more detailed accounts and explanations, the simple fact is that before 1325 it was warm enough to support the colonies, and after 1330 it got cold and they died.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2006)

More commentary:

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11408/an-inconvenient-truth-sos-from-al-gore.html


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Oct 2006)

From Matt Drudge, today.....



> GORE: CIGARETTE SMOKING 'SIGNIFICANT' CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING
> Fri Sep 29 2006 09:04:05 ET
> 
> Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore warned hundreds of U.N. diplomats and staff on Thursday evening about the perils of climate change, claiming: Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2006)

> Cigarette smoking is a "significant contributor to global warming!"



 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## couchcommander (1 Oct 2006)

It may be, I dunno. 

But considering this quote is from one source, newsmax, which also proudly sells bill O'Reilly products, I'm going to wait until someone officially comments on what was said. 

But it is amazing how many thousands of times this has already been quoted as fact in the conservative blogosphere, despite the fact that Newsmax doesn't even have a copy of the full address yet. 

But, since we're back to citing blogs, here's one that reviews a lot of what has been said. See the previous pages for studies backing up many of the claims. 




> I don't have the time or energy to refute every piece of disinformation, but here are some highlights, so you'll know what to look for the next time you discuss the subject with a conservative skeptic:
> 
> *The "Hockey Stick"*
> The so-called hockey stick study, by a team of researchers led by Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, showed a recent spike in global temperatures. *The study has become a conservative bete noire*, a white whale that righties have pursued all the way up to congressional hearings. According to Inhofe and other skeptics, the congressional investigation discovered that the hockey stick is worthless and thus that the entire edifice of climate science has fallen. *The congressional investigation did not, in fact, find that. They found small errors in Mann's statistical methods, but the main finding was that the basic results of the study -- the recent spike in global temperature -- are basically sound and have since been confirmed by numerous other studies using a variety of methods. The hockey stick is a conservative obsession, but it's ultimately a sideshow.* For more, see RealClimate here and here.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

CC:

http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/report/histry/histry.htm

When would you prefer we stopped global warming?

18,000 years ago when you could coast along the sea ice from Newfoundland to Bristol?  
12,000 years ago when Calgary and Toronto were under water and Montreal and Vancouver were under the ice?
9,500 years ago when the same conditions generally applied in those towns, although Montreal was now under water and the Bering Sea had been created 
8,500 years ago when the prairies and the St Lawrence lowlands were free and clear but there were still glaciers in the Fraser Valley, Hudson's Bay was under 2 km of Ice and there was one great fresh water water way from Great Bear Lake to Lake Ontario along the edge of the ice.
7,000 years ago, perhaps when there was still 1.5 km over Northern Quebec
or perhaps 5,000 years ago when the Sahara finally dried out and lost its lakes, alpine glaciers and foothills, grazing economy?

Or perhaps you would prefer the notion that for good or ill, left to her own devices, Mother Nature (seeing as how Gaia is more acceptable than God these days) she would already have us heading into another Ice Age?

The problem that I have with too many of those involved in the debate is that they are ready to chastise those nasty religious fundamentalists for their peculiar views on evolution and yet they are willing to assert a static world when it comes to climate.

The corollary to evolution is change.  Full stop.  ;D

People don't want to accept that randomness is.  That is too frightening.  Almost as frightening, perhaps moreso, are uncontrollable events.  For the modern rationalist that can't bring themselves to believe in God - good, bad or indifferent - it then becomes easier to believe that somebody or something must be to blame - and if only we can find the right virgin to sacrifice then all will be right with the world.

You may be partly right.  We may actually be getting to the point where we do know enough about our environment to know what causes problems.  We may even have the ability to control our environment and effect stasis.  But that would require man-made intervention and result in the ultimate unnatural environment.

PS OT - this is Jack Layton's problem with Afghanistan.  He can't bring himself to believe that there is nobody in charge in the tribal areas.  Ultimately those anarchical tribal areas stretch from the foothills of Pakistan to the Red Sea, across the Suez Canal to the Atlas Moutains and the Atlantic Ocean.  The great joke of history may be that the Ottomans lasted as long as they did by convincing the Europeans that they were actually in control.

PPS - could somebody contact me and instruct me how to post images into the body of the text.  I can't seem to get the image function to work for me.

Cheers.


----------



## couchcommander (1 Oct 2006)

Let the earth take its natural course until we have sufficient knowledge to shape the macro climate to our wishes without devastating consequences. In other words, for right now, our goal should just be not to screw up the environment by introducing a bunch of unnecessary and climate changing human waste.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

CC:

I apologize for the "premature emission".  I hit the post button before I was ready.

My point is that if we "let the earth take its natural course" we are just as likely, if not more likely to end up dead like dear old Uncle Homo Erectus and Auntie Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. 

By some estimates the environmental catastrophes that occured around 10,000 years ago while all that ice was melting reduced Homo Sapiens Sapiens to a global population of 5000 (based on genetics and language) of which as few as 80 may have been living on the North American side of the Bering Sea.


----------



## LakeSup (1 Oct 2006)

You can find lots of info on the net economic benefit of tar sand oil and even shale oil in the Colorado Utah area (even more energy locked up in a 3 state area than in Alta but the net is it takes more NET energy to extract it than it yields).  We tend to neglect the effects of huge amounts of water going into the Ft McMurray project.  The BIG story of the future is not oil....it is WATER.  Do some reading about water shortages in the world and learn.   Per Sharon, the 1967 Israeli War was more about water rights than anything else.   Oh, global warming will raise ocean levels, all right but that is salty, non potable water (desalination is expensive and energy intensive)....the groundwater is what is depleting, as well as problems due to dam building and improper irrigation.   If you have no oil, life gets tough and wars start....if you lose WATER, life ends.  Read about it.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

> (desalination is expensive and energy intensive)....



Desalination is cheap and amenable to solar solutions.  Desalination happens every minute of every day around the world wherever rain falls.  And rain hasn't stopped falling.  It just isn't falling where it used to.

Solar stills are immensely simple.  To take sea water into a solar still would solve the problem - it just requires surface area and no pumps.

Most deserts of the world, the Sahara included - and Israel for that matter,  the problem is less a lack of water than a surfeit of heat.  The water available in the atmosphere is too hot.  If the air is cooled it can release water - frost forms in the same deserts and snow falls at high altitudes.

Sorry - the world isn't coming to an end.

It is changing as it always has.

We have to adapt - as we always have - or die - as many have.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2006)

Capping the volcanos and draining the earth's swamps and wetlands will certainly do far more for climate change than Kyoto:

http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/11408/an-inconvenient-truth-sos-from-al-gore-page2.html



> Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
> 
> They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
> 
> When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.



Of course, I suspect that capping the volcanos, eliminating all ruminant animals, draining all the swamps etc. might have a few adverse effects on the ecosystem as well..........


----------



## couchcommander (2 Oct 2006)

> Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — *nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man*.



Not inconvenient at all. Of total CO2 emissions per year, yes indeed. However, natural emissions are by and large balanced by what are called natural sinks.

Thus unfortunately for us, the 5% input from human sources is enough to throw this completely out of whack, and actually increase the concentration of CO2 by more than 30%!

"The observed increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from about 280 ppm in the preindustrial era to about 364 ppm in 1997 has come largely from fossil fuel combustion and cement production" - Friedli et al ., 1986; Hansen et al. , 1998; Keeling and Whorf , 1998

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL66903.pdf

With that we start see a number of positive (positive as in positively correlated, not good) feed-back loops, including increasing amounts of water vapour. 



> All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology



Yup, plus and minus a bit depending on who you talk to, but regardless, with that you get about... 0.3 to 0.6 degree increase. 



> When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.



False. Humans are responsible for .1%-.5% of greenhouse emissions when water vapour is put into the mix. However, as I stated above, this is more than enough to throw off the balance and increase the concentrations of important greenhouse gases so dramatically, both directly and indirectly, that in actual fact humans, as several reports I cited pages back pointed out, are actually responsible for 50%-80% of the changes in our climate depending on when precisely you are looking. 

Car and driver maybe isn't the place for reliable analysis...

Kirkhill,

Indeed the earth changes quite drastically naturally. And indeed, when that happens, we either adapt or die. However, we don't need to exacerbate the situation in an unhelpful direction. Once we know enough so that we can modify the macro scale environment to suit our needs, sure. Right now, we know enough so that we can tell we're messing something up, but we certainly don't know enough to start playing with it. 

It's like a luser with a computer. They know when they've messed it up, but they certainly don't know how to make it work. 

*edited to be much clearer*


----------



## exsemjingo (2 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Desalination is cheap and amenable to solar solutions.
> Solar stills are immensely simple.  To take sea water into a solar still would solve the problem - it just requires surface area and no pumps.
> 
> Most deserts of the world, the Sahara included - and Israel for that matter,  the problem is less a lack of water than a surfeit of heat.  The water available in the atmosphere is too hot.  If the air is cooled it can release water - frost forms in the same deserts and snow falls at high altitudes.
> ...



Oops, you still have to transport the water from the ocean to where your crops are.  That can get expensive.  It is true you could also make rain fall in the desert with a large enough air-conditioner, but once again, too expensive to be economical.

The problems we are facing to not have to do with the annihilation of our species, but with maintaining our economy and our society near or at present levels.  There will definately be water shortages in the near future, but our water will not dry up until there is none
left and we all die of thirst.  A more likely scenario is that the price of water will increase until North American agriculture, especially in the American West and Mid-west, will no longer be viable.  We won't all starve, we'll just be poor and have to import food from elsewhere.

Al Gore's recomendations would not be catastrophic.  They would be damaging economically, but they would not bankrupt us comepletely.  Kyoto is a little more severe, but it would not mean complete economic ruin either.  We've all been blasting them, however, because they would do more economic harm than environmental good.  
These are bad ideas, but it's still all marginal.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2006)

ex:  Correct. You do still have to move the water - or else move the people.  My point exactly.

Pay me now or Pay me later. TANSTAAFL. Choose your cliche.  If you want to spend money trying to achieve a stasis that has never existed then feel free to do so. I prefer to keep my money in my pocket so I can move to high ground when the time comes.

To both you and CC.  There is no point of control for all of these analyses. There is no baseline from which you can extrapolate change and infer cause because we haven't a clue what mechanisms were acting to what degree that generated the numbers that you see at any given time.

By some estimates global warming occurred at the rate of about 27 Fahrenheit degrees in less than a decade. That occurred between the Latest Glacial Maximum of 18,000 years ago and the onset of the Younger Dryas of 12,000 years ago.  See levels rose by up to 13.5 in a similar period about 14,200 years ago. Then they rose another 7.5 m in a burst about 11,500 years ago.  And again 6.5 m about 7,600 years ago.  That last one would have been about the time that the Black Sea was breached.  Tell me again about a rise of a degree in a century and half a meter or sea level rise.

While you are at it - can you tell me when the next el nino is due, where it will form, how intense it will be and how long it will last?  We have one on the rise just now.  It should be easy enough to predict the next one. 

In actual fact there isn’t as much ice left now as there was then so the prospect of catastrophic flooding is reduced from that time.


----------



## couchcommander (2 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> To both you and CC.  There is no point of control for all of these analyses. There is no baseline from which you can extrapolate change and infer cause because we haven't a clue what mechanisms were acting to what degree that generated the numbers that you see at any given time.



See that's the point though, we do have a fairly good idea. 

Many methods can tell us what the temperature was, sea levels, atmospheric composition, sun activity, etc.etc., not to mention you can conduct labratory experiments to determine the radiative influence of various gasses and aerosols. So once again, no, they aren't just pulling these numbers out of a hat, there is decades upon decades of supporting research.

We know that certain greenhouse gases are IR active, using that information, we can predict what should happen when these levels go up and down, and then we find that observations of past climate change are in line with these prdictions. Yes, there are other causes of climate change, but it's been rather consistently found that when CO2 goes up or down significantly, you get a glacial or interglacial period - no this isn't just a positive correlation, there is a causative link in the gases IR absorbtion and re-emission. 

And it's not so much sea levels I am worried about but the disruption to the weather patterns that concerns me... mostly because I like where I live, I don't want it become a waste land _because of my actions_


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2006)

CC - we are going to dance around this Maypole forever aren't we? ;D

You believe there is a reference point.  I don't.

You want things to stay as they are.  I'll be surprised if they do. 

"Geologists calculate that nearly 5 per cent of the earth's surface - an area of around 25 million square kilometres or 10 million square miles - has been swallowed by rising sea levels since the end of the Ice Age. (Glenn Milne, Department of Geology, University of Durham). That is roughly equivalent to the combined areas of the United States (9.6 million square kilometres) and the whole of South America (17 million square kilometres).  It is an area almost three times as large as Canada and much larger than China and Europe combined." (Graham Hancock: Underworld).

I am willing to bet that the Bedu with their tents have a racial memory of their city dwelling brothers having to pick up and move every millenium or so as their cities ran out of water, were flooded, swallowed by earthquakes, covered by volcanoes or flattened by meteors.  A lot easier to replace a tent and a couple of camels.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Oct 2006)

Nevermind.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Nevermind.



 ;D


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Oct 2006)

What's that for?  I had a reply for you, but on second glance it did not look right, so I deleted it.  
Since you are interested in what I have to say, here it is:  I do not know why you concern yourself with such a large time-frame.  It is really irrelevant to us now to consider what the climate might be like 100, 200, or 1000 years from now, but that is what you seem to be focusing on.  
The point of this thread originally was to show how Al Gore's arguments cannot even stand up on their own terms, since they are based on lies and half-truths.  Looking at a time-frame so large as to loose all relevance is exactly the practice this discussion meant to discredit.  

These Lobbyists have a very real intent, even though their ideas are pie-in-the-sky.  If this discussion looses sight of what is relevant here and now, it becomes just a lot of hot air.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Oct 2006)

I don't quite understand what you mean, are you trying to argue that global warming isn't something that we should be concerned about because it won't affect us? In which case I disagree, see the last 4-5 pages, its very relevant to us in our lifetimes, or are you trying to say we shouldn't be that concerned with natural changes the earth is going to go through over the next few millennia, in which case I'd largely agree.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Being unaware of your deleted post I assumed the Nevermind post was an "Its not worth the effort" statement.

I was agreeing.


----------



## couchcommander (3 Oct 2006)

Damn people who just won't see reason....


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2006)

There is a price for everything (emphasis in origional post):

http://www.dustmybroom.com/?p=4650



> *So much caring, so little compliance*
> Jay Jardine on climate change:
> 
> I would concede right off the bat the fact that the earth is warming, that the consequences could be disastrous and that human action is responsible for it. It is 99.999% likely that the person you are debating is a statist and is urging government action to reverse or mitigate the process. Put him on his heels by asking for specifics of his Plan - how long it will take to implement, how much it will cost, how will success be measured, who will implement it and how confident he is that the Right Solution will be put in place - on time - in spite of the inevitable political compromise along the way. It is far easier to cast doubt on the competence of a democratically-driven government process than to cast doubt on reams of scientific data and scholarly journals.
> ...



One trillion dollars would pay off our national debt and the unfunded liabilities of Canada (CPP, government pensions etc.), which should give you some perspective of what is being demanded. Leaving everyone in poverty (except for the people who already have made it; this is the mark of the Silver Spoon socialist set), has vast long term direct and opportunity costs as well.

And while we do this the sun continues to warm........


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand what you mean, are you trying to argue that global warming isn't something that we should be concerned about because it won't affect us? In which case I disagree, see the last 4-5 pages, its very relevant to us in our lifetimes, or are you trying to say we shouldn't be that concerned with natural changes the earth is going to go through over the next few millennia, in which case I'd largely agree.



I am trying to argue that I accept that global warming is occurring, has occurred and will occur.  The same is true for global cooling but right now the trend seems to be a warming one. Stipulated.

I am also arguing that because we are on a roller coaster replete not only with known knowns, assumed knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns (pace Rumsfeld) that I am not yet convinced that there is a baseline of comparison from which to infer cause and effect well enough to definitively state conclusions.  (If Rumsfeld couldn't figure out the actual situation in Iraq what makes you think we can figure out the realities of global change?   ).

Further I am arguing that regardless of what we do or might have done change will happen and based on the historical record and the near term prehistorical record (in a 4.5 billion year record of the planet 18,000 years is an "augenblick" - blink of an eye) it can be rapid and catastrophic.  Far beyond any of the calamities that make the 6 O'Clock news.  More to the point such events are unpredictable - precisely because we don't know enough.

Far from believing that global warming is something we should be concerned about I believe it is something that we should be concerned about as we should be concerned about any other potential disasters.  As such we should prepare to mitigate the effects.

This is, ultimately I think, where we have our disagreement.  I would rather horde resources to deal with actual effects as they occur rather than spend them on speculation that they may prevent some calamitous events.

I am quite willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the name of cleaning up the environment - as long as the cost is not prohibitive.  I am still not convinced that taking such steps will prevent catastrophes.

Having said all of the above - I have to give the Liberals credit.   I believe that the party of MacKenzie-King, prevaricator extraordinaire, prevaricated long enough to allow us to dodge the bullet.  In this instance I am talking about the economic bullet.  With the delay the Europeans have seen that meeting targets is hard if not impossible.  China and India have now moved into the anti-Kyoto column properly (they always were but were given a pass as was Brazil).  They US has demonstrated and is demonstrating that non-Kyoto technologies and incentives are moving them ahead of us.  Strategic imperatives are driving the search for non carbon fuel sources.  And nobody wants to send free money to Russia just because their economy has collapsed to such an extent that their industries are no longer in business.

The world of 2012 looks a lot different than the world of 1992.

The risks of natural disaster however, IMHO, remain undiminished and should concern us.

Now, next question, although you are not concerned about sea level rise, should we spend our billions on new cars and nuclear reactors,  windmill farms the size of Nova Scotia, or build New Orleans and Morden, Manitoba style levees and ring-dykes round the existing cities and islands like the Maldives, or should we start abandoning the low lying parts of the cities and move to higher ground?  We could also consider building on stilts and commuting by boat (a personal favourite of mine   )

Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

PS I consider myself rational if not reasonable.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PS I consider myself rational if not reasonable.  ;D





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> We could also consider building on stilts and commuting by boat (a personal favourite of mine   )



And I thought your idea to commute by hang gliders was way out there............


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Hang gliders are Plan B.


----------



## exsemjingo (3 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I don't quite understand what you mean, are you trying to argue that global warming isn't something that we should be concerned about because it won't affect us? In which case I disagree, see the last 4-5 pages, its very relevant to us in our lifetimes, or are you trying to say we shouldn't be that concerned with natural changes the earth is going to go through over the next few millennia, in which case I'd largely agree.



What I mean is that we shouldn't be so arrogant as to think we control the earth's climate through greenhouse gas production.  As far as being concerned with climate changes, these occur whether we pay attention to them or not, and the time-frame for those is so large that it is not even worth thinking about.
I started this thread because it looks like the "solution" proposed by certain environmentalist advocates is actually worse than the "problem". 
As far as climate change relevance in our lifetimes, well, the terrorist threat then is very very relevant, overpopulation is very very very relevant, etc.
Personally, I think that even now Nuclear Winter is a more likely scenario than catastrophic global warming.
But that's another thread.
Carry on....


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2006)

Follow this link to see more on the solar connection: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/04/ncosmic04.xml


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2006)

The supposed solution _is_ the problem:

http://www.conservativelife.com/blog/index.php/canada/2006/10/03/environmental_groups_should_start_playin



> *Environmental Groups Should Start Playing Both Sides*
> 
> The problem with most environmental groups is that their senior membership consists of people who also advocate for other social agenda items. As such they have become mouthpieces for particular political ideologies rather than their intended cause. Case in point...
> 
> ...


----------



## Klc (4 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> PS I consider myself rational if not reasonable.  ;D



As I see it, more rational AND reasonable than many with the opposing view.

BTW, Thanks for articulating what I have been trying to explain to people for some time.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Oct 2006)

And stopping global warming by burning vast amounts of jet fuel:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/inuit_elders_and_environmentalists_fly_to_ottawa_in_jets_to_warn_about_glob/



> *Inuit elders ("and environmentalists") fly to Ottawa in jets to warn about global warming*
> Posted by Joel Johannesen
> 
> I can only presume that the officially venerable and always credible-sounding and appealing to the emotions Inuit “elders” arrived in Ottawa from the frozen (-- whoops—melted!) north in high-powered jet aircraft carrying few people besides them and their weighty briefs.
> ...



_edit to put in correct link (whoops!)_


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2006)

Look at the implications of this:

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/



> *Do I detect the first tiny rumblings of a paradigm shift in climate-change science?*
> 
> "The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]
> 
> ...



Of course, you could believe that human beings are somehow responsible for creating supernova in the far reaches of the galaxy......


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2006)

> Of course, you could believe that human beings are somehow responsible for creating supernova in the far reaches of the galaxy......



By grief.  Will George Bush stop at nothing?


----------



## Retired45 (7 Oct 2006)

People there is still no coloration between green house gases and global warming. Scientists are still trying to figure out if the human element is contributing to what we call the “problem”-leading leading climate scientists around the world believe that it is a natural phenomena that occurs in cycles approx every 20-40,000 years. Three million years ago there was warm fauna plants growing in the artic, 40,000 years ago Greenland was all “Green” I’m sure that our ancestral cave dwellers 40,000 years ago didn’t drive cars or heat there caves with natural gas did they? What caused the climate to change? I’m sure a herd of Mammoths passing wind didn’t cause it. 

As for smog, scientists at CSU (California State university) have been studying the Los Angeles smog problem for years and they come to the conclusion that the smog created around the city is “static” it doesn’t move up into the upper atmosphere, because its to dense and has no correlation to the green house gas problem.

 Some people are just alarmists and Al Gore is one of them, he’s trying to take his 15 minutes of fame to one hour.


----------



## exsemjingo (7 Oct 2006)

Hear hear, retired45.


----------



## youravatar (9 Oct 2006)

Watch out here it comes.

Global warming is here. There's no debating that point what so ever. YES the earth does go through natural cycles of heating and cooling. YES there are natural ways in which the earth heats and cools itself. But all research shows that the earth is waming well beyond what was even the "Medival Warm Period" which was so aptly debated at the beginning of this thread. 

Educate yourselves please. There is no one size fits all solution to global warming. Yes we need to start investing now in renewables. The action we take now will determain how bad this will be in the future, and it will get bad. Very bad. 

Just please go to these sites. They have some valubale information on them. Like saving money? There's some stuff on there about it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change 
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/ 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/climatechange/ 
http://www.climatehotmap.org/ 
http://www.climatecrisis.net/   <--- Al Gore's Site.  : Thought i'd throw this out there.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2006)

Wikipedia, David Suzuki, the CBC and Al Gore........

Now there's some research for you.


----------



## youravatar (9 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Wikipedia, David Suzuki, the CBC and Al Gore........
> 
> Now there's some research for you.



I put those up because those were the most accessible to the public.


----------



## Klc (9 Oct 2006)

I think what kirkhill was getting at was that they aren't exactly known for their reliable and unbiased factual information...


----------



## couchcommander (9 Oct 2006)

Take a look at the dozens of peer reviewed scientific papers I've posted over the last few pages, especially you Retired45 (i.e. ""Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change", from a report on page 10). 

As for this latest development, I'd actually heard of it a little bit before it was posted here. I eagrly await its review and to see if its conclusions stand up to scrutiny (or if the conclusions in the blog are even the ones came to in the paper, I seem to remember the other report about it I read mentioning something about there being nothing inherently contradictionary about this and CO2 based global warming).


----------



## couchcommander (9 Oct 2006)

Well I finally got off my butt and looked at it. 

The recent (Oct 6.) paper mentions nothing about global warming. It just implies that cosmic rays have a significant role in cloud formation. Cool.

....That says nothing about CO2 and present warming.... 

For that, we move onto the baseless conclusion papers, namely those quoted by the "greenspin" blog as concluding:

"Their results suggest that temperature fluctuations over the past 550 million years are more likely to relate to cosmic-ray activity than to CO2. By contrast, they found no correlation between temperature variation and the changing patterns of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Interestingly, the very paper this is quoted from specifically says that this this is *only valid over multi-million year time frames - not of the few hundred or thousand year time frame we are looking at with global warming. *

Interestingly, their conclusions were *quickly refuted* by Stefan Rahmstorf, Denton Ebel, David Archer, Otto Eugster, Jean Jouzel, Douglas Maraun, Gaving Schmidt, Jeff Severinghaus, Andrew Weaver, and Zim Zachos from such places at the Nasa Center for Climate Systems Research, the Museum of Natural History and the Swiss Academy of Sciences in a letter from the Goddard Institute of Space Studies. 

Specifically, they conclude that:



> "Two main conclusions result from our analysis of _Shaviv and Veizer(2003)_. *The first is that the correlation of CRF and climate over the past 500 million years appears to not hold up under scrutiny.* Even if we accept the questionable assumption that meteorite clusters give information on CRF variations, we find that the evidence for a link between CRF and climate amounts to little more than a similarity in the average periods of the CRF variations and a heavily smoothed temperature reconstruction. Phase agreement is poor. The authors applied several adjustments to the data to artificially enhance the correlation. We thus find that* the existence of a correlation has not been convincingly demonstrated. *
> 
> Our second conclusion is independent of the first. Whether there is a link of CRF and temperature or not, *the authors' estimate of the effect of a CO2 doubling on climate is highly questionable*. It is based on a simple and incomplete regression analysis that implicit assumes that climate variations on time scales of millions of years...for much higher CO2 levels than at present, and with unaccounted causes and contributing factors, can give direct quantitative information about the effect of a rapid CO2 doubling from pre-industrial climate. *The complexity and non-linearity of the climate system does not allow such simple statistical derivation of climate sensitivity without a physical understanding of the key processes and feedbacks. We thus conclude that Shaviv and Veizer (2003) provide no cause for revising current estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2." *



http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/RahmstorfArcher.html

*To paraphrase, they did not actually demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between cosmic ray forcing and climate change, never mind a causative link, and secondly their modeling of the effects of CO2 in comparison was poorly done to the point of being useless. *

I find this really funny though. For the last however many pages you (the royal "you") have been deriding the research I've presented as not being able to demonstrate causation - without actually presenting much in the way of refuting evidence - yet you're willing to jump on a paper that fails to even do a good job showing correlation. Is it simply because that this one paper has a conclusion that you support? 

In the end though, it is not really challenged that solar variation and the such has had a significant impact on our climate. The truth of the matter is however, that says nothing about the effect that CO2 has.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I find this really funny though. For the last however many pages you (the royal "you") have been deriding the research I've presented as not being able to demonstrate causation


Ahhh, the irony ...



> without actually presenting much in the way of refuting evidence


Are you forgetting or ignoring the Wegman report I linked to a few pages ago (that's Edward Wegman, Chairman of the US National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Theoretical and Applied Statistics)?

Here it is again: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf  (if you're too lazy, just check out "Findings" and "Recomendations" of the Exec. Summary on Pages 4 & 5).

Or read the fact sheet: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf.

Or read the WSJ Editorial: http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/07142006_1990.htm 

>>They do NOT have a statistically valid model: regardless of how many "peers" review the data and/or the methodology and/or provide "supporting" evidence, the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day the global warming model is MEANINGLESS.



> yet you're willing to jump on a paper that fails to even do a good job showing correlation. Is it simply because that this one paper has a conclusion that you support?



Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## couchcommander (10 Oct 2006)

I'll repeat what I said before, I'm willing to accept that Mann et al. is flawed.... and? It's one paper, just one. I'm actually surprised more haven't been outed as having faulty data. Go check how many of the 30 or so other papers I cited rely on Mann to make their point (none), yet they all say the same thing, along with hundreds if not thousands of others. 

I'm interested though... why is it you trust Wegman and not Mann? Not that I am defending one or the other, but I'd like to know what type of source I need to present to have you find it credible. 

In the end though, its a side show, a song and dance, possibly even a jigg. 

So yes, as I said, without much in the way of refuting evidence. 



> Physician, heal thyself.



Thousands of peer reviewed, scientific papers, over decades, backed by observation. Not one or two or even three or four. Can you say the same thing?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> I'll repeat what I said before, I'm willing to accept that Mann et al. is flawed.... and? It's one paper, just one. I'm actually surprised more haven't been outed as having faulty data. Go check how many of the 30 or so other papers I cited rely on Mann to make their point (none), yet they all say the same thing, along with hundreds if not thousands of others.



No, this is wrong ... dierectly from the Wegman report: 





> *In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.*





> I'm interested though... why is it you trust Wegman and not Mann?


Because Mann _et.al._ are using _statistical methods_ to prove their hypotheses.  Unfortunately they (evidently) do not have enough proficiency in the subject to realize the extent of their errors (they have already acknowledged a whole bunch).  Moreover, they won't even allow their work to be reviewed properly by statisticians.  Wegman is a highly-respected statistician.  





> *It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.*





> Not that I am defending one or the other, but I'd like to know what type of source I need to present to have you find it credible.


 They need to make their methodolgy open to review by *independent statisticians*.  This has never happened and almost certainly never will, almost certianly because they have already been made aware of what the answers would be.



> In the end though, its a side show, a song and dance, possibly even a jigg.
> 
> So yes, as I said, without much in the way of refuting evidence.


 Yes, it doesn't fit with your preconceived bias, so pretend it isn't happening (BTW, what do you mean by "jigg"?).



> Thousands of peer reviewed, scientific papers, over decades, backed by observation. Not one or two or even three or four.


This is the point: they are NOT scientific and they are NOT independently reviewed: the environmental community believes it because they _want _ it to be true (see: "DDT. Malaria") ... we are going down the path of Eugenics and the Ether.


----------



## couchcommander (11 Oct 2006)

le_coq_rapide said:
			
		

> No, this is wrong ... dierectly from the Wegman report:



What part of that quote says anything about what I said? Exactly what part of that statement wrong?

Not to mention the logic is a wee bit funny... Mann has co-authored 43 papers, thus there is no independent review. How about Bunnies are pretty, thus the world is going to explode? Geeze, if a climatologist did that it wouldn't even get past the universities own internal review system!

And by the by, it wasn't bloggers or angry Conservatives that debunked "Eugenics" or the "Ether", it was this same process you're trashing. 

*edit* But this  is a tangent. Show me the paper, preferably one that stood up to review for more than a month, that actually says "there is no CO2 based global warming", and we'll discuss it. Or even, show me the paper that goes through and debunks all of the statistics for all of these papers. No, the wegman report wasn't it, that was ONE paper, and from that it drew far flung conclusions that it could have only supported by, oh I don't know, looking at *more* than one paper.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> What part of that quote says anything about what I said? Exactly what part is wrong?


They rely on Mann's data.  They are _not _ independent.



> Not to mention the logic is a wee bit funny... Mann has co-authored 43 papers, thus there is no indepedant review.


No, the logic is that the "peer" reviewers are his co-authors, and therefore are _not _ independent (by definition).



> How about Bunnies are pretty, thus the world is going to explode?


How about a more appropriate metaphor: ask a Habs fan for a critical review of the Habs official website's prediction for how well they will do this season ...



> Geeze, if a climatologist did that it wouldn't even get past the universities own internal review system!


This is exactly what they are doing, but it satisifies the political agenda, so no-one seems to care about their veracity.



> And by the by, it wasn't bloggers or angry consevatives that debunked "Eugenics" or the "Ether", it was this same process you're trashing.


 Why are you talking about "bloggers or angry conservatives"?  Actually, both Eugenics and Ether were the product of "scientific consensus": which is (almost) exactly where we stand WRT climate change.  The process I am trashing is using spurious methodology and misrepresented findings to 'prove' something that is already assumed to be true: this was exactly the problem with Eugenics and Ether and is now with Global Warming.  And moreover, for the record, Eugenics has not been _scientifically disproven_; it has fallen out of disfavour (I'm not advocating it, just pointing-out your apparent confusion about what "scientific" means).


----------



## couchcommander (11 Oct 2006)

le_coq_rapide said:
			
		

> They rely on Mann's data.  They are _not _ independent.



Let me make this clear in case I wasn't before. _*NO THEY DO NOT!*_ I don't think one I quoted cites him, and the instance rate of him being cited is actually a lot lower than you'd think. There is an entire battery of completely "indepedant" and complimentary research. If you don't believe me, PM me and I will give you access to the journal databases. 



> No, the logic is that the "peer" reviewers are his co-authors, are therefore _not _ independent (by definition).



There are more than 43 climatologists. 



> Actually, both Eugenics and Ether were the product of "scientific consensus": which is (almost) exactly where we stand WRT climate change.  The process I am trashing is using spurious methodology and misrepresented findings to 'prove' something that is already assumed to be true: this was exactly the problem with Eugenics and Ether and is now with Global Warming.  And moreover, for the record, Eugenics has not been _scientifically disproven_; it has fallen out of disfavour (I'm not advocating it, just pointing-out your apparent confusion about what "scientific" means).



Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment for Ether, and re: Eugenics the discovery that not everything has to do with "breeding". So yes, they have been scientifically "debunked", but like anything, we're not 100%. 

Listen, I don't want to get into a he said, she said game here. Post some research, some evidence from a peer reviewed, published paper, and we'll discuss it. We've talked about Wegman, and I've accepted his conclusions re: Mann, we've talked about Shviv, and he's got serious errors to work out. Neither have seriously affected my case. What else do you have? 

*edit* Oh, and I mean "Jig", one "g"... I guess that's what happens when you start drinking in the morning







*edit* To make my point, using EBSCO Host I searched for any paper which cited either MBH99 or MBH98 (the two reconstructions in question). I got 29 returns. Of these, only four used MBH99 or MBH98 to make *A POINT*, not necessarily *THE POINT*, but a point using MBH99 or MBH98 alone, 8 used it in conjunction with three or more other, completely unrelated constructions, to make a point (once again not necessarily the  point), and the rest were either bashing MBH99 or MBH98 (actually more than those which cited it alone), or were unrelated at all. To put this in context, when searching for "global warming", I get 28,000 hits.  EBSCO is my no means the end all be all, but when I say sideshow, possibly even a jig, this is what I mean. So, I will refrain from using as evidence any report in which MBH99 or MBH98 alone is used to make more than a passing remark, and lets move on.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

What is the point of Kyoto after all? The second comment says it all, I'm afraid



> Noticed this last “Earth Day”
> 
> From —> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/driessen042205.htm
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2006)

Further to Arthur's missive - a Terrence Corcoran Golden Oldie.   1998 ruminations Kyoto by then Federal Environment Minister Christine Stewart.  Comments drawn from a Calgary Herald interview also included.

Uncle Jean was our PM and Bill was his much loathed golfing buddy.  Al was advising from Bill's right hand seat.

Minister Stewart: 'No matter if the science is all phony,' she said, 'there are collateral environmental benefits.' 
Minister Stewart: 'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.'  
Minister Stewart: "We don't know the cost,"  




> Global Warming: The Real Agenda
> 
> Editorial by Terrence Corcoran
> Copyright 1998 Financial Post (Canada)
> ...



http://www.sepp.org/Archive/reality/realagenda.html



> Concerned about cost of Kyoto
> 
> 
> Copyright 1998 Calgary Herald (Canada)
> ...



http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/concerned.html

PS Why is it that Progressive leaders of the world can meet, expressly shunning leaders like our own PM, and be lauded by the press?  Can't imagine the reaction if all the NON-Progressive leaders decided to meet and intentionally shunned all left wing heads of government.


----------



## GAP (14 Oct 2006)

On Kyoto, Afghanistan and winning in Quebec   
 National Post Published: Saturday, October 14, 2006 
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=6d1e39e5-5eab-4324-b232-278e1906bf82


Following are responses Michael Ignatieff provided to questions submitted by the National Post. Some have been edited for length. For additional questions, and the full responses, visit nationalpost.com and look for Online Extras.

Q Can Canada meet its Kyoto commitments by 2012? If so, how?

Michael Ignatieff Canada must stay committed to the Kyoto process and do what it can to meet the 2012 targets, but time is now desperately short if what that means is changing the way Canadian industry works, to not only stop growth in carbon emissions, but actually roll it back to 1990 levels.

The Conservative government has displayed a profound lack of leadership in this area. We must exercise leadership within the Kyoto process, and think beyond Kyoto, setting longer-term targets and implementing enforceable policies.

Q How much would you be willing to spend to meet the Kyoto commitments?

M.I. It's not about spending. It's about tough environmental leadership. This means moving beyond the Conservatives' short-sighted thinking and implementing serious measures to prevent the environment from being used as a free garbage dump.

I have proposed a comprehensive set of policies to work toward the Kyoto targets, but also move beyond them, reducing emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. My plan includes market-oriented measures on renewable energy generation, carbon sequestration and vehicle emissions standards. I have also proposed a cap-and-trade system for large emitters and a shift in the GST and excise taxes on fuels to reward cleaner fossil fuels while penalizing dirtier ones. If we implement tough market-oriented regulations, big spending is unnecessary.

Q How long do you feel Canada should maintain its troops in Afghanistan?

M.I. I supported the extension of the Afghanistan mission originally put forward by the Liberal government to February, 2009. At the time of the vote of in the House of Commons on this issue, I made it clear that my support of the extension was conditional on the Harper government maintaining the original balance of the mission envisioned by the Liberal government of the day: providing humanitarian aid, ensuring human security and facilitating reconstruction. This has to remain a balanced mission. We can and should be contributing more to the reconstruction and humanitarian efforts to get the country back on its feet.

I do not support an open-ended mission. By 2009, Canada will have been in Afghanistan for seven years and I believe we should then hand the torch over to our NATO partners and to the increasingly able Afghan security forces. We must plan for that transition. We can return home with our heads held high, confident we have fulfilled our moral promise to the Afghan people, as well as our commitment to the democratically-elected Afghan government and to our international allies.

Q Would you limit the activities of the troops to a non-combat role?

M.I. We all recognize this is a very difficult mission, for our troops and for all Canadians. However, eliminating the human security component of the mission misses an important part of the peace-building equation: We can't build schools or hospitals unless the Afghan people are safe in their own country. Moreover, Canada is part of a team in Afghanistan with a mandate from the UN, and we can only ask our NATO allies to do what we are willing to do ourselves. We need to continue to work with our international partners, and do more on the humanitarian and development aspects of the mission.


More on link


----------



## couchcommander (14 Oct 2006)

> Except our politicians. Backed by an army of bureaucrats and researchers, governments are systematically preparing to shut down the engines of economic progress in the name of environmentalism.



That's really amusing, especially considering it was 8 years ago. If only they hadn't shut down our economy in the name of environmentalism.... oh, wait...

 : - the "left" may have some funny ideas and even funnier ways of conveying them, but no one is as good at exaggeration and hyperbole as the "right"


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2006)

CC 

Keep in mind that it is the Liberals you are talking about here.  The secret to Liberal success was to engage all those activism inclined progressives of the left in order to create an "army" of supporters.  The leadership however, as noted elsewhere, were nothing if not pragmatists.  Some would suggest duplicitous pragmatists.  Engage the activists to win power at the ballot box so as to dispense favours to those that could actually do them some good.

Their problem now is that the progressive activists are now being hived off to the powerless NDP and the "real" power base is becoming comfortable with the new pragmatist currrently in office.

If you expected the Liberals to accomodate the activist agenda after almost a century of , in the words of many, "campaigning from the left and governing from the right" you were sorely mistaken.

The Liberals no more wanted a revolution in affairs than did the Conservatives.  They just managed to co-opt the radicals long enough to keep them from raising the Bloody Red Rag.

Cheers.  ;D


----------



## Rodahn (14 Oct 2006)

Al Gore vs Arithmetic..... Isn't that an oxymoron??????


----------



## couchcommander (15 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If you expected the Liberals to accomodate the activist agenda after almost a century of , in the words of many, "campaigning from the left and governing from the right" you were sorely mistaken.



Indeed, i expected them in their traditional way to stay overwhelmingly mainstream with a hint of a social progressive tilt, and a conservative fiscal and monentary policy. If you're going to get stuck living in a capitalist world, better make a good run of it. I'm a socialist but that doesn't stop me from owning property, stocks, and suscribing to the western way of life.  

Like any "Liberal" change however, it really wasn't going to amount to much (keep your expectations low, you will occasionally be pleasantly surprised by politicians). The fact that after more than a decade of Liberal rule the conservatives are upstaging the Liberals in terms of Justice and, in some aspects, environment stewardship (there are serious problems, but its certainly a start) is a testament to this. The fact the conservatives are able to have a bugdet surplus is also a testament to Liberal rule however (yes Mr.Majoor, I do attribute the surplus to the Liberals, not how the moons where aligned or any other such right wing hyperbole ). But, thats another thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> ... If you're going to get stuck living in a capitalist world, better make a good run of it. I'm a socialist but that doesn't stop me from owning property, stocks, and suscribing to the western way of life.  ....
> .



Who's stuck?  Utopia is nowhere to be found.  ;D   I enjoy my reality.  How are you making out in creating yours?


----------



## couchcommander (15 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How are you making out in creating yours?



The wheels are a turn'in


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Oct 2006)

President Bush on Global Warming: http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147&pID=1143716

 ;D


----------



## Klc (27 Oct 2006)

Rodahn said:
			
		

> Al Gore vs Arithmetic..... Isn't that an oxymoron??????



Closer to juxtaposition, IMHO....


----------



## exsemjingo (27 Oct 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> Closer to juxtaposition, IMHO....


I'm the one who said it, so I guess I should explain.  In the starting point of this tangent, Al Gore makes an argument that is not just subjectively wrong, not just wrong when examined objectively, but that is wrong by definition.

Read post #1, and you will do this:  ???


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2006)

I have read the Nicholas Stern "report" about global warming. The prediction of more extreme weather being caused by global warming is a good warning that this (like so much else) is not science. (BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm)

Weather is caused by temperature gradients, so if the Earth is getting warmer, then the differential between the tropics and arctic becomes lesser. Just as a ball rolls faster down a steeper hill, heat energy will move faster between greater, not lesser temperature gradients. 

Just another warning sign that people really should stay in their lanes. An economist shouldn't step into climactic science, especially if they are tripped up by high school physics.............


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2006)

It is because of the 'Economists' fearmongering in the field of 'Global Warming' and the environment, that we are seeing such outrageous prices in fuel.  It was the fearmongering that the environmentalists carried out during the summer that caused the rise in gas prices, saying that we would run out of oil and that we would be facing oil shortages.  Our Reserves held and in fact we had some major finds of large oil deposits.  All money out of our pockets.  Now we are approaching winter and our gas prices are on average twenty cents less than they were this summer.  A great time to have Shares in the Energy Sector.

We have seen no rise in the ocean levels.  The polar ice caps are in fact a little larger than last year.  

Fearmongering is all these people are doing.  A great cause for the NDP (Jack is in a private session with Steven this morning to discuss the new environmental Bill.).


----------



## rregtc-etf (31 Oct 2006)

I'm not a scientist or an economist, however I have been in a closed room where one person is smoking a cigarette and in a closed room where several people are smoking.  My point is this, historical only the US and Western European economies have been smoking, now China and India are lighting up.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 6 billion Asians driving around in SUV's and going to the mall can't be good for the environment.  It would be interesting to see how things turn out n 50 years, everyone laughs at 1950's era film of school children diving for cover under their school desks at that time Soviet nuclear missiles were the threat.  The long term result was a nuclear arsenal reduction by the S.A.L.T missile treaties .   I wonder how the eggheads will solve global warming.
 :-X 8) ^-^


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2006)

Do the eggheads need to? Between 1100 and 1400 AD the Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland and Labrador. The climate was obviously warmer than it is today (by archeological records and inferenced from documents from that time period), yet there was no record of mass floods, droughts, violent weather or anything else suggested in this "report".

I suppose Nicholas Stern is going to suggest the Vikings were emitting vast quantities of CO2, but somehow stopped doing so in the 1400's, just in time for the Little Ice Age.

Fear mongering is right


----------



## George Wallace (31 Oct 2006)

Lowell Green just updated his "Hurricane Report".  Everyone should take note.  For the past eight weeks of Hurricane Season, there have been no signs of Hurricanes.


----------



## Old Guy (31 Oct 2006)

Damned hurricanes!  Don't they know they're supposed to be bigger, meaner, and more destructive than ever before?

I suppose the blasted things are milling around in the South Atlantic, playing Tropical Storm games.

Doesn't God read the danged "Global Warming" script?


jim


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is because of the 'Economists' fearmongering in the field of 'Global Warming' and the environment, that we are seeing such outrageous prices in fuel ...



Those of us who are still a bit _heavily invested_ in the energy sector don't think fuel prices are "outrageous" at all.  ;D  This is especially true for old guys who live in the city centre and don't drive cars.

Seriously, George, energy prices are set in the fabulous (or fabled) _free market_ and they reflect what most people are willing and able to pay.  If people stop consuming, drive less, freeze in the dark, etc, then the price of crude will fall to reflect a _new_ equilibrium.  Most consumers are willing and able to pay the current market price and, I've heard maybe 35%+/- more than that price.


----------



## begbie (31 Oct 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I have read the Nicholas Stern "report" about global warming. The prediction of more extreme weather being caused by global warming is a good warning that this (like so much else) is not science. (BBC report here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm)
> 
> Weather is caused by temperature gradients, so if the Earth is getting warmer, then the differential between the tropics and arctic becomes lesser. Just as a ball rolls faster down a steeper hill, heat energy will move faster between greater, not lesser temperature gradients.
> 
> Just another warning sign that people really should stay in their lanes. An economist shouldn't step into climactic science, especially if they are tripped up by high school physics.............





			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Do the eggheads need to? Between 1100 and 1400 AD the Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland and Labrador. The climate was obviously warmer than it is today (by archeological records and inferenced from documents from that time period), yet there was no record of mass floods, droughts, violent weather or anything else suggested in this "report".
> 
> I suppose Nicholas Stern is going to suggest the Vikings were emitting vast quantities of CO2, but somehow stopped doing so in the 1400's, just in time for the Little Ice Age.
> 
> Fear mongering is right



It appears that you agree that climate change is real but disagree with the cause.  I know paleo-climatatologists have learned that the climate has changed dramatically during our planets history.  I take your point on this.  

However, from a public policy point of view, debating the divergent views of whether climate change is naturally occuring, or is man-made, or a combination of both is irrelevant.  Our climate is changing for better or for worse, and the human race better come to terms with it.  A lot of the literature I have read concurs that climate change is occuring and that it may be impossible to stop it by significantly reducing our man-made emissions.  I also conceed that point.

Where I come down on this is that the solution lies somewhere between mitigation and adaptation.  In fact, my professional opinion has always been that the difference between mitigation and adaptation is quite blurry.  The solution isn't ignoring the problem by saying it doesn't exist and the solution isn't also curbing emissions to the point where we end up back in the stone age.

On a congratulatory note, congrats on plowing through the entire report yesterday.  I too pulled it up yesterday only to learn that the report is 576 pages long.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2006)

Just as 1100AD Vikings probably didn't toss & turn worrying about my life in 2006, I manage to sleep undisturbed by visions of gas stations in 3106. I'm selfish that way.

If I did have to offer up an opinion, I'd point out the reality that I have two Harleys sitting in a garage for five months of Canadian winter each year. Bring on global warming!

I do my bit to eliminate the greenhouse gasses inherent in cattle flatulence - - BBQ'ing. I'm globally caring that way.


----------



## DBA (31 Oct 2006)

Sure climate is changing but so are lots of other things. Fact is the earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are very dynamic and change all the time. Environmentalists have killed millions of people through their actions like getting DDT banned which crippled anti-malaria campains for decades in large parts of the developing world. They push action before all the facts are in and people suffer needlessly as a result. Not everything they push for makes things better.

I looked into some of the models and found one fact that disturbed me. The way they are reported and publicized is a perpetrating a FRAUD on the public. A parallel that most people understand would be drug companies suppressing studies with a negative outcome while publishing those with a positive outcome along with shading how they are discussed to cover up weaknesses. That is what appears to be happening with models cherry picked for predicting something after the fact with no mention other models predicated something else. By pure random chance some model probably predicts just about anything just like with just over 1000 people guessing head or tails on a coin tosses one person will most likely guess 10 flips in a row correctly. Does that mean they have some sort of predictive power in regards to coin tosses? The answer is of course no, and a lot of climate models are the same way. Just showing models that make predictions that match events means nothing unless the underlying model makes sense and has parameters with some empiric evidence to back them up. Otherwise it's just a guess and very prone to any biases the creators of the model have.


----------



## Cardstonkid (31 Oct 2006)

There is very little doubt that the climate is changing. That is something that should be examined and prepared for. There is no conclusive proof humans are to blame. The latest evidence from Greenland shows that the glaciers there have been in a state of retreat for 100 years. It is hard to imagine that humans in 1906 had already put so much CO2 in the air that we had changed the environment. 

Is it prudent to reduce 50% or more of our CO2 output when their is no conclusive evidence we are to blame? My answer is that the evidence suggests we should be cautious, but not panicked. 

Politically it is such a bull Sh*t ploy. Al Gore and company can claim to be caring prophets by stating the obvious "the Earth is warming", and then blame those nasty capitalists. The solution for them is bigger gov't and bigger taxes. They won't actually solve or change anything, but it will get the public scared enough to vote for them the next time there is a big hurricane or if there is too much or too little snow. Anything to get elected.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2006)

Although I am a fast reader, I just read the executive summary. Here is a bit more by someone with more time to read......

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=0671887a-cd99-4edd-86f6-d72107274d52



> *The new green totalitarianism*
> 
> Terence Corcoran
> Financial Post
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2006)

A detailed critique of this work. Talk about cherry picking, it appears Stern cleaned out the orchard!

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182



> *Stern Review*
> The dodgy numbers behind the latest warming scare.
> 
> BY BJORN LOMBORG
> ...


----------



## Blindspot (3 Nov 2006)

Who cares about global warming? We're all going to die when the next big asteroid hits the earth. Expecially because those Hollywood, Manhattan-size rocks keep landing in Alberta.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2006)

A theory attempts to explain all the available evidence, and also offers a means to make testable predictions. The idea of Human agency being the cause of Global Warming isn't a theory, since it ignores or evades critical pieces of evidence. The Vikings were the beneficiaries of the European Warm period between 1100 and 1400 AD, but there is no possibility of human agency either being the cause or end of the warm period. Archaeological evidence would indicate the end of the Warm Period came rapidly, perhaps even in a human lifetime.

Mars is getting warmer as observed by spacecraft observing the planet.

Here is a sample of climate change in an even earlier period:

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



> Climate
> The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized by a warm climate that began with *a climate change in circa 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day Mediterranean). * The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming, for example grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. *However a small change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC and a more radical one in circa 650 BC brought in a deteriorating, wetter and colder climate (sometimes believed to have given rise to the legend of the Fimbulwinter).*
> 
> It seems likely that the climate pushed the Germanic tribes southwards into continental Europe. During this time there was Scandinavian influence in Eastern Europe (and a thousand years later, the numerous East Germanic tribes that claimed Scandinavian origins (e.g. Langobards, Burgundians, Goths and Heruls) rendered Scandinavia (Scandza) the name womb of nations in Jordanes' Getica).
> ...



You will notice the Bronze age warm period was not characterized by disaster, storms or floods, but intensified agriculture and increasing human population.


----------



## Bert (6 Nov 2006)

But that too is a theory.  Unfortunately, looking back over ancient history of 1 billion years and
various instances of abrupt climate change, scientists have uncovered massive amounts of data 
and speculation; solar fluctuations, methane eruptions, volcanic activity, meteorites, forest fires, 
mankind, and many other possible triggers.  Given the data accumulated, its still doesn't equate 
to the data that is not accumulated and cannot be included into the climate change.  Without all 
of the facts presented, to say humans are causing climate change today is an incomplete 
speculation.

Given the massive nature of human activity over the last 1,000 years and particularly since the 1800s, it 
may be arguable to say humans have significantly contributed or accelerated the triggers for relatively 
abrupt climate change.  

For the general population of the world, we're too caught up with who to blame and the politics
of abrupt climate change.  We may never have objective proof for years to come and likely by then
it won't matter.  Since data accumulated has suggested what we can do to limit our contribution to
the problem, effort and research should be directed these technologies and action plans.


----------



## Old Guy (7 Nov 2006)

Bert,

Your point is essentially what I believe.  It's reasonable to take precautions, but not to the point of crippling our economies or transferring vast wealth to third world countries under the guise of ridiculous plans like the Kyoto Accord.

Chris Monckton has a series of articles running in the Sunday Telegraph (uk).  He brings out much detail of the flagrant disregard for scientific method employed by Al Gore and company, along with descriptions of the massive fraud perpetrated by the UN.

Earth's temp goes up and down.  The Medieval Warm period and drastic cooling between about 1350 and 1850 are completely ignored in most global warming tracts.

Jim


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2006)

Bump

Here's one to rewarm the debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=JFOPAQFWR1FYTQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

You asked for proofs CC.  You asked for peer reviewed citations CC.  You asked for a cold beer CC.  ;D


----------



## couchcommander (10 Nov 2006)

I was wondering when you were going to pick up on that. It should say something about the actual effectiveness of the article that slashdot of all places effectively tears it apart. I am too lazy to post now, will later.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (10 Nov 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> slashdot of all places effectively tears it apart.



That's the impression one would have if one only chose to read the arguments that support the conclusion one wants (but then again, that is pretty much the global warming "problem" in a nutshell, isn't it?).

Slashdot "effectively tore apart" nothing (and never does): there's a _discussion_ on the article.  To quote the first post in that discussion: "This is /. buddy, what you'll get is a bunch of reasons why its right or wrong from people that didn't read the article." http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=205067&cid=16740077


----------



## couchcommander (10 Nov 2006)

You should know me better than that by now, I would not post a slashdot discussion here. My point was considering the fact that a bunch of people who didn't even read the article effectively destroyed some of its important premises, one should consider how "groundbreaking" an article this really is, having been published in a right wing newspaper by a former advisor of Margaret Thacter-turned-journalist-richboy claiming to end the entire "debate" as it were by smacking down thousands of peer-reviewed, scientific papers despite the fact he has absolutely no background in climatology (i.e. typical journalism)...

I will post something more substantive later, but the article is garbage. Yes indeed you did get references this time Kirkhill, but in the case of this "piece" its like the soviet's putting on a trial (All for show). I am not kidding when I say I am really interested to see some papers out of a respected journal to discuss, and am willing to give access to those who want it. 

Blame the historian in me, but I put a lot of stock the who, when, where, why, and how of a source, not just the what. 

Oh, I came across this today. It appears that the report congress wanted on Mann after the entire Wegman thing came back a while ago, and he's pretty much back on the table. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676 - from the National Research Council


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2006)

I feel like this is an interminable game of Pong.

I'll see you strawman and raise you an ad hominem.  

So now we don't even need to read the articles to determine their validity?  Who's talk about Soviet era tactics now?

TTFE on this one. 

Let me know if your basement floods  ;D


----------



## couchcommander (10 Nov 2006)

The hrm? No I've read the article, and I've found some commentary on it, but nothing I would want to post (blogs, other newspapers). 

I would add that an ad hominem attack is very different from conducting source analysis. It doesn't discount what is said, however it should bring the content under a certain scrutiny (i.e. don't accept what is said at face value, which you should never do, but still..... which was the point of pointing out the gentlemans background, not an ad hominem). 

Its a simple fact that certain sources are more reliable than others for certain things. For academic matters, its tough to find better sources than peer reviewed journals (which is scary, because they can be pretty bad). If you want to know what the feeling was for the general public or segments of society on a topic at a certain time, then newspapers are great! Newspapers are not so good for getting facts. That doesn't mean you won't find facts in them, but you should be aware of both their value AND limitations.


----------



## DBA (11 Nov 2006)

Interesting aricle in the Telegraph. Uses a few words I had to look up in the dictionary like meretricious but well worth reading.


----------



## dglad (12 Nov 2006)

The trouble, as others have suggested, is that if you actually wait until you have incontrovertible evidence, it may be too late to say more than, "huh, guess we should have taken this more seriously".

While I am by no means firmly on the side of the "global protectionists"--mainly because their science really is so bad, and they rely so heavily on simple fear-mongering and solutions that would probably do more harm than good--I'm much more wary than those who would point to past climatic fluctuations and say, "see, it can happen for all sorts of reasons, so there's no reason to believe we're causing a problem today".  The Earth is a large and complex, but CLOSED chemical system.  Because of simple thermodynamics, interaction between the planet's interior and it's surficial environment is largely one-way i.e. from the inside, outwards; other than the process of crustal subduction, which occurs over long geological periods of time, there's no evidence of any meaningful movement of mass or energy into the planet's interior.  So, the atmosphere and hydrosphere (and the superimposed biosphere) are essentially "what you see is what you get", except for inputs from the Earth's interior (heat, plus various chemicals either erupted or outgassed through the crust) and from space (heat, charged particles and some solid particulates e.g. dust and small bits of rock and metal).  Beyond that, whatever is in the atmosphere/biosphere is what you've got.  You can move it around, react it in different ways, heat it up, cool it down, and that's about it.

So what?  Well, modern human activity is putting carbon (plus other) compounds into this environment, at some rate (call it A), which generally appears to be increasing (growing population, greater demands for energy, especially in places like China and India, which is primarily provided by fossil fuels).  So carbon is being moved from the crust, where it was sequestered in the form of coal, oil, methane, etc. into the atmosphere and oceans.

At the same time, other processes, such as growth of vegetation, the growth of micro-organisms in the oceans that use carbon, in the form of carbonate, in their bodies and then die and precipitate to the ocean floor, etc. is moving carbon from the air and water and re-sequestering it at some rate (call it B).

Now, is A less than, equal to or greater than B?  If it's one of the first two, we're okay in terms of carbon compounds, of which CO2 is the most abundant and is a prime greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.  If it's the last, we've got a problem, and then the delta between A and B becomes important as it defines the time-scale and magnitude of that problem.

The trouble is, we don't really know.  We can come up with a reasonably good estimate of A, but we really don't understand B.  And then there's C, D, E, F, G, etc. which are other processes that affect both A and B (for example, a large volcanic eruption can vent large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere (C) but can also throw megatons of dust into the atmosphere, which tends to reduce the infrared energy reaching the surface (D)).

Again, so what?  Well, it's the fact we DON'T know.  So while a massive change in human activity, which could have equally massive socio-economic consequences, is definitely an over-reaction, it is very possible to UNDER-react.  In general, we should be looking for ways to reduce A, since it's the only variable we really understand to any degree and can affect.  We could:

-look for ways to generate energy that don't release carbon compounds (and other pollutants).  More emphasis on nuclear energy (which, Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island notwithstanding, is really far safer on a global basis than burning fossil fuels; most radionucleides and their by-products are not very mobile in the environment, compared to carbon, SO2, NO2, etc.).  More emphasis on renewables, such as solar, wind, wave-action, spurred on by meaningful economic incentives.  More emphasis on R&D into things like nuclear fusion.

-focus more effort on finding ways to sequester carbon released from burning of fossil fuels.  That would mean much more R&D into things like clean-coal technology, scrubber technologies, research into natural processes that take up carbon, etc.

-more focus on conservation.  We (particularly in the First World) simply use too much energy.  This would require governments to making a commitment to seeing through things like better urban planning, more effective use of affordable and efficient mass transit, real economic incentives to conserve, and some things that may not be popular e.g. much stricter emission limits on fuel consumption for vehicles, economic disincentives to use personal vehicles in large urban areas (assuming, of course, that mass transit is available, as above).

-become more objective about measures we employ.  There's evidence that recycling programs for everything except aluminum actually has a net energy and environmental cost.  Ethanol may be of some value, but again, there's evidence to suggest that many ways of producing ethanol actually cost energy.  If something isn't working, then dump it.

I really do believe we can do these things without causing great economic harm, and can even obtain economic benefit from some of them. The trouble now is how politicized much of the above has become (nuclear energy, recycling programs, ethanol, conservation...all of these are mired in massive interest groups, huge bureaucracies and much emotion).

However, it's not enough to say, the Earth warms up and cools down all on its own.  That's true...but those are just functions of what I called B, C, D, E and so on.  A exists, our best information is that it's increasing, and we need to do something about it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2006)

In terms of energy policy, conservation is shorthand for imposed poverty and often (perversely, due to economic incentives) leads to a net increase in energy consumption in any event.

Any model of the earth's energy gain/loss also has to consider blackbody radiation, and also has to deal with the reality of entropy - over the very long term, waste heat will be the greatest problem.


----------



## dglad (12 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> In terms of energy policy, conservation is shorthand for imposed poverty and often (perversely, due to economic incentives) leads to a net increase in energy consumption in any event.



But it doesn't have to be.  Intelligently designed conservation policies can result in energy savings.  The fact that conservation policies are generally not intelligently designed is a separate issue.



> Any model of the earth's energy gain/loss also has to consider blackbody radiation, and also has to deal with the reality of entropy - over the very long term, waste heat will be the greatest problem.



True, but these are just more variables, interacting with, but otherwise independent of human input of carbon compounds into the atmosphere.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2006)

dglad - I believe that climate fluctuates and their ain't nuthin I can do about that.  I can do something about protecting myself in the event it does flucuate - move, buy warm clothes, build a solar still, whatever.

Having said that I like a tidy house, my back yard neat, my skies blue and my water clear.  All perfectly reasonable objectives.  But having seen life in cess pits and deserts don't tell me that being untidy will be the end of us all.   Ditch the scaremongering that is all I ask.

As to conservation - as prices rise making Edward a rich man then industry will react, and is reacting, to keep as much money out of his grasping hands as possible  ;D  by converting from low efficiency electric motors to high efficiency motors, and from systems that use water and heat once to systems that use the same water and heat over and over again, cleaning it in the process.

What industry objected to was the governments of the west saying that western industry was going to have to suck up a massive recapitalization to replace motors and systems to continue doing what they are already doing while their competitors that already benefited from low wage regimes were building brand new facilities with capital transferred from the west.  Now whether this was conspiracy or confusion I don't know.

Keeping money out of Edward's pension funds is one goal that will drive conservation more effectively than government policy.  If government policy is to be used then it should be used on a reasonable time line.  The one thing that all good environmentalists have on their side is the sure and certain knowledge is that every piece of kit currently in operation is wearing out and needs to be replaced.  If you get 5 years out of a motor that is regularly shrouded in dust or immersed in water you are doing well.  The pump head will go in about 10 years.    

Normal attrition requires that that stuff be replaced.  Good policy would be to support/require more efficient replacements.  Fortunately the politicians don't really have to worry about that because every greedy, thieving capitalist in industry is working hard to keep money out of the hands of greedy, thieving capitalists like Edward (and myself).  ;D

It is not the endstate that was the problem.  It was the timeline and the transfer of capital that was the problem.


----------



## dglad (12 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> dglad - I believe that climate fluctuates and their ain't nuthin I can do about that.  I can do something about protecting myself in the event it does flucuate - move, buy warm clothes, build a solar still, whatever.



Fair enough.  How about the other 5.999etc. billion other people on the planet?



> Having said that I like a tidy house, my back yard neat, my skies blue and my water clear.  All perfectly reasonable objectives.  But having seen life in cess pits and deserts don't tell me that being untidy will be the end of us all.   Ditch the scaremongering that is all I ask.



I agree.  Scaremongering is worse than useless, because it polarizes people into those who want to act rashly and those who want to disbelieve completely--both irrational positions.  What's required is some thoughtful, RATIONAL consideration of the matter, and an appropriate response.



> As to conservation - as prices rise making Edward a rich man then industry will react, and is reacting, to keep as much money out of his grasping hands as possible  ;D  by converting from low efficiency electric motors to high efficiency motors, and from systems that use water and heat once to systems that use the same water and heat over and over again, cleaning it in the process.



My point exactly.  The changes made have to make good economic sense.  But market forces by themselves are too blunt an instrument.  For example, if you're going to use rising prices as the sole lever, then you're counting on industry to respond to those rising prices by becoming more efficient.  Ask the roughly 5000 workers laid off by the primary forest products industry across Northern Ontario, and the thousands more across the country, how THEIR employers have responded to increased costs resulting from a rising Loonie, high electricity costs, high fuel costs, rising insurance premiums, etc.  Instead of modernizing outdated pulp, paper, containerboard and other mills, they simply closed them down.  Industry will do what's best for itself; if that's becoming more efficient, fine.  But by no means is it always becoming more efficient.



> What industry objected to was the governments of the west saying that western industry was going to have to suck up a massive recapitalization to replace motors and systems to continue doing what they are already doing while their competitors that already benefited from low wage regimes were building brand new facilities with capital transferred from the west.  Now whether this was conspiracy or confusion I don't know.



Conspiracy theories are almost always nonsense, because it's hard enough to get people united in common cause, much less have them keep their mouths shut about it.  Rather, it was really just politics...a perception that there was sufficient political capital to be gained in forcing through unrealistic goals regarding "climate change" to justify doing so.  At one point, one probably could have argued that the ONLY meaningful change in energy consumption and waste production that could occur had to be in the West, as we have been, by far, the major users of resources and energy.  However, thanks to explosive economic growth in Asia, that's increasingly (and unfortunately) less true.



> Normal attrition requires that that stuff be replaced.  Good policy would be to support/require more efficient replacements.  Fortunately the politicians don't really have to worry about that because every greedy, thieving capitalist in industry is working hard to keep money out of the hands of greedy, thieving capitalists like Edward (and myself).  ;D
> 
> It is not the endstate that was the problem.  It was the timeline and the transfer of capital that was the problem.



Unfortunately, the end-state has been just as much a problem as the means to get there.  The scaremongering you quite rightly criticize has led people to question whether human activities are affecting climate at all...if current climatic trends might not be the result of ill-defined natural processes.  What gets lost is that they may be, but that that's completely irrelevant.  Of course, human activity is changing the planet's environment; how could it not?  How can you redistribute chemicals in a closed system and not have an effect on that system?

As I said, what's required is change, but sensible, rational change that makes good economic sense.  Such a thing is possible, if the will exists to implement it (which may mean, paradoxically, that it's not possible after all, because the will to undertake change is something that we, as a species, often sadly lack).


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  How about the other 5.999etc. billion other people on the planet?



Presumably they will adapt or die as well. They already are by migrating, changing consumption patterns, looking for alternative energy sources, getting different jobs.



> I agree.  Scaremongering is worse than useless, because it polarizes people into those who want to act rashly and those who want to disbelieve completely--both irrational positions.  What's required is some thoughtful, RATIONAL consideration of the matter, and an appropriate response.



Agreed.




> My point exactly.  The changes made have to make good economic sense.  But market forces by themselves are too blunt an instrument.  For example, if you're going to use rising prices as the sole lever, then you're counting on industry to respond to those rising prices by becoming more efficient.  Ask the roughly 5000 workers laid off by the primary forest products industry across Northern Ontario, and the thousands more across the country, how THEIR employers have responded to increased costs resulting from a rising Loonie, high electricity costs, high fuel costs, rising insurance premiums, etc.  Instead of modernizing outdated pulp, paper, containerboard and other mills, they simply closed them down.  Industry will do what's best for itself; if that's becoming more efficient, fine.  But by no means is it always becoming more efficient.



I disagree here.  Market forces are the only lever.  Government regulation is just another force imposed on the market.  Regardless of the regulation imposed the market will react accordingly.  It's like trying to push beer or any other liquid of your choice.  The market is self-correcting.

As to the roughly 5000 workers - you are correct.  That is what happens when industry becomes more efficient.  Fewer people employed.  The result is that those that are unemployed have to adapt or die.  Put me into that category as well.  One of the reasons I am no longer in the Calg Highrs was that my job moved to Regina, then Toronto, then Calgary, then Indianapolis, then Vancouver/Seattle/Anchorage.



> Conspiracy theories are almost always nonsense, because it's hard enough to get people united in common cause, much less have them keep their mouths shut about it.  Rather, it was really just politics...a perception that there was sufficient political capital to be gained in forcing through unrealistic goals regarding "climate change" to justify doing so.  At one point, one probably could have argued that the ONLY meaningful change in energy consumption and waste production that could occur had to be in the West, as we have been, by far, the major users of resources and energy.  However, thanks to explosive economic growth in Asia, that's increasingly (and unfortunately) less true.



Actually, with respect to conspiracies, I don't believe in millions of minions all singing from the same secret song-book.  I do however believe that individuals routinely gather together to push whatever levers they have at hand to achieve desirable and mutually beneficial outcomes.  Most places that I am familiar with call it planning.  But I do agree that secrets can't be kept though I am not sure that that is critical to the development of a conspiracy or plan.

As to the notion that only the WEST had to change - that was the implicit/explicit rationale behind Kyoto.  Everybody knew at that time, including the Brazilians, Indians and Chinese, that their tide had turned, that they needed energy and that the most meaningful impact on the growth of emissions would be to get those economies to do something other than smokestacks.  They declined to involve themselves.  The West (ie Europe and Canada) decided that was A-OK with them and the 3rd World peanut gallery cheered from the bleachers.  Russia signed on when they saw there were megabucks to be transferred to them.  The US and Australia declined to get involved because they could only see their money being sent to boost competition.  If Lou Dobbs is bitching about outsourcing now because of labour costs you should see him squawk when 
factories close down because of high energy and abatement costs coupled with high interest rates because capital is tight.




> Unfortunately, the end-state has been just as much a problem as the means to get there.  The scaremongering you quite rightly criticize has led people to question whether human activities are affecting climate at all...if current climatic trends might not be the result of ill-defined natural processes.  What gets lost is that they may be, but that that's completely irrelevant.  Of course, human activity is changing the planet's environment; how could it not?  How can you redistribute chemicals in a closed system and not have an effect on that system?
> 
> As I said, what's required is change, but sensible, rational change that makes good economic sense.  Such a thing is possible, if the will exists to implement it (which may mean, paradoxically, that it's not possible after all, because the will to undertake change is something that we, as a species, often sadly lack).



I agree with almost all of that, including the statement that human activity is changing the environment.  Both knowingly and unknowingly.  Digging a ditch changes the environment.  Building a house changes the environment. Planting crops and trees changes the environment.  Building cities, evacuating cities, breathing.  All of it changes the environment.  Build a dam, divert a river, move a population, turn us all into nomads, kill us all off (watch the CO2 content rise then).  Everything changes the environment.

I don't disagree with implementing change.  In fact I agree with implementing many changes.  Many changes will have to be implemented to counter changes we can't control.  And unfortunately there are many things that are beyond our control and there are many other things that we may be blissfully unaware of the effects, both positive and negative, we are having.

Remember the Biosphere project?  People trapped inside a terrarium with all the calculations carefully done?  All inputs carefully controlled? The environment sealed off? Ultimately the place had to be evacuated because even with the seals broken and new materials added then things died and the environment turned unhealthy.

We don't know enough yet to manage the global environmental economy.  We can't even effectively manage the global fiscal economy and there are fewer known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns there.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2006)

Steven Den Beste was one of the all time great bloggers, but his legacy is sadly not well known or perhaps well organized. Then again, neither am I.

Here are some of his archived articles wich are worth reading just for their intrinsic value (i.e. they are thoughtful, and a great example of how to write a focused, factual and critical article on a given topic). WRT the issue of changing the world through technology, as you poke around you will find posts dealing with the limits of thermodynamics, the size and shape of the installed capital base and other reasons why "Mr Fusion" would not save us soon even if I was able to perfect it tomorrow morning. (Others about politics and the war are also worth reading).

http://www.electricminds.org/ussclueless/essays/index.htm
http://www.electricminds.org/ussclueless/bestof.htm
http://www.electricminds.org/ussclueless/archives.htm

Enjoy


----------



## UberCree (13 Nov 2006)

I would be interested to hear comments on the stern report, especially from those that still argue climate change is a fallacy.

BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm
Climate change fight 'can't wait'  

  
At-a-glance: Stern Review 
Analysis: A stark warning 
Analysis: Stern's impact 
The global picture  
The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned. 
A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%. 

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says. 

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous". 

...
The review coincides with the release of new data by the United Nations showing an upward trend in emission of greenhouse gases - a development for which Sir Nicholas said that rich countries must shoulder most of the responsibility. 
...

The report says that without action, up to 200 million people could become refugees as their homes are hit by drought or flood. 

"Whilst there is much more we need to understand - both in science and economics - we know enough now to be clear about the magnitude of the risks, the timescale for action and how to act effectively," Sir Nicholas said. 
...

Mr Blair said the consequences for the planet of inaction were "literally disastrous". 

"This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime," he said. 

"Investment now will pay us back many times in the future, not just environmentally but economically as well." 

"For every £1 invested now we can save £5, or possibly more, by acting now. 
Sir Nicholas, a former chief economist of the World Bank, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Unless it's international, we will not make the reductions on the scale which will be required." 
...
He went on: "What we have shown is the magnitude of these risks is very large and has to be taken into account in the kind of investments the world makes today and the consumption patterns it has." 

The Stern Review forecasts that 1% of global gross domestic product (GDP) must be spent on tackling climate change immediately. 

It warns that if no action is taken: 


Floods from rising sea levels could displace up to 100 million people 

Melting glaciers could cause water shortages for 1 in 6 of the world's population 

Wildlife will be harmed; at worst up to 40% of species could become extinct 

Droughts may create tens or even hundreds of millions of "climate refugees"
Clear objectives 

The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than an environmental scientist. 

  There is the greatest opportunity of all, the prize of securing and safeguarding the planet for our generations to come 

Gordon Brown


Reactions to the Stern Review 
Plans for climate change laws  

Mr Brown, who commissioned the report, has also recruited former US Vice-President Al Gore as an environment adviser. 

"In the 20th century our national economic ambitions were the twin objectives of achieving stable economic growth and full employment," Mr Brown said. 

"Now in the 21st century our new objectives are clear, they are threefold: growth, full employment and environmental care."


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2006)

Informed discourse requires factual information......

http://kitchenerconservative.blogspot.com/2006/11/un-cooking-books-on-global-warming.html



> *U.N. Cooking The Books On Global Warming?*
> 
> H/T to True North who linked to a recent article in the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nwarm05.xml&page=1 by Christopher Monckton.
> 
> ...



Some of the things like solar activity or the data from Antarctica are a bit obscure and not available to the layman, but the Medieval warm period is a stake through the heart of virtually every Global Warming argument (warming is bad, warming will create weather and other disasters, warming is caused by human activity), so it had to be suppressed and excised from discussion about climatology.

Alas, this is the inconvenient truth laid bare; climate change is a natural cycle, we have very little influence and attempts to panic people into handing over control of the economy are motivated by dreams of controlling the world's economy, and not for your or my benefit.


----------



## dglad (13 Nov 2006)

On the other hand:

From National Geographic News, here:



> Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change, a new study suggests.
> 
> The sun's role in global warming has long been a matter of debate and is likely to remain a contentious topic.
> 
> ...



And in Ice caps are melting even in winter, global warming evidence mounts:



> The vast expanses of ice floating in the Arctic Sea are shrinking in winter as well as summer, most likely a result of global warming, NASA scientists said today.
> 
> "This is the strongest evidence yet of global warming in the Arctic,'' said Josefino Comiso, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.



And then there's Gravity Measurements Confirm Greenland's Glaciers Precipitous Meltdown:



> Of late, the enormous glaciers that flow down to the sea from the interior of Greenland have been picking up speed. In the last few years, enough ice has come off the northern landmass to sustain the average flow of the Colorado River for six years or fill Lake Mead three times over or cover the state of Maryland in 10 feet of water, assuming it were perfectly flat. And whether it is the glaciers' weight, speed or volume that is measured, a quickening of the their movement can be detected. In fact, the latest gravity-based measurements show that the glaciers lost roughly 101 gigatons of ice annually between 2003 and 2005, according to a paper published online in Science.



And as for Monckton's claims regarding the loss of ice and snow on Kilimanjaro, one of the scientists, Dr D.R. Hardy. whose paper  these claims are based on has publicly said “using these preliminary findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the absurd.”

All of the above directly contradict key assertions in Monckton's articles in the Telegraph.  So the debate will rage on, with both sides firing polemics--and not necessarily very well researched ones at that--into the ether.  I think it's important to remain critical about all claims from all sides.  That's why, personally, the only point I can accept without question is the one I made above--we, humanity, are redistributing chemicals (notably carbon) in a closed chemical system.  We don't understand the full and long term consequences of this, so we must a) learn more and b) in the meantime, take REASONABLE (i.e. economically sensible) precautions to reduce the effect we have on this complex chemical system we inhabit.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Nov 2006)

> All of the above directly contradict key assertions in Monckton's articles in the Telegraph.  So the debate will rage on, with both sides firing polemics--and not necessarily very well researched ones at that--into the ether.  I think it's important to remain critical about all claims from all sides.  That's why, personally, the only point I can accept without question is the one I made above--we, humanity, are redistributing chemicals (notably carbon) in a closed chemical system.  We don't understand the full and long term consequences of this, so we must a) learn more and b) in the meantime, take REASONABLE (i.e. economically sensible) precautions to reduce the effect we have on this complex chemical system we inhabit.



Agree entirely with every statement.

Now if we can just agree on what constitutes a REASONABLE precaution and what is a REASONABLE amount of damage to whose lifestyle.

Cheers.


----------



## UberCree (13 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just another warning sign that people really should stay in their lanes. An economist shouldn't step into climactic science, especially if they are tripped up by high school physics.............



A perfect example is this thread.  Soldiers should not pretend to be economists, or environmental experts.

I appologise for the above re-posting.  Before I posted the article i searched for "Stern Report" and found no threads.  I stumbled upon this one.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> I would be interested to hear comments on the stern report, especially from those that still argue climate change is a fallacy.





			
				UberCree said:
			
		

> A perfect example is this thread.  Soldiers should not pretend to be economists, or environmental experts.



Just exactly who did you think you were asking for comments from then?


----------



## DBA (13 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> The study is the first major contribution to the global warming debate by an economist, rather than an environmental scientist.



No economic model has any real predictive value. They are best guesses based on the data that could be obtained and the modeling of a limited number of interactions for a limited time period at a limited resolution. The climate models aren't any better but on a small scale can have a decent chance of predicting rain or shine sometimes. They both also have enough knobs to futz with to produce just about anything a person wants. 

One book I found useful for helping to understand the problems with some of these models and misuse of statistics in general is : Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking by Stephan K. Campbell.


----------



## dglad (13 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> A perfect example is this thread.  Soldiers should not pretend to be economists, or environmental experts.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this...in my day job, I manage economic development programs and services for the Ontario government.  Prior to that, I have worked in both staff and management positions in the Ontario Geological Survey, worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in their High Level Nuclear Waste Fuel Management program, worked for ten years in the mineral exploration industry and have a B.Sc. in Geology, with a minor in Energy and Fuel Science, and an M.Sc. in Geochemistry.  And yes, I am a soldier, and have been since 1977.  None of this is bragging; it's all just statement of fact and intended to suggest that there are much more to many of the folks on Army.ca than it may first appear.

To put it another way, I think you'll find that many of the lanes for people on here are fairly wide.  Some (and I do NOT include myself in this group) may even be global experts in their various non-military fields (I say non-military because it goes without saying that we have some global experts in THAT field on here).


----------



## GAP (13 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this...in my day job, I manage economic development programs and services for the Ontario government.  Prior to that, I have worked in both staff and management positions in the Ontario Geological Survey, worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in their High Level Nuclear Waste Fuel Management program, worked for ten years in the mineral exploration industry and have a B.Sc. in Geology, with a minor in Energy and Fuel Science, and an M.Sc. in Geochemistry.  And yes, I am a soldier, and have been since 1977.  None of this is bragging; it's all just statement of fact and intended to suggest that there are much more to many of the folks on Army.ca than it may first appear.
> 
> To put it another way, I think you'll find that many of the lanes for people on here are fairly wide.  Some (and I do NOT include myself in this group) may even be global experts in their various non-military fields (I say non-military because it goes without saying that we have some global experts in THAT field on here).



Well, gee if that's all you got to offer......  ;D


----------



## dglad (13 Nov 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well, gee if that's all you got to offer......  ;D



Well, I'm also extremely good looking and incredibly charming, but like I said, I didn't want to brag....


----------



## UberCree (13 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Just exactly who did you think you were asking for comments from then?



So when is it appropriate to 'step out of your lane'?  I am sure it has to do with where you stand on the issue no doubt.    

The initial comment from a-majoor was a weak attempt to discredit a groundbreaking report.  You, like me, will comment how we see fit.  So will an economist that is hired to look at an ever worsening situation from an economic perspective.  
I see fit to comment that I see a group of people with their heads in the sand, denying the reality surrounding them.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2006)

Uber Cree, I agree with you on the stepping out of your lane thing.  If people have hard data to counter an opinion then we all learn.

With respect to the head in the sand - I am afraid I have to disagree with you there.  This subject is very much a matter of debate, not yet dogma.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Nov 2006)

Market forces aren't a blunt instrument; political policies are a blunt instrument.  Market forces aren't really an instrument which can be wielded to purpose at all, which is why few people conceive of using them as one.  The government's response to its perception of its fiscal position with respect to income trusts was a blunt instrument.  Setting emissions targets willy-nilly and legislating hell-or-high-water sanctions to force compliance is a blunt instrument.  Anyone who has spent time dealing with adminstration in the military knows just how often damn-the-consequences blunt instruments come down as direction from higher as solutions to the problems of the day.  I doubt there has ever been an organization more likely to eat its young than a government department wielding policies as blunt instruments to solve poorly and insufficiently understood complex problems.

>It warns that if no action is taken:

One should separate fear-mongering speculation from established fact.  If you're looking for fallacies, they're right under your nose in the Stern Report.

>"This is the strongest evidence yet of global warming in the Arctic,'' said Josefino Comiso, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

If it's warming in the Arctic, then it's "Arctic warming", not "global warming".  Here's a simple statement of fact: at any point in time, the global climate is either following a warming or cooling trend.


----------



## warrickdll (14 Nov 2006)

Canada is a large and diverse Federation with the following factors:
	- A province (Quebec) that has the ability to approach the Kyoto targets
	- A province (Quebec) that receives a large portion of transfer payments 
	- A province (Alberta) that cannot even come close to Kyoto targets
	- A province (Alberta) that funds a large portion of transfer payments

Noting that Ontario could be used instead of Alberta in those statements, I'm surprised that we don't take a more internal approach to Kyoto and its credit system. - Or did our negotiators completely lack imagination as well as good judgment.







			
				dglad said:
			
		

> ...
> While I am by no means firmly on the side of the "global protectionists"--mainly because their science really is so bad, and they rely so heavily on simple fear-mongering and solutions that would probably do more harm than good--I'm much more wary than those who would point to past climatic fluctuations and say, "see, it can happen for all sorts of reasons, so there's no reason to believe we're causing a problem today".  The Earth is a large and complex, but CLOSED chemical system.
> ...




The current government's approach (if it is serious) would seem to be in the right direction (no-pun) - we cannot expect to release toxins into the air and expect it to just work itself out. 

And, regarding the report:  we should be able to get some handle on CO2 while studies continue - but these CO2 based GDP predictions seem entirely invented.


----------



## dglad (14 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Market forces aren't a blunt instrument; political policies are a blunt instrument.  Market forces aren't really an instrument which can be wielded to purpose at all, which is why few people conceive of using them as one.  The government's response to its perception of its fiscal position with respect to income trusts was a blunt instrument.  Setting emissions targets willy-nilly and legislating hell-or-high-water sanctions to force compliance is a blunt instrument.  Anyone who has spent time dealing with adminstration in the military knows just how often damn-the-consequences blunt instruments come down as direction from higher as solutions to the problems of the day.  I doubt there has ever been an organization more likely to eat its young than a government department wielding policies as blunt instruments to solve poorly and insufficiently understood complex problems.



I certainly agree with you about government policy as it's often used, although well-crafted policies, regulations and legislation CAN be quite effective and efficient.

But I disagree with you fundamentally about market forces.  They very much are an "instrument" and much effort is put into manipulating them to some purpose, every day, in the stock, commodity, bond and other markets around the world, in corporate boardrooms and in government offices.  Take OPEC, for example...when that organization decreases production with the express purpose of increasing prices, that's using a market force (supply) as an "instrument".

When I say they're "blunt", that's because market forces are generally only meaningful on a macro scale, lacking any sort of precision targeting.  So when OPEC forces a price increase, they really have no control over the extent of that increase nor, in a global petroleum market, can they readily cause the price of oil to rise more in one region than another (without resorting to things like embargos).  Moreover, the principle of monetarism (allowing producers to respond to consumer demand without intervention from ‘distortions’ such as governments and trade unions, while profits and competition between firms and individuals provide sufficient incentives to produce efficiently) is generally insensitive to matters such as public good, and social costs and benefits.  That's why governments and their policies do (like it or not) have a role to play in all this.



> >"This is the strongest evidence yet of global warming in the Arctic,'' said Josefino Comiso, a research scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.
> 
> If it's warming in the Arctic, then it's "Arctic warming", not "global warming".  Here's a simple statement of fact: at any point in time, the global climate is either following a warming or cooling trend.



Not sure I understand your point here.  I suppose one could argue that an unusual degree of warming in the Arctic is independent of any global trend, which is what your first statement seems to suggest.   But your second statement immediately contradicts that, suggesting instead that the global climate is, as a whole, doing either one thing or the other.  Given that line of reasoning, warming in the Arctic must be indicative of warming overall.  Or, your second statement is incorrect or incomplete, and sub-components of the global climate can be doing different things (warming or cooling) at the same time.

All that aside, if the Arctic is experiencing an unusual degree of warming, then it would be worthwhile determining why that's the case.  One possible explanation is that the global climate is generally warming.  If that's true, then again, it behooves us to understand why, what role human activity may be playing in such warming, and what measures can be taken to mitigate.  This isn't scaremongering...it's a logical investigation of observable phenomenon, intended to draw a set of supportable conclusions.   I agree that scaremongering isn't useful, but the response to it shouldn't be an equally irrational denial.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> But I disagree with you fundamentally about market forces.  They very much are an "instrument" and much effort is put into manipulating them to some purpose, every day, in the stock, commodity, bond and other markets around the world, in corporate boardrooms and in government offices.  Take OPEC, for example...when that organization decreases production with the express purpose of increasing prices, that's using a market force (supply) as an "instrument".



Market forces (as defined by the science of economics) are a function of supply and demand. Humans want certain things and other humans are clever enough to try to meet these wants; market forces operate in all places and times, under any form of society or government you care to name, or even in the absence of governments (primitive humans operated sophisticated markets, as indicated by stone age burials complete with flint tools made from rocks imported from hundreds or even thousands of miles away.)

Virtually every event declared a "market failure" can be traced to the intended or unintended consequence of a policy or regulation imposed by a government. Even market failures caused by monopolies are a form of government interference with the market, monopolies are usually established or protected by the government, and/or perpetuated by tax and regulatory structures which prevent competition from moving in. The rail barons, for example, built their railroads on government land grants. Microsoft is the sole supplier of software for government agencies, and who has more computers than vast government bureaucracies.

OPEC is attempting to manipulate markets in order to achieve political ends, but is also spurring competition, since every oil spike provides incentives for enterprising individuals and companies to look for new sources of oil, alternatives to oil or conservation technology, undercutting OPEC. Even within OPEC, the biggest problem is members cheating on their quotas, selling more oil to get edxtra money, but increasingf the availabel supply as well. The invisible hand is guiding the oil marlket as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2006)

My preferred example of the inadequacies of government regulation is the bartering of toilet paper for a left footed size 9 brown shoe in the Warsaw Pact/Comecon countries.  Or the countless deals made in order to get elevated to the nomenklatura.

No matter what the government does it is just another player in the market.  The market will do what it is going to do.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

Go ahead, pick a graph!


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Nov 2006)

When I write that market forces can't be wielded to any purpose, I mean that markets aren't sufficiently understood or controllable for the outcomes to match the intentions of most of the would-be intervenors.  Otherwise, I wouldn't expect to see so many colossal frig-ups by governments and executives.  I don't respect people who parade accreditations of expertise and then proceed to make decisions by committee based on imperfect information and weak understanding of complex systems and then beg off responsibility behind a shield of protestations of good intentions and an ethereal trail of accountability.  My philosophy is simple: if you don't really understand it, leave it the hell alone.

>Not sure I understand your point here.

There's nothing incorrect or incomplete.  My points are that either global climate (ie. specifically the mean annual temperature, to the precision with which it is measureable) is warming or cooling, and that in any particular region the climate may be following or opposing the global trend.  Right now the global trend appears to be warming.  Most estimates of the mean temperature increase of the past century seem to be in the range 0.6 to 0.8 Celsius degrees.  It's clear from the paleoarchaeological record that the planet has at times been very much warmer and very much cooler in the past.  The arctic in particular was supposedly as ice-free prior in the early part of the past century (between the wars) as it is now, if not more so.  So I'm not predisposed to hit the panic button.  I agree that it's worth investigating why.  I disagree that we understand it sufficiently yet to follow expensive policy prescriptions.  I disagree vehemently that we should follow any policy prescriptions for a particular problem without considering equally other problems (requirements) which might be addressed with the same resources.


----------



## dglad (15 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> When I write that market forces can't be wielded to any purpose, I mean that markets aren't sufficiently understood or controllable for the outcomes to match the intentions of most of the would-be intervenors.  Otherwise, I wouldn't expect to see so many colossal frig-ups by governments and executives.  I don't respect people who parade accreditations of expertise and then proceed to make decisions by committee based on imperfect information and weak understanding of complex systems and then beg off responsibility behind a shield of protestations of good intentions and an ethereal trail of accountability.  My philosophy is simple: if you don't really understand it, leave it the hell alone.
> 
> >Not sure I understand your point here.
> 
> There's nothing incorrect or incomplete.  My points are that either global climate (ie. specifically the mean annual temperature, to the precision with which it is measureable) is warming or cooling, and that in any particular region the climate may be following or opposing the global trend.  Right now the global trend appears to be warming.  Most estimates of the mean temperature increase of the past century seem to be in the range 0.6 to 0.8 Celsius degrees.  It's clear from the paleoarchaeological record that the planet has at times been very much warmer and very much cooler in the past.  The arctic in particular was supposedly as ice-free prior in the early part of the past century (between the wars) as it is now, if not more so.  So I'm not predisposed to hit the panic button.  I agree that it's worth investigating why.  I disagree that we understand it sufficiently yet to follow expensive policy prescriptions.  I disagree vehemently that we should follow any policy prescriptions for a particular problem without considering equally other problems (requirements) which might be addressed with the same resources.



I don't think we're in disagreement, in general.  There are sensible things that can be done, that make economic sense, in the near term, without resorting to poorly conceived "policy prescriptions".  For example, it can be good economics to promote investment in R&D in alternative energy technologies (through, for example, tax credits or other incentives), to make them more efficient and cost effective.  This can support job creation, benefit our educational institutions, and provide for more sustainable energy generation.

And we do need to come to understand the things that are happening regarding our planet and its climate BETTER.  Yes, the Earth's climate fluctuates, on cycles and according to mechanisms we don't truly understand.  No, it's not time to hit the panic button.  But neither can we simply assume that this is "just another routine fluctuation".  We are, as a species, redistributing carbon in the closed terrestrial chemical system in a way that has not occurred since recorded history began.  What we need to know is how significant that redistribution is (or, yes, if it's significant at all).  In the meantime, it would behoove all of us to think critically, but also keep open minds, no?


----------



## UberCree (15 Nov 2006)

Interesting Fifth Estate tonight on CBC.
They assert that many of the scientists "debunking" global warming, are in fact the same "scientists" that argued on behalf of the tobacco industry.  

I wonder what it will take for some to wake up?  Just when you thought people couldn't be any more naive (those that believe the debunkers), they prove you wrong.  

Sorry to interupt, please carry on waxing poetic about the harm to the earth being one big fabricated myth.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2006)

UberCree said:
			
		

> Interesting Fifth Estate tonight on CBC.
> They assert



THEY ASSERT??....Well nothing like some good old-fashioned _asserting_ when facts really aren't necessary??

Come on.......its that kind of *cough* reporting that makes people go, " yea OK :"


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2006)

dglad said:
			
		

> I don't think we're in disagreement, in general.  There are sensible things that can be done, that make economic sense, in the near term, without resorting to poorly conceived "policy prescriptions".  For example, it can be good economics to promote investment in R&D in alternative energy technologies (through, for example, tax credits or other incentives), to make them more efficient and cost effective.  This can support job creation, benefit our educational institutions, and provide for more sustainable energy generation.



It would be better economics to simply pull the many layers of support and regulation away from the market, people will change their behaviour pretty quick if they are confronted by the true price of things. 



> And we do need to come to understand the things that are happening regarding our planet and its climate BETTER.  Yes, the Earth's climate fluctuates, on cycles and according to mechanisms we don't truly understand.  No, it's not time to hit the panic button.  But neither can we simply assume that this is "just another routine fluctuation".  We are, as a species, redistributing carbon in the closed terrestrial chemical system in a way that has not occurred since recorded history began.  What we need to know is how significant that redistribution is (or, yes, if it's significant at all).  In the meantime, it would behoove all of us to think critically, but also keep open minds, no?



I agree we do not understand the climactic system, and certainly attempts to stampede people and governments by issuing statements designed to cause panic (and that is what the Stern report and so many other Climate Change screeds are all about) do not help the situation. Given the preponderance of evidence noted in prior posts (i.e. lack of disastrous weather related changes during the Medieval warm period, the Antarctic gaining ice mass, the warming trend being observed on Mars etc.) leads me to believe that human activity is not the culprit, but since I am looking at facts I don't believe I need to *assert* anything.


----------



## UberCree (15 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> THEY ASSERT??....Well nothing like some good old-fashioned _asserting_ when facts really aren't necessary??
> 
> Come on.......its that kind of *cough* reporting that makes people go, " yea OK :"


Okay I should have written "prove".  By diggin up financial statements that showed payments from Exxon and Imperial oil to their scientific lobbyists through mediaries.  Worth watching, even if it gives you something else to complain about.

Sorry to rain on your denial party.  Do you guys have some major oil investments or do you just chose to be naive?


----------



## dglad (15 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> It would be better economics to simply pull the many layers of support and regulation away from the market, people will change their behaviour pretty quick if they are confronted by the true price of things.



Ah, yes....monetarism.  A marketplace free of distortions from regulation.  How much regulation would you remove--all of it?  Including workplace health and safety, environmental standards (and no, I'm not talking about climate change regulations here...I'm talking about regulations that control the release of things like heavy metals, organic solvents, etc. in the environment), labour codes that mandate things like minimum wage, regulations that govern the staking of mining claims, the condition of roads, construction standards, etc.?  I understand that business feel overregulated, and with some justification.  But some degree of regulation is desireable for the public interest, health and safety, and creation of a climate of certainty that promotes investment.



> I agree we do not understand the climactic system, and certainly attempts to stampede people and governments by issuing statements designed to cause panic (and that is what the Stern report and so many other Climate Change screeds are all about) do not help the situation. Given the preponderance of evidence noted in prior posts (i.e. lack of disastrous weather related changes during the Medieval warm period, the Antarctic gaining ice mass, the warming trend being observed on Mars etc.) leads me to believe that human activity is not the culprit, but since I am looking at facts I don't believe I need to *assert* anything.



The evidence you cite is very valid.  But are you choosing to discount evidence that shows the Arctic losing ice mass, the relative unimportance of sunspot activity on terrestrial climate, the retreat of glaciers in Greenland, etc.?   I am convinced, based on all of this body of evidence (except the warming of Mars, which I think is somewhat...spurious?) that human activity IS a factor in promoting a warming trend in the global climate.  I am not prepared, however, to say--yet--how big a factor it is.  That's something that requires serious and diligent research starting NOW, because IF it turns out that human activity is a major contributor, then we will need to start taking sensible and responsible  mitigating measures.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2006)

Monetarism is defined as:

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



> Monetarism is a set of views concerning the determination of national income and monetary economics. It focuses on the supply and demand for money as the primary means by which economic activity is regulated. Monetary theory focuses on money supply and on inflation as an effect of the supply of money being larger than the demand for money.



WRT regulatory excess and so on, your examples actually cover the good, the bad and the ugly. Setting standards for releasing toxins comes under good, raising minimum wages reduces demand for labour (bad) and increases unemployment and demand for social services (ugly).

The real trick is to have the lightest hand possible, and allow the natural flow of supply and demand to work. Strengthening property rights is a positive step, since it engages the property owners in protecting and increasing the value of their property, as well as reducing instances of the "tragedy of the commons" (compare a city park to a private yard or garden and you will see what I mean).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2006)

UberCree ,
Instead of sitting in the back and telling us we are 'this and that and so on', how about giving some commentary of your own?

...or are you content to just sit in the back and heckle?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2006)

This plan is somewhat more practical than the Kyoto accord, but planting more trees in your back yard and switching to white roofing material would be even cheaper and more effective.....

http://sciencenews.org/scripts/printthis.asp?clip=/articles/20061104/clip_fob2.asp



> *A Swarm of Umbrellas vs. Global Warming: Astronomer thinks small to save Earth*
> Ron Cowen
> 
> Some wives ask their husbands to take out the garbage. Roger Angel's wife asked him to get rid of global warming.
> ...



At least he's not kvetching about the problem, but applying some thought and producing ideas from outside the box. The highlighted portion is for people like us who are also of a practical bent, but don't have access to space. (I've got a few trees in already).


----------



## dglad (16 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> This plan is somewhat more practical than the Kyoto accord, but planting more trees in your back yard and switching to white roofing material would be even cheaper and more effective.....
> 
> http://sciencenews.org/scripts/printthis.asp?clip=/articles/20061104/clip_fob2.asp
> 
> At least he's not kvetching about the problem, but applying some thought and producing ideas from outside the box. The highlighted portion is for people like us who are also of a practical bent, but don't have access to space. (I've got a few trees in already).



I like it.  Very Rube-Goldbergesque.  Although....



> Rather than requiring rocket fuel, which could further contribute to global warming, the flyers would be accelerated into space by a large magnetic field applied along 2,000-m-long tracks. With each such launch sending out 800,000 flyers, the project would require 20 million launches over a decade.



What would generate the electrical power for the launchers, I wonder?  Perhaps a great manner hamsters in wheels, connected to generators.  Mind you, then we'd have to deal with the climatic effects of massed hamster flatulence.

More seriously, this is a good (albeit flakey) example of thinking...well, innovatively, I guess (we could probably achieve the same effect by lofting megatons of dust into the stratosphere...perhaps with many, many helium-filled balloons).  But among some of these more "creative" ideas, there could be some genuine worthwhile nuggets. 

My shed already has a white roof.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2006)

Moving from the strange to the somewhat more practical world, and some good examples of why government regulation (AKA Kyoto) is a very bad idea under any circumstances.

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=386



> *The Tory Principles That Libranos Won’t Get*
> Sometimes the conventional wisdom has difficulty believing that when the Tories say they’ll do things different, they mean it — and not in the way that conventional wisdom thinks. There are three cases yesterday that highlight a few of the new guidelines:
> 
> Principle No. 1: The Tories will not take the fall for the decisions of the previous government.
> ...



I find the last line rather optomistic, certainly the Liberals (or NDP for that matter) will be able to portray any activity they choose to undertake as the governing party as being "different" from the previous Conservative government and thus effective camoflage for what is really happening.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Nov 2006)

>They assert that many of the scientists "debunking" global warming, are in fact the same "scientists" that argued on behalf of the tobacco industry.

That's nice, but "guilty by association" is one of those fallacies you seem to dislike so much.  If you disagree with the argument, you have to assess the premises and the argument, not the colour of the suit worn by the guy making it.  If people paid by oil companies to do research are peddling bullshit, then show that they're peddling bullshit.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2006)

While we seem to be veering off topic, this is relevant: Stern, the authours of the Kyoto Accord and various environmentalists are jetting around the world (the sheer irony of that is just staggering) atempting to gain control of the global economy in order to impact the global climate. As we have seen through many many examples across the world and throughout history, there are grave dangers in messing with the market, the invisible hand of the market will provide unexpected outcomes to people who have the _hubris_ to believe they can outsmart  or control the market.

Milton Friedman demonstrated this during his lifetime:



> Milton Friedman helped us to interpret the actual communist economy not as a textbook command economy, based on directives going in the vertical direction from the central planning commission at the top to individual firms but as a very strange and truncated market economy with imperfect, but nevertheless dominant horizontal relations among economic agents at the microlevel. *Milton Friedman knew that it was impossible to suppress human behaviour, the spontaneity of exchange, implicit if not explicit prices, wide-spread bargaining etc.* It was a very rare attitude at that time.
> 
> Vaclav Klaus, 1997



So if we are stampeded towards the Kyoto/Stern approach to economic control, then we can see the history of the USSR played out on a global scale. Their legacy of a ruined people, economy and environment on a continental scale in just 70 years should be enough to dissuade any *rational* person from going along that path.


----------



## DBA (17 Nov 2006)

An alternate viewpoint taken from JunkScience.com.  



> We have to wonder when all the weird and wonderful artificial construct of "global warming" will come crashing down, as inevitably it must.
> 
> From two largely disconnected facts:
> - that the world is apparently a bit warmer now than it was in the early 19th Century and for some centuries before and;
> ...



Myself reading some of the articles on global warming and taking the material in Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking into account a lot of it is bullshit. Weather has never been constant long term on the planet we call Earth. We either adapt to the changes or we suffer. Trying to change global weather is pure hubris. The current fad of labeling every change in weather both short and long term as caused by global warming would be hilarious if it wasn't actually believed by so many to be true.

Edit: The author of the book I linked also later wrote a more general audience book on the same theme called Statistics You Can't Trust: A Friendly Guide to Clear Thinking about Statistics in Everyday Life. I found the book I linked not too math orientated but since math is a bit of a hobby of mine I might not be the best judge of that.


----------



## dglad (17 Nov 2006)

DBA said:
			
		

> An alternate viewpoint taken from JunkScience.com.
> 
> Myself reading some of the articles on global warming and taking the material in Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking into account a lot of it is bullshit. Weather has never been constant long term on the planet we call Earth. We either adapt to the changes or we suffer. Trying to change global weather is pure hubris. The current fad of labeling every change in weather both short and long term as caused by global warming would be hilarious if it wasn't actually believed by so many to be true.
> 
> Edit: The author of the book I linked also later wrote a more general audience book on the same theme called Statistics You Can't Trust: A Friendly Guide to Clear Thinking about Statistics in Everyday Life. I found the book I linked not too math orientated but since math is a bit of a hobby of mine I might not be the best judge of that.



From the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, Carbon Dioxide Research Group, U of C, La Jolla, California



> Period of Record
> 1958-2004
> 
> Mauna Loa, Hawaii, U.S.A.
> ...



A 19.4% increase in annual mean concentration of CO2 between 1959 and 2004 is not insignificant numerically.  It seems to fly in the face of the unattributed "Junk Science" numbers given in the article you posted.  So is the "Junk Science" article flawed?  Is the 19.4% increase significant in a climatic sense?  Can the Mauna Loa data, which the Scripps people claim are reliable in a "regional" sense for one sectional layer of the atmosphere, be reasonably extrapolated to a global trend?  The Scripps article also suggests that even larger increases are measured at "other stations".  Is that significant? 

These are only some of the questions that come to mind, and that need to be answered before one can draw reasonable conclusions.  The lesson is that there's a lot of data, whose interpretations are subject to emotional contamination, because "global warming" is an emotional subject.  The "Junk Science" article is interesting, but is also somewhat "passionate" in a subject that really requires dispassionate analysis by people with open minds.  I am not prepared, like the author of the "Junk Science" article is, to call global warming "a weird and wonderful construct", just like I'm not prepared to start clanging the alarm bells and calling, Luddite-like, for the factories and power plants to start shutting down.  Both are extreme views which can be "supported" or "refuted" by available data, if those data aren't subject to some rigorous analysis.  As I've said before, there are some sensible things we can undertake now, that can also have good economic benefits, without resorting to unwarranted panic (or denial).

Best to keep an open mind and hope that the people who are examining this matter seriously can do so with equally open minds, in order to draw reasonable and supportable conclusions.  I don't think the "Junk Science" author is one of those people.


----------



## DBA (17 Nov 2006)

The figures used in the JunkScience article are absolutes expressed as a percent not rate of change. The same figures are more commonly seen in the form ppm or ppb which is what you used. Use the conversion 100ppm = 0.01% of our atmosphere.

The theme of the JunkScience website in general seems to be : poor science is often pushed on the general populace to push some action plan or agenda which tend to have outcomes all over the  board so a large dose of scepticism is in order. An example would be the DDT ban being largely or at least in part responsible for the deaths of millions of people each year since the 70s and the suffering of a lot more. The reasoning goes malaria was successfully eradicated from most of the Americas by the use of DDT and other chemicals and the failure of such programs in other parts of the world since may be largely or partly due to them not being available. I view the article not as a rigorous paper on the subject but as a good summary of the basic arguments of opponents of the hype building on this issue. You only have to read such bullshit headlines like "U.S., U.N.: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide at Highest Level Ever" to know the hype is real.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Nov 2006)

Interesting headline in today's Vancouver Sun:



> *World will end in 2 to 3 generations, 72 per cent of British Columbians fear*
> Quick and drastic action needed to curb global warming, poll told



And in other news from October 2001,



> The survey also suggested that 57.1 per cent of Canadians - 68 per cent of women and 45.6 per cent of men - believed in angels.
> 
> As well, it found that 31.5 per cent of respondents believed in aliens and 30.2 per cent in ghosts.


 http://www.rense.com/general15/mostcanadians.htm

Please tell me that anybody believes we can have a rational debate in this climate.  David Suzuki, of course, is ecstatic.

And the solutions acceptable?

43% said charge 10% more for gas - translation "I can afford to spend more if it keeps the other guy off of my roads and saves my planet in the process."
23% said charge 50 to 100% more for gas - presumably that is made up of true believers, the really rich that wouldn't be affected and those that live in downtown Vancouver and take the bus to Stanley Park for their morning constitutional before their first latte of the day.

By the way, 72% of British Columbians, living in a rainforest and dealing with floods and mudslides, apparently believe we can save the planet by putting water meters on every house. 

I suggest we go back to the tried and true methods.  Lock up our daughters so that we maintain a useable supply of sacrificial virgins.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I suggest we go back to the tried and true methods.  Lock up our daughters so that we maintain a useable supply of sacrificial virgins.



*But burning and pillaging releases carbon dioxide!*  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2006)

Yes, George W Bush poses a threat to the entire solar system, if not the Universe! Don't tamper with the Dark Side!

http://theskinner.blogspot.com/2006/11/global-warming-worse-than-we-thought.html



> Saturday, November 18, 2006
> *Global warming worse than we thought... *
> 
> I had to swipe this from Jerry Wright's post on the Asimov's board - amused the hell out of me.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2006)

Here is a letter to the editor, reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, from today’s _Globe and Mail_ from Tom Adams of _Energy Probe_ (see:  http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=486 ):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061206.LETTERS06-9/TPStory/Opinion/letters 


> Wind power disappoints
> 
> TOM ADAMS
> Energy Probe
> ...



Maybe someone needs to take a closer than usual look at the $430,000 in loans M. Dion used to finance his leadership campaign (see: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54201.0.html ) to see how much came from those destined to benefit from Canadian _environmental_ billion-dollar-boondoggles.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2006)

All the news thats fit to print vs what "they" want you to know:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/news_release_that_wont_ever_see_the_light_of_day_in_liberal_media_5994_so_r/



> *News release that won’t ever see the light of day in liberal media, #5,994. (So read it here!)*
> Posted by Joel Johannesen
> 
> A PTBC reader named Linda sent me this raw news release from the newswires, asking if I thought it will ever make it into the liberal mainstream media.  Naturally Linda, being a right-thinking person, was joking—her question was of course meant as sarcasm.  Just read the news release—it speaks to another infinitesimal bit of the enormous number of daily fallacies and unconscionable deceit surrounding the man-made global warming industry and cult religion (and what I call their total “sham”, Bob!) And that ain’t liberal!  So, like, as if.
> ...


----------



## DBA (9 Dec 2006)

> Washington D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”



The announcement itself is here. Lots of references and covers all the bases well.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2006)

And the document itself: http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf


----------



## UberCree (12 Dec 2006)

Someday you need to visit Churchill.  When you get there, please tell everyone that 'global warming' is a contsructed myth.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2006)

I am quite certain that the climate is changing.

I am fairly certain – based upon evidence like Churchill -  that the earth is warming, again.

I suspect that man-made greenhouse gasses are part of the cause of the (likely) warming.

I am uncertain about what, if anything, we can or, for that matter, should do to try and alter the changing climate.

I am absolutely certain that the _Kyoto Protocol_ is a useless bit of fluff – conceived, initially, by the European union as a means of _sharing the pain_ of cleaning up after the Russians with the Americans.

*If* climate change is something which will harm the majority of the world’s people* then we must find some scientifically sound ways to mitigate its harmful effects: buying _emission credits_ from Russia is, pretty nearly, the dumbest idea of the 21st century.  Let’s not send the money to Vladimir Putin; let’s use it, instead, to e.g. _sequester_ CO2, build urban forests  and so on and so forth – if the science says that will do some good.

Elizabeth May, Stéphane Dion, and all the other _greenies_ are trying to scam Canadians for partisan political purposes.

----------
* It must be about more than flora and fauna.  Species, of all sorts, went extinct before we, humans, arrived and they (and, likely, us) will go extinct in the future.  This planet, and its ecosystem, is, for better or worse, inhabited and modified (_engineered_) by us – for our greater good.  All actions have consequential reactions, some good, some bad.  Let us tidy up the unfortunate consequences of the acts – like consuming energy – we perform to make our lives better.  Making our lives substantially worse to save the spotted owl is not going to work.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2006)

"Global Warming" is not a myth.  As a hypothesis it has a lot of support from the geological, archaeological and historical records.  They all seem to indicate warming and cooling have occured and will occur.  Currently we seem to be in a "long term" warming trend.  What is happening on the short time line is up for debate.  Whether or not humans are significantly contributing to it is still more debatable.  Whether or not we can change the trend, whatever it may be, is still more debatable yet.  Whether or not Canada's actions might have any effect beyond the moral is considered to be unlikely by all but the most fanatic believers.

That belief is akin to the notion that Vancouverites, living in a rain forest, or for that matter Canadians at large who daily watch 10,000 times their water requirements wash out to sea to become polluted by salt, need to show solidarity with the poor blighters living in deserts by restricting themselves to a goatskin of water a day.   

A more effective use of collective guilt in the latter case would be to bring water to the desert by pipeline, river diversion, or aquifer mining, or even by unpolluting sea water through desalination.  Or perhaps, better yet, get people to follow their ancestors that moved to where there was water.

Similar responses to global warming would likewise be a better use of resources.

Remember that the same science used to support Global Warming also indicates that the only reason we are here in Canada arguing about Global Warming is because the last lot of ice melted and is still melting.  We have all moved in since the ice retreated.

Cheers fellow settler   

What Edward said......


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2006)

Another dose of reality:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005145.html
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112806D



> *Bjorn Lomborg*
> Exerpts from an interview with Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World;
> 
> 
> ...



The final line is the key: If our goal is to help people; if our goal is to help the environment. Based on the evidence I would suggest the "goal" is for the enviromental alarmists and their political hangers on to help themselves to money and power.


----------



## dglad (15 Dec 2006)

> Please tell me that anybody believes we can have a rational debate in this climate.



I think this just about sums up the thread.  It's clear that there are those on both sides who have decided what the "correct" answer is, and will find it hard to accept any information that points the other way.  And the harder each side pushes, the harder the other pushes back.

As usual, the truth is probably somewhere between "the sky is falling" and "what, me worry?"  The rational approach would be to conduct dispassionate research to determine how great an influence human activity is having on the climate, accept what the results tell us, and then design an appropriate response, which could range from doing pretty much what we're doing now (very little i.e. we're not really offering much input to the global warming trend, and it's due to forces completely beyond our control) to some serious re-thinking and redesign of how we generate and use energy.  Unfortunately, very little of that sort of research is being done, and what IS being done is either being co-opted by one side or the other to prove their position, or simply lost in the background noise.

Which means that, by default, we're going to just hope for the best, and that we don't end up like the original Easter Islanders.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2006)

A double header:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t341350850360302/



> L. F. Khilyuk1 and G. V. Chilingar1
> 
> (1)  Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
> 
> ...



Relevant exerpt:



> the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century)



Of course, Mr Dion now has to make up for 13 years of lost time if he wants to be credible as an environmentalist, but has he seriously considered _where_ the CO2 comes from in Canada?

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005161.html



> SaskPower... is the third largest producer of greenhouse gases. So, while Dion speculates aloud about taxing oil, gas and coal what will he do about a Crown Corp? How do you tax a province? Transfer-payments? Income tax?


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2007)

I'm sure we will hear LOTS about this in the MSM........

http://www.bluebloggingsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2034



> *Kyoto suffers a dose of reality*
> Written by BBS
> Wednesday, 31 January 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Feb 2007)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, etc...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm



> Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
> Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
> By Timothy Ball
> 
> ...


----------



## edgar (6 Feb 2007)

Here's an essay that drills deeper into the problem Timothy Ball identified, from Paul Graham: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html.

Reproduced - Arrr! 

"What You Cant Say

January 2004

Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarrassed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It's the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."

and etc...

The whole thing is long but worth your time.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Feb 2007)

Dr Bell is definitely a heretic to the global warming crowd. However to me he is a breath of fresh air in this crazy debate. His credentials make it hard for the global warming supporters to refute so they probably will try to ignore him. I hope more scientists will coalesce around Dr Bell to debunk the myth of global warming.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? 

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007 

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.


What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. 

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. 

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. 

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. 

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? 

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. 

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. 

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. 

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com


----------



## JesseWZ (6 Feb 2007)

This isn't the first time I've heard about global warming being a myth, and frankly after having read some excerpts of Dr. Bell's research I would have to agree.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2007)

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81744


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Feb 2007)

Too often we hear the shrill cries from the "global warming crowd" that to call down the Kyoto accord is to enemy of the environment. The world is warming, of that most scientists agree, it is the "why is it warming", that the fights break out.

Also it seems that people mistakenly lump environmental causes with climate change causes when the comparison is akin to apples and oranges. I personally am all for reducing our consumption of natural resources and using more energy efficient appliances, but not because it "might" be warming the planet but because I want to save money!  Our resources are not finite, and finding more efficient ways will end up lowering costs in the long term.

I remember once hearing someone descibing how ridiculous it is to assume that man could "kill planet earth", the only thing in danger of dying from mans actions is mankind.

Dr Bell sounds like a smart, well spoken man, unlike most Kyoto supporters!

Remember Kyoto= socialist money redistribution plan.


----------



## Haletown (6 Feb 2007)

Kyoto .  I'd bet 95% of Canadians have very little actual knowledge of what it is, who does what and why.

good summary at  . . .  http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200702_horner.pdf


----------



## Sheerin (6 Feb 2007)

This bothers me.  

I don't know if the trend of increasing temperatures around the globe is man-made.  I don't know if CO2 is the culprit.  I don't know if human induced Global Warming is fact or fiction.  What I do know is that if you take a look at Toronto during the summer, on most days what you see is nice thick cloud of Smog.  Same goes for practically all other major cities in the world.  

Is this good?  *HELL NO.*  I don't really care about Global Warming and if its true or not.  Global Warming isn't going to kill us, its the smog and other air pollution that will.  And that is why we need to change and become more environmentally friendly.  

Of course most people ignore this.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2007)

The problem in this case is time, energy and attention is being diverted away from Smog and other pollution problems in order to deal with "Global Warming". Since the planet Mars is currently warming up as well, you can see the amount of effort being put into the Global Warming scaremongering will be about as useful in climate change as debates on how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.

Speak up, and tell politicians to pull their heads out of their A** and deal with *real* problems like smog, not mythical problems like "man made Global Warming".

Real problams like this:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/02/dont-eat-yellow-snow.html



> *Don’t Eat Yellow Snow*
> 
> Don't eat the Yellow Snow ... no, I mean it;
> Don't eat the Yellow Snow in Russia
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (7 Feb 2007)

Your "Mars" comment was worth looking into.  Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report.  I wonder if all our Global Warming alarmists have pondered that.  Do they have some way of blaming that on mankind?  I also wonder if Mars was one of the signatories of the Koyoto Accord?   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (7 Feb 2007)

Alas, George, the Climate Change scaremongers will either look at you in disbelief, deny it is happening, or accuse you of being in the pay of Big Oil should you bring up factual evidence such as current climate changes therough the Solar System, or historical evidence like the Medeaval Warm Period of @ 800-1300 AD (when the climate was somewhat warmer than it is today).

I am sure someone, somewhere, can explain how George W Bush and Karl Rove have changed the output of the sun (probably through the use of no compete contracts with KBR)  Mars is exempt from the Kyoto accord due to some clever backroom dealings between Marvin the Martian and the Chinese and Indian delegations.  ;D


----------



## Haletown (7 Feb 2007)

the information is out there.  A couple of good sites to check regularly.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/misc/index.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/


good article today  . .    http://calgarysun.canoe.ca/NewsStand/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2007/02/07/3548993-sun.html


----------



## edgar (7 Feb 2007)

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070201LadischBio.html

_This_ is why Kyoto etc is Bogus. This and all the windmills in Pincher Creek, and those guys who can screen-print solar cells to make shingles. Point is the environment is getting better, and our kids will have a better standard of living than us no matter what we do.


----------



## Osotogari (10 Feb 2007)

Look for a lot of McArthy-type name calling in regards to Kyoto skepticism.  Anyone in the scientific community not on board is accused of being in Exxon's pocket, while the rest of us are called 'deniers'.  

There's a lot of things that can be done to help curb pollution, but I'm no more willing than the next guys to have it cost me my mortgage nor do I think it serves anyone's interest to have a bunch of money leaving the country either.

I've said it before, I don't think this would have been as much of an issue if there wasn't such a mild beginning to winter in the centre of the universe  Toronto.


----------



## Flip (10 Feb 2007)

I called this social effect NEOPURITANISM 20 years ago.
In our "enlightened" age we don't say " God will get you for that ".
Still, we can't resist the notion that were headed for trouble.

Our economy and standard of living was built on cheap energy, 
so it's natural to attack the source of our collective material wealth.
People spend a lot time making up the reasons.

Global warming, as advertised, has become a bad religion.
When I go to church I want to feel better - not doomed.

Does anyone remember the Soviet "weather control" satellite that crashed in the arctic about 28 years ago?  The media bought the weather control bit completely.
And I never really believed that our exhaust pipes had a lot to do with the weather either.

The CO2 in our atmosphere is in the very low parts per billion range.
The amounts have been far higher.( not recently )
An extremely small variation in the sun's intensity could have profound change on our climate, and it does change.

Everyone here is quite right in pointing out that legitimate environmental concern is getting swept aside and somehow it's just fine that China gets a walk on the environmental scorecard. Also it is wrong to squander a resource or to pollute
recklessly.

What I think.......

Kyoto is simply not to Canada's strategic or economic advantage.
The carbon credit part of the plan is insane.
Canadians could easily end up paying a heavy price for using Canadian 
fossil fuels!

Now one more thing.....
How is it, I find myself agreeing with the opinions and values expressed
on ARMY .ca almost 100% of the time? Is there some sort of conspiracy!? ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2007)

Amen Brother Flip....

Deus Vult.  Insh'Allah.  It's the Commies.  It's Washington.  It's the Corporations.

Crap happens.

People really hate the fact that there might actually be NO ONE in charge.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Feb 2007)

Global climate change is part of nature, simple as that. I did some research and found out some interesting tid bits of info about the reality of climate change.

Could you imagine trying to explain the last three ice ages that occured to some hippy enviromentalist?

"I guess when the last ice age was ending (10,000 years ago) we should blame the whooly mammoths for owning too many cars and saber tooth cats for burning too much fossil fuel"


----------



## Harbl_the_cat (10 Feb 2007)

This should bode well for those of us in Alberta, where we struggle to recruit new soldiers because all the healthy young men of age are off in the oil fields, making $100,000 a year.  Once Kyoto comes into place, all of them will be unemployed and BAM! New Territorial Battalions fill up before you can say "economic recession"

With Kyoto, I'm sure glad I'm a Reservist, because when I'm laid off at my civilian job, my condo is devalued by 50%, and they start handing out food ration card; I'll still have some form of financial security and won't have to resort to committing suicide so my family can collect my life insurance.  Then again, if the Liberals come back, who knows what will happen to the military? (My guess is nothing good)


----------



## DBA (12 Feb 2007)

Article from a coauthor of a book coming out soon on another climate driver is interesting. The basic line of thought is the sun has more effect on Earth's climate than just sunlight. It also may have a major influence due to changes in the strength of it's magnetic field. The field's interaction with cosmic rays may play a roll in some cloud formation. Strong field, less cosmic rays reach Earth, less cloud formation then warmer planet or region of the planet. Weak field, more cosmic rays reach Earth, more clouds then cooler planet. 

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change.


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Feb 2007)

Posted my own take on Kyoto on my blog if anyone is interested.

www.rmacqueen.blogspot.com


----------



## Flip (12 Feb 2007)

I find myself a little concerned with the potentialy blasphemous tone I seem to have
started..........Sorry.

I think you generally got my point though.
As a person of faith - I have a hard time accepting the TV preachers.
I recognize the methods, the charisma, the cult of personality that
has been adopted by the "neopuritans".

The subject of magnetic and other radiation has always intrigued me.
As a technical guy,(electronics) I am acutely aware that not all energy can be seen.
 I am also aware that science NEVER has the last word-It is a work in progress
by defintion.

Remember back in grade school when they taught us that we were overdue for an ice age? That the molten core of Earth was cooling? That we could only taste sweet,
salty and sour on specific locations of our tongue? "They" were wrong.

The truth is - I don't know what the truth is.
But I do know that there is very little truth in the "truth" of today.

But I'm just preaching to the choir, so I'll shut up now.

BTW - why is that earth's core still not cooling? ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> Article from a coauthor of a book coming out soon on another climate driver is interesting. The basic line of thought is the sun has more effect on Earth's climate than just sunlight. It also may have a major influence due to changes in the strength of it's magnetic field. The field's interaction with cosmic rays may play a roll in some cloud formation. Strong field, less cosmic rays reach Earth, less cloud formation then warmer planet or region of the planet. Weak field, more cosmic rays reach Earth, more clouds then cooler planet.
> 
> An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change.



That would follow in line with previous posts on the Global Warming taking place on Mars. (Reply #10   Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report  )


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Feb 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I find myself a little concerned with the potentialy blasphemous tone I seem to have
> started..........Sorry.


 
Flip - I had no intention of blaspheming.  Apologies if that was the perception.

My point is, was and continues to be that in a world where an increasingly large proportion of the "educated" define themselves as unbelievers they present themselves with a conundrum.  Good and bad things continue to happen regardless of whether or not there is a God.  It is easy to ignore the good things and declare them to be normal.  It is harder to ignore the bad things and declare THEM to be normal as well.

For people of faith it is still problematical that God allows bad things to happen but at least some one is in charge. They have no control but someone does
For people without faith, they live in a world where everyday is Russian Roulette without the comfort of a sentient being at the trigger.  They have no control and no one else does either.

I believe that because fewer people have a faith to adhere to when bad things happen then they are more inclined to hope/believe that some mortal created the disaster or at least could have prevented it.

It is easier to live in a world where we are destroying it because we drive SUVs, cut down trees and don't recycle rubber bands, than accept the fact that at any moment the sun could unleash a flare that could send us all back to the stone age.

Cheers.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (12 Feb 2007)

A great site, the USGS. Scroll around, it is full of information that debunks the so called Global Warming issue as advertised. Not that it is not happening just that it is a natural progression of the planet and its cycles to cool and heat.
  A very interesting part is the issue of arctic ice melt.....the concept is that the volume of the water in the sea is the same whether the water is a solid or liquid. Also the concept that the worlds oceans can uptake CO2 better once the ice melts and thus will reduce the CO2 in the air. Ice is an inhibitor to CO2 uptake of the ocean....who'd a thought given the crap in the left media reports.
 I'm all for reducing the pollution in the air not green house gas, but by default in controlling the air pollution we will by knock-on effect also arrest some green house gas.

www.usgs.gov


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2007)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> There is sure a heck of a lot of white climate change falling right now!



Big issue for us out here on the Wet Coast is too much snow-pack in the mountains.  Now they are complaining that the river that Gaia decreed for us isn't big enough to hold the water that Man has apparently created.  Therefore Man needs to make the river bigger to hold his extra water - dredging and dyking are the order of the day.  Go figure.  And this after a couple of years of Man not supplying enough snow.  

I can hear those ancient Mesopotamians laughing now - what with all their weird notions about Dams and God and all.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Feb 2007)

On Kyoto:

     We can make the targets if we really wanted to.  But we don't.  In order to meet the targets, at this point, we would have to do so many drastic things it would be harmfull to our economy.  What happened wasn't a surprise,  the government that signed the international agreement did nothing substantial to meet the obligations.  There were a few measures, awareness campains (Remember Rick Mercer - one Ton challenge) but it all did very little.  As much as I abhor smear ads, "We didn't get it done" is frankly hitting the nail on the head.

     When the current government came out and said (I'm paraphrasing here)  "International agreements are good for international countries.  We are in Canada and we know how we can best affect out greenhouse gas emitions.  We can come up with a plan that will be better than Kyoto while not damaging our economy."  Then they came out with their Made in Canada plan ... ... ... That poor poor woman.  Few times in my life have I seen a politician fall on their sword for their leader, Rona Ambrose did just that.  She presented exactly what the governments plan was and was publicly ridiculed but then was replaced with someone else when a real plan was decided upon.  Now the current government seems to be full on board with the environment,  coming out with rather interesting ideas - which I wont rehash here because they are still not aiming at meeting Kyoto.

"Coming after a five-year-old letter surfaced in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the protocol a money-sucking socialist scheme, Dion's motion calls on the House of Commons to declare that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence'' that climate change is the result of human activity."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070201/baird_climate_070201?s_name=&no_ads=

Pain Without Gain: Canada's Kyoto Challenge
     http://www.cme-mec.ca/Kyoto/index.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/Kyoto/timeline.html


On Global Warming being caused by humans:

      The research is in,  opinions formed, opinions bought, rewards offered for evidence to the contrary but the research is in.  If you want to argue that "not everyone agrees" or "all the facts aren't in".  Well one can make that case.  On the flip side of that I can say that not everyone agrees with where baby's come from.  Not everyone agrees that they come from Mommies. I mean "what do storks do"?  If you're going to report on baby's you have to include opposing view points,  so in sex ed you must present fairly and give equal time to Storks.    I know this is silly,  but so is arguing that we're having an effect on the climate.  We are releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases every day.  It is proven that these gases will increase the temperature of the earth.  So much so that it is even causing another measurable effect called global dimming. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml


On another issue:

     If you take some fruit flies,  put them in a jar with a limited source of food (say a jar of jelly) they will thrive.  They will multiply until they are so numerous theyeat all of the food.  Then they all die out. The food source is limited,  non renewable once it is used it is gone.  The same can be said of our dependence on fossil fuels.  We use it, and then it is gone.  There has been a huge population explosion since "discovering" uses for fossil fuels.  Every year not only are we consuming more but the rate by which we are increasing our consumption is increasing.  Opinions vary as to how many decades we have left before we run out, but we will run out.  Even if it is 100 or 150 years from now it will happen.  Do we sit around and hope for an amazing new technology to suddenly appear that will let us all do whatever we want?  Or do we get to work on finding solutions to problems that are coming our way.  Do it now or do it later. Please remember what happened on Easter Island.  I think it will be better the sooner we start to move out economy onto renable sources the easier time we'll have doing it.

    Now there are many heath issues associated with pollution.  It just makes sense to start moving our economy onto runnable resources.  Yes there will be issues,  no it isn't perfect right now, but we know we will have to eventually,  so lets get the ball rolling.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (13 Feb 2007)

I agree with it....although I would argue it was designed to get popular support through Socialist 'group think', I think it was intended to profit European and Russian upper classes who intentionally overstated their original emissions in order to sell fictitious savings to emitters that had know future development such as oilsands producers.

I should add that the shear stupidity of thinking that by signing Kyoto in regards to the oil sands, the only thing we'll accomplish is guaranteeing that the value-added process of refining (including the constructions jobs associated with building the upgraders and refineries) will go just south of the border.  Net effect on North American overall emissions = ZERO.  Loss of economic weath = BILLIONS.

Kyoto is beyond stupid and is a blatant rip-off that only stupid people fall for....(Sorry Zell, that's not intended directly at you, but this issue really makes me mad because the do-gooders haven't done their homework which doesn't in any way appear to slow their proselytizing)


Matthew.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Feb 2007)

If you look at the actual science, North America is a negative emitter.  This is due to the reforestation that has taken place in the last 50+ years.  When that is calculated in, North America actually absorbs more carbon than it produces.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2007)

Of course, Kyoto is not stupid due to the lack of underlying science, but also the very real economic impacts it will have on all of us:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.com/2007/02/bodies-falling-from-tall-buildings.html&title=Bodies%20falling%20from%20tall%20buildings...



> Watch for a trading panic... if Dion and the Liberal Doom-meisters ever get their hands back on the levers of power...
> 
> *Companies representing 40 per cent of the Toronto Stock Exchange's total market capitalization would be directly affected by a legislated system of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caps and trading, and that impact will be negative for most of them, a new report from CIBC World Markets says.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Feb 2007)

The science is in. Climate change is real, but Kyoto is a total waste of time to make people feel like they are doing something useful. There are no easy solutions. Switching over to nuclear energy and roughly doubling our generating capacity to supply electric automobiles is the only workable solution to make a dent in emissions. The current “solutions” are just cosmetic and political. No one will have the cahones to do what needs to be done to stop climate change.

   If it were global cooling Canadians would get behind it. I hate winter and every time it hits –20 I stop caring. I think we should just consider that it will happen and simply plan ahead. Its not like we live on an island nation that is going to lose the majority of its land if the icecaps melt. Canada may actually be better off, no one knows. OF course this is just my opinion.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Feb 2007)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Zell_Dietrich.....I am guessing you don't agree with the statement?



Thing is,  Kyoto was an attempt to force companies to pay for their "external" costs.  Imagine this,  a Widget maker packs his product in Paper-A.  Paper-B comes along and costs the Widget maker $0.75 a widget less to pack.  This sounds great until we realise that Paper-B will cost $5 more to be disposed of afterwards.  Since the Widget maker does not have to pay the $5 dollars to deal with the waste,  he treats it like an externality.  Until the full costs associated with his choice in paper are brought into the decision, the Widget maker will choose Paper-B.

     What if the municipal government charged the Widget maker for the $5 per item clean up?  To the Widget maker it would appear to be a blood sucking socialist scheme.  To everyone else it would appear that they are trying to force people to pay the real economic cost with their choices.

This whole thing about "trading credits" was all about giving entrepreneurs an incentive to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.  The theory being if it can make money or save money people will do it or find a way.

So to answer the question,  no.  On that particular statement I don't disagree with Stephen Harper.  It is a money sucking socialist scheme. I just think that it is a good thing.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Feb 2007)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The science is in. Climate change is real, but Kyoto is a total waste of time to make people feel like they are doing something useful. There are no easy solutions.


Obviously you haven't heard, according to the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the global temperature hasn't increased since 1998.


----------



## Flip (13 Feb 2007)

But of course we are missing the obvious......

We keep hearing europeans and environmentalists talking about the greatest threat
to humanity and saying it's global warming............piffle.

I would say Iran and North Korea represent a far greater threat.
Pan Arab nationalism ( Islamic extremism) is a bigger danger than that.

Add to that, China will never accept any impediment to industrial growth
and Kyoto is irrelavant.

Just a little thought to warm us all up.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2007)

It seems to be a problem throughout the whole solar system.  As there is Global Warming happening on Mars, I would say that mankind has had nothing to do with causing it, there or here.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Feb 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> This whole thing about "trading credits" was all about giving entrepreneurs an incentive to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.  The theory being if it can make money or save money people will do it or find a way.


More likely they will just pass the cost on to the consumer causing inflation.  Or, they will import the same product from the "developing" countries, like China, who are increasing their emissions 500% without having to pay a cent for the crap they are putting in the air.  Now both widget companies are out of business and their employees on UI.



			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> So to answer the question,  no.  On that particular statement I don't disagree with Stephen Harper.  It is a money sucking socialist scheme. I just think that it is a good thing.


I would rather they spent the time and money cleaning up pollution, like smog, that is actually killing people, than wasting it on something that has happened hundreds, if not thousands, of time in the history of the earth.  Remember, it was only 10,000 years ago that Woolly Mammoths were wandering around the Artic chewing on flowers.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Feb 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It seems to be a problem throughout the whole solar system.  As there is Global Warming happening on Mars, I would say that mankind has had nothing to do with causing it, there or here.


That's because the Martians didn't sign Kyoto ;D


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Feb 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Thing is,  Kyoto was an attempt to force companies to pay for their "external" costs.  Imagine this,  a Widget maker packs his product in Paper-A.  Paper-B comes along and costs the Widget maker $0.75 a widget less to pack.  This sounds great until we realise that Paper-B will cost $5 more to be disposed of afterwards.  Since the Widget maker does not have to pay the $5 dollars to deal with the waste,  he treats it like an externality.  Until the full costs associated with his choice in paper are brought into the decision, the Widget maker will choose Paper-B.
> 
> What if the municipal government charged the Widget maker for the $5 per item clean up?  To the Widget maker it would appear to be a blood sucking socialist scheme.  To everyone else it would appear that they are trying to force people to pay the real economic cost with their choices.
> 
> ...



As long as you realize that Kyoto is none of the above positive things....
1)  Because as I mentioned, the starting point was some very major European companies starting by inflating their actual output and selling the difference between their falsified pre-Kyoto emissions and current day actuals.
2)  That you actually contribute more GHG when you recycle (because it takes a lot of energy to recycle) than if you just dump things in landfills and so all the recycling measures Canada has added since 1990 are being counted against our GHG emission counts.
3)  That Kyoto even by its original architects was designed within an objective that based on an unstoppable increase of I think it was 2.4 degrees Celsius, that by everyone meeting their commitments, they'd reduce that increase by 0.1 degree.
4)  That Kyoto provides no credit for the creation of carbon sinks such as reforested areas.  Now if THAT doesn't tell you this is money grab instead of an altruistic program, I don't know what will.

Bottom Line:  I'm all for doing environmentally positive things (I choose to live downtown and walk to work on most days even though I'd rather live in the country which would force me to commute) and believe in reducing harmful particulate and heavy metal  emissions and that Canada should cooperate with the United States within NAFTA on creating a system that works on both sides of our border that imposes the same restrictions and penalties to both nations so that no economic advantage is gained or lost, but shipping money overseas in the Kyoto scheme is absolute lunacy.  I should add, that with 250 new coal-fired plants I predict that beautiful BC will soon be getting smog days thanks to China, and if I'm right we're talking about hundreds of tonnes of new heavy metals going into the air globally that the closing or our two coal-fired plants in Ontario will make appear trivial.

Kyoto = pissing into a stiff wind.

Serious people need to find better answers....l


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2007)

No further comment needed on this story:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheStrongConservative/~3/90661300/hearing-on-global-warming-cancelled.html&title=Hearing%20on%20Global%20Warming%20Cancelled%20Because%20of%20Winter%20Storm



> Hearing on Global Warming Cancelled Because of Winter Storm
> 
> You can't make this stuff up. Via Drudge:
> 
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Feb 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Dr Bell is definitely a heretic to the global warming crowd. However to me he is a breath of fresh air in this crazy debate. His credentials make it hard for the global warming supporters to refute so they probably will try to ignore him. I hope more scientists will coalesce around Dr Bell to debunk the myth of global warming.
> 
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
> 
> ...



Dr. Ball is one of the presenters in this video, in which actual climatologists present their views on global warming: "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFXM0claHq4 (video is in 5 parts, all about 5 mins/each)


----------



## eerickso (14 Feb 2007)

We have twice the amount of CO2 than normal in the atmosphere. If we stopped CO2 emmision today, I believe the earth would return to its natural state. Since the earth has been around for awhile it must be somewhat resilient, right?

As a concerned citizen, I worry about global warming.  However, to fix the problem, I hope we don't attack our weak and fragile manufactures. I know for a fact that they are not resilient!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Feb 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> We have twice the amount of CO2 than normal in the atmosphere. If we stopped CO2 emmision today, I believe the earth would return to its natural state. Since the earth has been around for awhile it must be somewhat resilient, right?
> 
> As a concerned citizen, I worry about global warming.  However, to fix the problem, I hope we don't attack our weak and fragile manufactures. I know for a fact that they are not resilient!



Please provide your source re: "Twice the amount of CO2 than normal".

In return, I'll post some of my source information this evening.


Many thanks,  Matthew.


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Feb 2007)

The earth is billions of years old. I am a concern citizen too, but I know better.  The earth is not a constant, the climate is always changing, plates are always in motion.  The earth has been warming since the last ice age, it has been posted before but Canada only contributes approx 5% of the so called greenhouse gases.  

I can't wait to see what's next, attaching high powered engines to the plates to keep them from shifting?  How about water vapor?


----------



## rmacqueen (15 Feb 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> I believe the earth would return to its natural state.


Please tell us what the earths natural state actually is?


----------



## eerickso (15 Feb 2007)

I have no idea. However, one of the state variables is carbon dioxide concentration. By extracting air from arctic ice, it would appear that a concentration of around 280 ppm would be considered "normal" or "natural".

I apologize for my last post. When I looked at this graph, I though the vertical axis started at zero. It appears that CO2 is 1.4 times the normal concentration. 

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/07.htm


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Feb 2007)

>Please tell us what the earths natural state actually is?

Ice age.


----------



## Flip (16 Feb 2007)

There is another point.

If we were to jump in full bore to the extent that we damage the economy,
the results could be catastrophic.

Poverty is huge contributor to ecological damage. New "clean" technologies
simply don't evolve in severely depressed economies.

We could be forced into bad decisions out of necessity.

Brazil, for example was "encouraged" into a massive deforestation
program so they could raise cattle for export.
They traded a debt problem for ecological destruction.

China has wildly increased it's output of pollution.
The increase is likely to continue for a very long time.

The net effect of Kyoto is to simply hand the Chinese our bag of cookies.


----------



## eerickso (16 Feb 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Please tell us what the earths natural state actually is?
> 
> Ice age.




Didn't I just answer this question? If your are saying that the earth doesn't achieve a steady state, I am aware of this.


----------



## Bomber (16 Feb 2007)

A bit off topic.....

Ban drive throughs, thorugh out all of Canada.  This would solve a bunch of problems problems

1.  Shutting down the cars would eliminate all the pollution created by all the iddling cars wating at the Timmies driver through on the weekend

2.  People would be forced to show themselves in order to purchase items at these vendors.  It would add a human touch to ahve a 300 pound coronary candidate walk into a McD's and ask for a number 10, double meat, and a # 6 with cheese, and a diet coke for the figure.

3.  People would not be sitting behind a catless Dodge Neon for 20 minutes wating for a double tosted bagel, not breathing that crap would save lives.

4.  Actually leaving your car and walking into the establishment would be physical exercise, not much, but hey, more than diggin in your cup holder for a coupon, a loony, and a lighter for your smoke.

These are all big time generalizations, but hey, with these in place, all of our economy would benefit.  Companies would have to hire workers to seal up the old drive through windows and expand the entrances (more jobs) hire people to man these more complex "people positions".  Medical and Healthcare providers would have thier burden eased, cause most people that have wieght problems would be to ashamed to go in and actually order an item with their body on display.  Banks would have to hire more tellers.  And the biggest one, pollution would go down.  Everyone talks about Pre 1990 levels, well, when was the first time you ever saw a drive through bank machine?  And who doesn't remember the McDonalds play area?  Or the swivel stools that used to be in Timmies?


----------



## Northernguardian (17 Feb 2007)

Canada could revert to a stone age culture and it would do next to nothing to reduce global CO2. We produce 1-2% of it, so even if you believe the junk science, we are a bit player.

The leftist MSM in Canada is spinning this story, saying it is the #1 concern of Canadians. What BS. What happened to health care? We can't find a family doctor. Not important, as a piece of ice fell off a glacier. If health care isn't a big deal anymore, perhaps Harper has improved it? If so, why isn't this in the media?

The reason the media is spinning this story is to discredit Harper, who has reduced taxes, begun *rebuilding our neglected Forces*, cleaned up gov't corruption, and given the country a backbone in foreign affairs. The prospect of Harper winning the next election scares the crap out of most journalists who are liberals or socialists, and there is little out there to slam the Tories on as they have run a clean government. Journalists have to do their part to defeat Harper, and global warming is their cause. Never mind that the liberals signed an impossible treaty, then did nothing to obey it except pay Rick Mercer lots of money to do stupid commercials. The liberals never had a plan.....except transfer billions of taxpayers dollars to third world countries to buy "credits." Unfortunately, this is all over the heads of most Canadians, who watch the CBC/CTV, etc, and believe everything they hear. 

Meanwhile China is polluting the world in an unprecedented way. This is conveniently missed in the Canadian media . See http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,461828,00.html

Here is a quote from the Der Speigel article:

The country is home to 16 of the world's 20 dirtiest cities. The inhabitants of every third metropolis are forced to breathe polluted air, causing the deaths of an estimated 400,000 Chinese each year. Half of China's 696 cities and counties suffer from acid rain. Two-thirds of its major rivers and lakes are cesspools and more than 340 million people do not have access to clean drinking water.

We are worrying about CO2 when our Chinese friends are poisoning the entire planet. They are building something like 600 coal fired power plants per year.  Kyoto does not apply to them. Sounds like a great treaty to me.....

Kyoto is a good name for fool's dog.  >


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2007)

I don't agree with Kyoto either. I think it would be a big mistake to go after Canadian manufacturers. Yesterday, again, we found out how sick our auto industry is. 

Personally, I think we need to go after the oil and gas sector. Those people can whine and complain all they want, but the fact is they are not going anywhere. 

Ean


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Feb 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> I don't agree with Kyoto either. I think it would be a big mistake to go after Canadian manufacturers. Yesterday, again, we found out how sick our auto industry is.
> 
> Personally, I think we need to go after the oil and gas sector. Those people can whine and complain all they want, but the fact is they are not going anywhere.
> 
> Ean



"Go after"?

Are you in High School or University? ....because there's no way someone with a job should think about the world in that way.
1)  The oil & gas industry is the main driver of trade surplus resulting in net wealth transfer into Canada of roughly $70 billion per year.
2)  The oil & gas industry is the main driver of new employment in Canada.  I agree with you that auto industry is collapsing (in my opinion because of non-reciprocal trade access with South Korea and China), but shooting your one positive driver is beyond stupid.
3)  The oil & gas industry provides a huge portion of the nations tax income, both in terms of the investments they are making (which they pay taxes on), the incomes they pay to both direct and indirect workers in supporting industries (which the workers pay income tax on), and in terms of income taxes on capital gains and dividend income as provided by the shareholders of these companies, the vast majority of which are Canadian.  

And just to examine that little portion alone, companies like Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands, Encana, and CNQ by themselves have a Market Cap well in excess of $125 BILLION.  You slap punitive measures on those companies and you immediately have a net wealth loss within Canada measured on what is total group Market Cap of $250 billion.  

I'm just going to throw this out there and let you chew on it for a while.

If I were made King (and hopefully some day that will happen  ;D ), I would base my environmental policy on clean air and not GHG's.

I frankly don't believe that based on research in the Roman Era when Greenland was in fact "green" and they grew grapes in England and Newfoundland, that Global Warming is that bad a thing.  Specifically, from a North American perspective, warmer winters mean less fossil fuels burnt to heat homes and more importantly a significant temperature change could result in more cities being like Vancouver and Victoria where it's temperate enough to walk all year round (thus reducing our automobile emissions).

I would immediately institute a national urban planning council to create royalty-free plans for smart development based on ALWAYS creating housing near commercial space so that more people have the option of walking/biking to work every day further reducing the need for cars.  The constant griping by environmentalists that "We need more public transportation" to me is a very expensive attempt to solve the wrong problem.  The problem shouldn't be "How do we transport so many people great distances from their homes to their work?"  It should be "How do we get more people to move close to work so that they don't need to use any fossil fuels at all to make that journey?"

I would immediatley institute a "smart home" planning council to once again create royalty free plans for energy-efficient home construction.  

I would provide income tax deductions for upgrading homes to include replacing windows, or adding their own solar or wind power arrays.

I would provide income tax deductions for ULEV vehicles.  "Hybrid's" don't necessarily mean "good".  They just mean they're better than their conventionally powered relatives during city driving (on highways, their fuel consumption and emissions are identical).  I should add, that in your emissions calculation you should always ensure you add the emissions used to produce said peice of gear.  If it takes an extra 6 barrels of oil worth of energy to build a hybrid as opposed to a conventional car, you have to be honest and recognize that sunk GHG emission that you then need to counteract by using that field over a future period of time before you even breakeven on GHG emissions.

In terms of emissions, I would target any emitter of heavy metals or particulates and I would institute a transitionary punitive tax system so that over 10 years those sources would be transitioned to cleaner technologies.  If you look at heavy metals in the body - they do nothing good - Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Cancers, you name it.  I wouldn't be surprised if there's a tie-in with autism as well.  Preferably I would do this in concert with the United States as our wind currents take pollution over them, and their pollution over us.

I should add, that although the United States was not a Kyoto signatory, their incentive-based system of upgrading technologies has resulting in a significantly larger drop in emissions and particulates that our Liberal-fake-Kyoto "well, we were gonna do something sometime in the future" plan.   :

I would mandate that all high use vehicles (as opposed to personal vehicles) such as buses, taxis, limos would be based on a clean technology within 10 years.  

[of note, if you're curious about the 10 year window, you need to give time for industry to recognize the new market, and engineer mass-produced solutions otherwise the niche production costs are extremely high - as an example some of the fuel cell buses just bought by Vancouver were worth something like $3.5 million versus a standard bus which is worth $400,000]

I would further put in place a new trade regulation that would tax nations based on the health impact their emissions make on our citizens.  China and India because of their ever-increasing VERY dirty emissions would be the primary two who would be targeted.  The hope is that if Canada leads with such a policy, the United States would follow because unless there is a significant financial reason for China to change its emissions policies, they'll continue to flip us off.

I should add, I think water has been totally ignored as a pollution issue and whatever amount I spent on air quality, I think we should be spending at least 50% on ensuring we don't "E-coli days" in our lakes.  Seriously, that's just gross.  Whomever grandfathered the ideal of spilling our shiiit into our lakes and rivers ought be dug up and hit with a shovel.

As an economic incentive to the Auto Industry I would do three things:
1)  Not emissions related:  I would immediately embargo cars and car parts from countries not providing reciprocal trade access.
2)  I would create the world's greatest incentive to build electric and hybrid cars (and buses) in Canada.  I would provide a ZERO corporate tax rate for all R&D and manufacturing facilites producing hybrid or electric (plug-in) cars within Canada and then let market forces shift the investment very quickly.
3)  I would mandate the universities provide programs to feed into this new industry.
4)  I would provide a 60% investment for 49% ownership in (3) new off-the-shelf nuclear plants in Ontario that would be built in modules in sequence (of note, private interests would own 49% and the remaining 2% would be held by a neutral party that would prioritize safety over profit).  The overinvestment considering the ownership would start to even out the Fiscal Imbalance with Ontario (which is very real by the way), would provide adequate electricity to start a plug-in auto industry, as well as allowing OPG (which probably should be disbanded) to close the two coal-fired plants we have.

Just as a final aside, and probably a minor insult, the difference you'll find when you get older is a Liberal is someone who is driven by idealistic objectives but does not know how to implement a mechanism to acheive their objectives, and so in most cases all things they try to do either idle, experience huge cost overruns because of horrid planning, and otherwise fail horribly.

Conservatives (and I'm talking fiscal versus social here), tend to think of everything in terms of implementation.  What are the real factors that impact change and then try to create practical solutions that although not meeting the higher objectives a Liberal may wish to see, does result in a real difference in a much shorter time frame....all the while not bankrupting us all.  

As a side note, one thing is very telling - If you look at Canadians who can read financial statements and who understand how Income Statements, Balance Sheets and Cash Flow Statements work, 90%+ vote Conservative.  I should add that is something you should teach yourself.  It will help you a great deal in both your work life and as importantly during your own financial planning.

My recommendation to you is not to be a Conservative, maintain your idealism, but start researching enough you so that you understand the causes & effects so you can put forward your own implementation plan where you understand to the last detail the impact on the economy, personal finances, and in the case of the environment what the ROI is for the greater planet in the context that China is building 2500 coal power plants within the next 20 years (which they claim they don't have the funds to build with clean-coal technology which is a load of bunk when you recognized they're sitting on a TRILLION of $USD reserves)....because if we are looking at all this from a global standpoint, the greatest thing that Canada can do is to provide the incentives for China and India to change what they're about to do which could literally make the Pacific Ocean look like the old pictures of Los Angeles with a deep thick brown smog.  Don't laugh.  I predict smog days across the West Coast of Canada and the United States within 5 years because of their current policies and it's going to get much worse before it gets better unless we get them to change their path VERY soon.


Cheers,  Matthew.


----------



## Flip (17 Feb 2007)

Matthew.........

Excellent work! I couldn't disagree with one letter of it!

BTW - Nuclear power plants in Fort Mac. would be a good idea
if only to get environmentalists to "pick their poison".

Pollution - much bigger issue. No vague science here.

I like your comparison of Liberal versus Conservative.
It conspicuously ignores New Democrats which should be , well.......
ignored. ;D


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2007)

I totally agree with you about hybrid cars. Unfortunately, the Japanese will be selling these cars to us.

Your right, getting more money out of tars sands is wrong. Besides, where else in Canada can someone fresh out of high school make 80,000 dollars a year for driving a dump truck?  Am I jealous, angry, bitter? You bet! I guess I am not considering the other benefits to our economy (alcohol, hookers, guns and big trucks)? 

quote author=Cdn Blackshirt link=topic=32987/post-529144#msg529144 date=1171733556]
I frankly don't believe that based on research in the Roman Era when Greenland was in fact "green" and they grew grapes in England and Newfoundland, that Global Warming is that bad of a thing
[/quote]

So was this before or after the resurrection of Jesus Christ? 



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If it takes an extra 6 barrels of oil worth of energy to build a hybrid as opposed to a conventional car, you have to be honest and recognize that sunk GHG emission that you then need to counteract by using that field over a future period of time before you even breakeven on GHG emissions



I am getting nailed to for facts. How about assumptions?


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Feb 2007)

Its not an assumption the Hybrid car does require much more energy to produce than your conventional car.  Plus the mileage they get on the highway is sometimes lower than a comparable conventional car.  If you strictly drive your Hybrid in a city you will save in the long run, but if you are a highway commuter, you will be better off with something else.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2007)

Poll in today's Vancouver Sun (page A16):

Are you willing to make changes to "cure" Global Warming - 78% Yes
Are you willing to pay $100 more taxes to "cure" Global Warming - 49% No
Do you think you can make money out of "curing" Global Warming - 77% Yes.

Summary:  Willing to save the planet if I can make a profit out of it. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Feb 2007)

> I would immediately institute a national urban planning council to create royalty-free plans for smart development based on ALWAYS creating housing near commercial space so that more people have the option of walking/biking to work every day further reducing the need for cars.  The constant griping by environmentalists that "We need more public transportation" to me is a very expensive attempt to solve the wrong problem.  The problem shouldn't be "How do we transport so many people great distances from their homes to their work?"  It should be "How do we get more people to move close to work so that they don't need to use any fossil fuels at all to make that journey?"



At that point Matt you would be recreating New Lanark, Harmonie-Indiana, Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield...... not to mention Toronto and Montreal ca 1900.

Not a bad plan and it can be done - Just get rid of the coal fires and go Nuclear, add a few more parks.

Where do I vote for you?


----------



## eerickso (17 Feb 2007)

This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859

I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2007)

Your hybrid will cost what $8000 - 10,000 more than a regular car ? You can buy alot of gas for that money. The cost of a new battery is around $4000 which would need to be replaced in 4 years or so. I wonder who will be laughing at whom ?


----------



## Flip (17 Feb 2007)

Oh, another thing.........

Batteries involve huge environmental cost.
Energy used in recycling and cleaning up.

The heavy metal pollution is gram for gram some thing like
100000 X worse than the gases from your existing car!

And I like the hybrid idea!

And where do you get the energy to charge that battery anyway?
Hybrid cars are no panacea.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2007)

Althouth the US Senate is not always known for thier common sense:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/02/us-senate-committee-bashes-climate.html&title=US%20Senate%20Committee%20Bashes%20Climate%20Alarmists



> US Senate Committee Bashes Climate Alarmists
> 
> Get a Load of This from US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works.
> You know, THAT US Senate that is controlled by Al Gore's Democratic Party. Of course, the Suzuki Kookies and Gore Core will spend weeks trying to discredit the speaker. Even though he is accountable and they are not.
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Feb 2007)

I love it:



> POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
> Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET
> 
> The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2007)

More inconveinient truth's

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_execsum.asp



> *Fire and Ice*
> 
> Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming
> 
> ...



Follow the link and read the rest


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Mar 2007)

_I like it......._................one could skip right now to the top ten list below.

Lorrie GoldsteinThu, March 1, 2007

    Dion's 'Top 10' Kyoto excuses 
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

   
Suppose a federal election is held this spring and Stephane Dion and the Liberals win. As I said, just suppose. 
The Liberals will immediately be confronted by a horrendous problem -- how to keep their promise to implement the Kyoto accord. 

After all, Dion and his party are still committed to enacting the international treaty on global warming they signed in 1998 and then forgot about until voters tossed them from power last year. 
Despite their record of inaction while in government, last month they led the three Opposition parties in passing a private member's bill by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, calling on the Conservatives to implement Kyoto. Indeed, the Liberals claim the legislation forces the Conservative government to act. 

So that must mean the Liberals think the Kyoto accord is still doable, right? 
After all, asking someone to do something you never did yourself and which you know can't be done, would be the height of hypocrisy, right? And the Liberals would never stoop so low, right? 

Once you sort out all his verbal gymnastics on the subject, Dion's stated position is that if the Liberals are returned to power this year, they can still meet Kyoto's target of reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to an average of six per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. 

Since, in the real world, as opposed to Liberal la-la land, many believe Dion's position is, how should I put this delicately-- oh, yeah -- INSANE, considering what it would do to our economy, Dion is clearly going to need some excuses at the ready, should the Liberals successfully claw their way back to power this year and then fail to implement Kyoto ... again. 

Just like all the other post-election excuses the Liberals needed for not fulfilling all the other election promises they made, starting in 1993. 

Here then, with the obligatory nod to David Letterman, are Prime Minister Stephane Dion's Top 10 excuses for why the Liberals will not be able to implement the Kyoto accord ... again. 

Number 10: "Kyoto ate my protocols." 

Number 9: "This is unfair. This is unfair. You don't know what you speak about. Do you think it's easy to make priorities?" 

Number 8: "I firmly believe that as a good citizen, I have a moral obligation to implement the Kyoto accord on global warming. Meaning, of course, as a good citizen of France." 

Number 7: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times." 

Number 6: One year later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be getting our soldiers out of Afghanistan." 

Number 5: Two years later: "Yes, implementing the Kyoto accord is important, but right now our priority has to be reducing medical wait times." 

Number 4: Three years later: "Yes, implementing the ... aw, to hell with it." 

Number 3: "Define 'implement'." 

Number 2: "I lost the Liberal plan to implement the Kyoto accord while I was looking for the Liberal plan to scrap the GST." 

And Prime Minister Stephane Dion's number one excuse for not being able to implement the Kyoto accord? 

"Ladies and gentlemen, Environment Minister Belinda Stronach."


----------



## DBA (3 Mar 2007)

> Global Warming Petition
> 
> We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
> 
> There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.



During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.


----------



## 2 Cdo (5 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859
> 
> I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says,* "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"*



This is your dumbest post in a long list of dumb posts.  : You obviously have no idea of how the economy works, so stay in school and study hard and maybe some day you might graduate high school. It's attitudes like yours that creates the wests inherent (and deserved) mistrust of the east!

The bold is my addition.


----------



## Osotogari (7 Mar 2007)

> This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859
> 
> I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"



Yeah, right. 

Too bad the battery will eventually fail and have to be replaced at a great cost to your pocket and the environment.  I wouldn't doubt that it would be more the fuel I burn in both my Harley and my Tracker during the same amount of time.  

If Alberta can kiss your ass, then we'll gladly hold onto our portion of equalization and maybe you and Mark Holland can buy your little indulgences carbon credits you really can't afford.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2007)

It is always nice to have these debates with real numbers: David Suzuki without vs the Canadian Manufacturers society with.....

http://hespeler.blogspot.com/



> Kyoto Economics: The Cost to Canada - Part 1
> 
> The second Canadian Kyoto report I looked at was Pain Without Gain: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters. This one is the polar opposite of yesterdays Suzuki Foundation report, with very pessimistic, although I think far more realistic, conclusions. This report looks at Kyoto from an industry perspective almost exclusively.
> 
> ...





> Kyoto Economics: The Cost to Canada - Part 1
> I have reviewed three Canadian papers on Kyoto to try and get a gauge of what implementing Kyoto would mean. Previously I looked at Germany and Europe, and have taken some of that analysis into my figuring on the Canadian situation.
> 
> The first paper I looked at was The Suzuki foundation's Keeping Canada in Kyoto. Suzuki modestly predicts a 300M cost to Canada from Kyoto implementation, and even hopefully offers up one study that suggests a 2B benefit to Canadians. He further makes some claims, such as global warming has already cost Canada $5B in agricultural losses due to a 2001 drought in Western Canada, and potential loss due to forest fires, timber loss, even perma-frost melting destabilizing pipelines.
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Mar 2007)

Interesting and very well researched documentary on the subject, recently aired by Channel 4 (UK): <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&hl=en/">The Great Global Warming Swindle.</a>  It's long (1:15), but well worth it, particularly if you are under the rather misguided notion that 2,500 of the world's leading climate scientists signed off on the recent IPCC report.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Mar 2007)

What people forget is that the global warming theology is based on consensus and not science, otherwise there would be no debate. Global warming to me is just an excuse for new taxes and would severely impact industry.


----------



## Flip (11 Mar 2007)

I_am_John

Thankyou for that!  Confirms everything I have ever believed about (you know what)

The conclusion was particularly compelling.
Limiting industrial growth in the developing world
consigns the people in it, to the stone age.

I did some work for a missionary who added solar lighting to a clinic - 
just like the one at the end of the clip.
One Honda generator would solve all of the problems at once.
No doubt about it - solar lighting will save lives at this clinic.
A small generator would save more.

What will they do while we're working on this miracle of "sustainable" energy?


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Mar 2007)

Already we are seeing stories about the threat of ethanol.Frankly I think these people are against technology and would love to cripple our economy.


----------



## eerickso (11 Mar 2007)

Flip,

Having Africans use their precious money to buy wind generators and solar panels is cruel. It should be the oil companies that are told to invest in this technology.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (11 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Flip,
> 
> Having Africans use their precious money to buy wind generators and solar panels is cruel. It should be the oil companies that are told to invest in this technology.



"_Told_" by whom, the vanguard of the proletariat?  :


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Mar 2007)

Here is the future if our politicians pander to the global warming crowd.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen11.xml

Cameron considers tax hikes on air travel
By Melissa Kite and Patrick Hennessy, Sunday Telegraph

Harsh new taxes on air travel, including a strict personal flight "allowance", will be unveiled by the Conservatives tomorrow as part of a plan that would penalise business travellers, holidaymakers and the tourist industry.

The proposals, to be disclosed by George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, include levying VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights for the first time as part of a radical plan to tackle global warming.

The Conservatives will also suggest - most controversially of all - rationing individuals to as little as a single short-haul flight each year; any further journeys would attract progressively higher taxes, a leaked document entitled Greener Skies suggests. 

The Tories' radical green taxes form one of the most ambitious programmes ever put forward by a mainstream political party. But they sparked an immediate war with Labour last night, while the travel industry branded them a "tax on fun". 

In a further departure from Tory tradition, the party will underline its green credentials by welcoming Al Gore, the Democrat former US vice-president, to a meeting of the shadow cabinet on Thursday. 

Mr Osborne's document will list a series of far-reaching, though uncosted, green tax proposals the proceeds of which will be ploughed into tax cuts "for the family", said a Conservative source.

Among the proposals, which the Tories insist are options for consultation, are:
Charging fuel duty or VAT on domestic flights. The document notes that there are "no legal barriers" to introducing either levy and adds: "We have pledged that any additional revenues from environmental taxes that we propose at the next election will be offset by equivalent reductions in other forms of taxation."

Replacing the £10 to £80 Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight tax levied on airlines which would penalise the dirtiest engines the hardest.

A personal "green air miles allowance" which would punish those who flew more often with a higher tax rate.

The document states: "For example, everyone could be entitled to one short-haul return flight per year at the standard rate of tax, but additional flights would be charged at a higher rate."

The leaked paper claims: "We need to find a policy approach whose side effect is not to make air travel the preserve of the better off." It also reveals fears that public support for additional environmental taxes on aviation would be undermined if it was interpreted simply as a means of increasing total tax revenues. There is a danger that increases in the cost of flights may put air travel out of the reach of those on low incomes, it admits.

Mr Osborne told The Sunday Telegraph: "This demonstrates that we are prepared to take the tough, long-term decisions necessary to tackle climate change and back up green rhetoric with action."

The policy announcement comes only a week before Gordon Brown's Budget, stealing a march on green tax measures he is expected to disclose. This week the Government will launch its long-awaited Climate Change Bill, which will set out the economic case for taking action on global warming.

A Tory source said the idea was to punish dirtier aircraft and frequent fliers, not "once-a-year package holidays".

However, the plans were denounced last night as a "tax on hard working families" and a "tax on fun". A spokesman for the British Air Transport Association, which includes British Airways, BMI and Virgin, said: "These proposals would threaten to decimate the airline industry, the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports. They would put at risk the UK's position as the global transport hub and our links with the rest of the world.

"They would tax hard working families out of the sky all for the sake of tackling 0.1 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions."

Opponents said it was hard to see how the average family or business person could stay within the proposed flying "allowance".

A Labour source said: "These policies would raise vast amounts of extra revenue and impose a hugely complex tax regime, but with no discernible impact on global emissions from air travel. The Tories have had two years to come up with a coherent policy on green taxes, and it beggars belief that this is the result."

Frances Tuke, of the Association of British Travel Agents, said: "Any tax will put a dampener on fun. Passengers don't want to be unfairly taxed."

The plan was welcomed by green campaigners. Martyn Williams, of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's important someone is looking at this because we are expecting the Government to leave out CO2 emission targets for international flights in this week's Climate Change Bill."


----------



## Flip (11 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Flip,
> Having Africans use their precious money to buy wind generators and solar panels is cruel. It should be the oil companies that are told to invest in this technology.



Our little Ugandan lighting project took a year and cost the Africans nothing.

New technology takes time - and a donor.
How many of the two billion waiting for this technology will die?
Really, Just let the developing world, develop without "climate change" interference 
will let the oil companies do some actual good. 

If you want to consider what the major perils on earth are (environmental and human)
It ALWAYS comes back to poverty.  The only cure for poverty is prosperity.

The environmental movements ( which I consider relatively socialist ) would love to knock us ALL back to 1700.  They don't get ( or care ) that it would probably exterminate a large proportion of humanity.

If I said that socialism was obscene in this context, I think many of you would agree.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2007)

> Frances Tuke, of the Association of British Travel Agents, said: "Any tax will put a dampener on fun. Passengers don't want to be unfairly taxed."
> 
> The plan was welcomed by green campaigners. Martyn Williams, of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's important someone is looking at this because we are expecting the Government to leave out CO2 emission targets for international flights in this week's Climate Change Bill."



Mr. Williams then went on to explain that concerned Friends of the Earth could contribute to the campaign by purchasing specially hand-crafted scourges. These scourges, replete with FOTE embossed in the links and on the handles, have been recently acquired from the same sources that supply the Shia Pilgrims at Karbala and Najaf.  Guaranteed to bloody your back at every stroke.  Proof positive to your discerning neighbours of your devotion to the cause.  With every purchase of two scourges FOTE will throw in a free hair shirt.  A family set of four will be accompanied by a signed copy of "An Inconvenient Truth".


Buy your genuine FOTE-Shia scourge and contribute to both the Global Warming campaign and the campaign to make Iraq AND the west mediaeval......  Limited time offer.




The only thing I can think of to turn this tide is to make it well known that the IPCC was Maggie Thatcher's idea.   I can't see the Trots of the Red-Green movement cheering anything that had Maggie's face attached to it.

Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Oi, Oi, Oi.


The other bizarre thing I thought I picked up from the documentary was it seems the number of Experts on the IPCC is decreasing - from 2500 to 1000 - unless I misremember.  At this rate it shouldn't take very long at all before "THE ONE" emerges.


----------



## Flip (12 Mar 2007)

Kirkhill,

When the latest IPCC report was published a comment writer in the Edmonton Sun
noted that the wording of each report was more moderate as time went by.
Over time the word certainly was replaced by most probably and so on.
She noted that in a few years it might say "no problem at all"

I love the scourge idea - a museum piece - I would keep it next to my copy
of Mao's little red book.

In the film I noticed several communist era flags and individuals coming
dangerously close to "incitement".

In time the whole thing will blow itself out.
Last night Passionate Eye on CBC featured 5 ways to save the planet.
Technical means to reverse Global warming. 
One idea looked like fitting the earth with contact lenses, another was
synthetic trees.  The weirdest stuff on CBC ever - I'm sure.

But I am SURE and without doubt that we( all of humanity ) will cause more damage
to the environment, trying to control global warming than by any other single means.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Mar 2007)

In today's National Post: <a href="http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7">Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?</a>


> Lorne Gunter, National Post
> Published: Monday, March 12, 2007
> 
> Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2007)

While Al Gore consumes more energy than an average city block (Three mansions, and a private jet to spread the word about Global Warming.....) another politician lives rather differently (and below the MSM radar apparently)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/is_george_bush.php



> Only your dispassionate Canadian correspondent could write this without colour or favour, but is it possible that George Bush is a secret Green? Evidently his Crawford Winter White House has 25,000 gallons of rainwater storage, gray water collection from sinks and showers for irrigation, passive solar, geothermal heating and cooling. “By marketplace standards, the house is startlingly small,” says David Heymann, the architect of the 4,000-square-foot home. “Clients of similar ilk are building 16-to-20,000-square-foot houses.” Furthermore for thermal mass the walls are clad in "discards of a local stone called Leuders limestone, which is quarried in the area. The 12-to-18-inch-thick stone has a mix of colors on the top and bottom, with a cream- colored center that most people want. “They cut the top and bottom of it off because nobody really wants it,” Heymann says. “So we bought all this throwaway stone. It’s fabulous. It’s got great color and it is relatively inexpensive.” Hmm, back to that vote about the Greenest President? :ff Grid via ::EcoRazzi


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Mar 2007)

For those who really enjoy science, the attached link is to a BBC documentary on Global Warming that is just outstanding.

Warning - It is 1 hour and 13 minutes long and so I'd advise all to do what I just did and make sure you have a good reserve of your favourite drink and snack before you watch it....but trust me, it's outstanding.

I'll look forward to comments....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle


Cheers,  Matthew.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Mar 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt,

I posted that video in the <a href="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/46854/post-540551.html#msg540551">Al Gore vs. Arithmetic</a> thread, and there's been some discussion of it already there ....

Cheers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Mar 2007)

Way ahead of me again....   

Sorry, I've been on the road for a couple of weeks non-stop.  I'll go check the other thread.


Matthew.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Mar 2007)

The other thing that's kind of funny is the anti-air travel lobby (marxist, socialist, anti-west, etc.), is that they ignore the positive impact of contrails as a weather moderating force.  That is, they do act as blanket and reduce daytime highs while increasing nighttime lows (the true impact of this was only discovered in the days after 09/11 when all the planes were grounded and comparison was done).


Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2007)

The EU is already considering "rationing" air travel. Of course there would be exceptions for important people....... :


----------



## observor 69 (14 Mar 2007)

Leaading scientists in this field agree that Gore overstated and was even plain wrong in some parts of his film. They also agree that global warming is a fact, only question is how much warming is going on and how can we slow the rate of warming. 


Climate change a 'questionable truth', G&M
http://tinyurl.com/yoyt9g


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2007)

Something to deflect those annoying Solar warming deniers!

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/index.html



> *Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says*
> Kate Ravilious
> for National Geographic News
> February 28, 2007
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Mar 2007)

<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1">This </a>would be pretty interesting (although I can't see Manbearpig Mr. Gore accepting the challenge): 



> *Al Gore Challenged to International TV Debate on Global Warming*
> Mar 19 04:30 AM US/Eastern
> 
> PERTH, Scotland, March 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a formal invitation sent to former Vice-President Al Gore's Tennessee address and released to the public, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous." (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/docs/20070316_monckton.html)
> ...


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Mar 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> This is what I will be doing when I buy my Japanese hybrid:
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=859
> 
> I am also going to put a big sticker on the back of my new hybrid that says, "Alberta can kiss my %&# along with some other countries"





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Your hybrid will cost what $8000 - 10,000 more than a regular car ? You can buy alot of gas for that money. The cost of a new battery is around $4000 which would need to be replaced in 4 years or so. I wonder who will be laughing at whom ?



One of my personal beefs with the global warming bandwagon is that in attacking a problem that we don't fully understand we can end up with unexpected consequences, some of which can be the opposite of what we intended (e.g., DDT).  And too many solutions are of an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" nature, that simply displace and exacerbate the supposed problem.  Of course any "study" can be dependent on assumed variables, but this gives some food for thought, nonetheless ...

http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188


> March 7, 2007
> 
> *Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage*
> By Chris Demorro
> ...



_<< EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, note that the original is linked and quoted here, however I came across it through a link on www.Samizdata.net  >>_


----------



## rmacqueen (25 Mar 2007)

A scientist recently posed an interesting question and that was "when did CO2 become a pollutant?"  CO2 is a naturally occurring substance that is the key to life on this planet, without which we would all die.  Further to that, the current atmospheric content of CO2 is approx. 385 part per million (ppm) and horticulturalists know that prime growing conditions for plants on earth is actually 1000ppm.  So, a true green plan for the environment would support the increase in CO2 production.

Enough with the stupidity and lets actually tackle the pollutants that are killing people, such as ground level ozone and sulphur emissions, rather that spending billions to tackle what is, in reality, a harmless substance that has little, if anything, to do with climate change. (water vapour has more effect on climate change than CO2, maybe we should ban water)


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Mar 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> 385 part per million (ppm) and horticulturalists know that prime growing conditions for plants on earth is actually 1000ppm.



Nice bit of info that MacQueen.  Can you give a reference? I would like to use it in future discussions.


----------



## rmacqueen (8 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Nice bit of info that MacQueen.  Can you give a reference? I would like to use it in future discussions.


From http://www.howitworks.net/how-a-greenhouse-works.html



> CO2 is essential to photosynthesis and thus it must be present in the air at least in at least 300 ppm in order for plants to grow properly.





> Most plants grow with a yield increase of ten to thirty percent when the CO2 levels are between 1,200 to 1,500 parts per million.


----------



## RangerRay (9 Apr 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For those who really enjoy science, the attached link is to a BBC documentary on Global Warming that is just outstanding.
> 
> Warning - It is 1 hour and 13 minutes long and so I'd advise all to do what I just did and make sure you have a good reserve of your favourite drink and snack before you watch it....but trust me, it's outstanding.
> 
> ...



Great movie.  Very educational.

Note that according to this film, contrary to what Gore says, the rise in atmospheric CO2 occured *after* the rise in temperature, not before.  Hence, atmospheric CO2 is *not* causing warming...

EDIT: The link doesn't work.  Try <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle">this link</a> .


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2007)

Here is CTV's Article and the Globe & Mail's Articles on the new Conservative Plan

Tories plan to stabilize emissions by 2012: CP
Updated Mon. Apr. 16 2007 8:35 PM ET Canadian Press
CTV Article Link

OTTAWA -- A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.

The 13-page plan, marked secret, sets out spending plans for many new initiatives, including $230 million for development of clean energy technologies.

It would allow companies to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism, which is intended to encourage investment in poor countries.

It says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012.

After that, emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.

Eric Richer, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird, said the plan "sounded like action and we promised action.''
More on link

Draft plan could stabilize greenhouse emissions
CANADIAN PRESS
Globe & Mail Article Link

OTTAWA — A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.

The 13-page plan, marked secret, says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012. After that emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.

A spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird said the plan “sounded like action and we promised action.”

The program would fall short of achieving the target of the Kyoto Protocol, a six per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but it would be stronger than anything the Conservatives have suggested to date.
More on link


----------



## midget-boyd91 (16 Apr 2007)

So, what's going to be made of military vehicles which are hell on gas once upcoming requirements come into place? After requirements which.. require.. vehicles to be below a certain level of emissions are put in place, what will be done with gas guzzling military trucks?? Are the greens/NDP'ers going to demand that we retire all our current fleets for new hybrid green trucks?

BTW... Poor pun intended on the 'green'  trucks


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Apr 2007)

As a non-believer of GHG's as the key contributor to climate change, I find this to be a sell-out to ignorant popular sentiment rather than a rationally-based policy decision.  

Dear Stephen: "Booooooooooooo"


Matthew.    

P.S.  As this would severely impact Oil Sands development, this could be a hell of a fuse to ignite the Alberta separatism issue.  There are a lot Albertans who are pissed now....this will NOT help.


----------



## GAP (16 Apr 2007)

I think we should collect all the wild eyed environmentalists and give them 6 weeks basic, and ship them off to Afghanistan....oh...say to the Pakistani border (to make it a diverse group we should include the NDP) and let them all figure out how to improve the environment there. 

Hey, if they can do it there, they are welcome to come back and tell us how it should be done....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2007)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wclimate19/BNStory/National/home
My *emphasis* added.


> Ottawa rolls out 'validators' to bolster anti-Kyoto stand
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...



_Caveat lector_: I know Don Drummond, nothing even remotely like being a friend or colleague but an acquaintance, none the less, and, about annually, I sit in on one of his briefings to TD Canada Trust clients.

I think the key point is that Drummond is, indeed, one of Canada’s most trusted and most consulted economists; he is apolitical.  As the senior ADM in Finance in the ‘90s he was one of the main architects of the Chrétien/Martin attack on the deficit.  His reputation is above reproach.  But you can be sure that the Liberals and Greens and all their fellow travellers will be out, in force, to try to tarnish it.

I think it is important to understand that:

•	The Kyoto Accord was, is, in fact an act of economic warfare designed by the European Union to trick the USA into joining Europe in some absolutely essential environmental issues;

•	The Chrétien government joined the accord for purely domestic political reasons – demonstrating that it was ‘greener’ and ‘kinder and gentler’ than the (Clinton led) _ugly Americans_.  The Canadians were confident that they could agree to anything, anything at all because they were certain that Russia would never ratify Kyoto.  Woops!

•	The Kyoto targets were, always, unachievable – Chrétien knew that.  Dion knows that.  Duceppe knows that.  Harper knows that.  Layton knows that.  Even May knows that.  Chrétien, Martin and Dion never had any intention of even trying to meet the Kyoto targets. 

Kyoto is a fraud.

Attempting to implement Kyoto will do real serious harm to Canada.  Implementing the new C-288 would be an act of policy vandalism exceeding in it irresponsibility even Trudeau’s disastrous 1970 _Foreign Policy for Canadians_.

That does not mean that we should not be taking aggressive action to clean up the environment – including reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  Of course we should.  We desperately need to clean up our air and water and to stop using carbon producing, non-renewable energy sources to produce carbon producing, non-renewable energy.  But these necessary reforms have to be done without putting millions of Canadians on the dole, à la the _dirty thirties_.


----------



## observor 69 (19 Apr 2007)

Yes Mr.Drummond is a respected unimpeachable source of unbiased educated opinion.
Yes Kyoto was for all practical purposes unrealistic.

But between playing politics with the issue and Kyoto there is a lot of room for meaningfull environmental action.

Margaret Wente of the G&M has written some informed commentary on this issue. It's not as bad as the "sky is falling crowd" but we must take action and secondly adapt to the unstoppable environmental changes taking place.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Apr 2007)

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=99b95325-cf52-45a9-908d-a9d9eb39fccc

This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.

In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.

The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."

Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.

What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.

As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.

Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007 Article tools

Printer friendly


E-mail


Font: 

This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.

In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.

The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."

Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.

What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.

As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.

Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase

greenhouse-gas-emission permits from outside the country. Shortly after her appointment as minister of the environment in 2005, Rona Ambrose explained: "On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot-air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution."

It is too early to see the real significance of Canada's request to join the AP6. For the Harper government, it is simply a logical next step in the "Made In Canada" approach to climate policy. Between membership in the AP6 and their new Clean Air Act initiatives, Canada can still trumpet its strong commitment to greenhouse-gas-emission reductions, while taking a step away from the hard-target focus of Kyoto.

The key question that remains is whether Canada is a bellwether for other countries, as some Canadians like to see themselves, and is likely to lead more of the anti-Kyoto flock into the AP6 pasture. After all, if Canada, which prides itself on internationalism, "soft power," and a somewhat anti-American policy stance, can join a U.S.-sponsored rival to the Kyoto Protocol, who can't? - Kenneth Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
© National Post 2007


----------



## GAP (20 Apr 2007)

Good, I hope they do move away from Kyoto....Harper was right..it is just a socialistic scheme...with few others doing anything other than feeling less guilty by moving money around. I would rather the $$ stay in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2007)

[rant]

Sometimes I suspect that the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to lose the next election.

Consider the fiasco they have made over the analysis of the cost of Kyoto.

The recent report measures – using validated economic tools and public assumptions – the likely costs of adhering to C-288, the Liberal Pablo Rodriguez’ bill which requires the government to meet our original Kyoto commitments – i.e. in 2012 we emit some percentage less  greenhouse gasses than we did in 1990.  That’s what C-288 requires the government to do: reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the levels agreed – *dishonestly* and *cynically* – by the Liberals back in whenever.  There report says: OK, here’s the target, here’s how much we emit now – much, much more than we did when Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin failed,* completely and utterly failed* to even try to meet their own targets – the cost of getting from here to there, by 2012 is X.

The anti-Conservatives, some of whom even care, a wee tiny bit, about the environment and a sub-set of that group who even knows about global warming, have seized the initiative and they have totally and completely misrepresented the report and its analysis.  That they – Dion, Layton, May, Suzuki, and, and, and – are being dishonest is not surprising; that the media is so stupid – no other words – and so gullible and so co-opted that they cannot or will not provide Canadians with honest reports on what the liars are saying and doing is sickening.

The problem here is a media which is, almost without exception, stupid, lazy and dishonest.

No apologies to the journalists who participate here on Army.ca.  I haven’t seen a single one of you say: “Hey, hold it, that’s not the subject.”  The media – all major outlets I have seen - are in full stenographic mode; they are putting their bylines on the press releases of the anti-Conservatives.  That’s because, by and large, a masters degree is journalism is little more than a certification that the recipient failed math.  Journalism, in most universities, is the only programme which does not require some math – that’s why certain people flock to it.  Most journalists cannot cope with math so they cannot analyze the simple arithmetic in the Environment Canada report.  They are, also, lazy – it’s just too easy to copy the press releases.  That’s why smart, hard working people are press agents and then others are journalists.  The exception is the Conservative Party’s press agents who are either incompetent or unable to get their story out.  If it is the former then Stephen Harper is an inept political leader; if it is the latter then the press is part of the problem, not part of the solution and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists.

[/rant]


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2007)

"....and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists."

UK papers declare their "Colours" on their "Masthead".  

It used to be that to sail under "false colours" was considered and act of piracy and a capital crime.

Could it be said of the Canadian Media that they sail under the false colours of non-belligerents, in which case, in time of war they could be declared pirates and treated accordingly?  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> "....and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists."
> 
> UK papers declare their "Colours" on their "Masthead".
> 
> ...



I was referring to the recent report that the National Union of Journalists voted to boycot Israel and all Israeli products, etc.

How in hell can a 'journalist' claim to be unbiased while his *trade union* decides to boycott a newsworthy country.  Only a tiny handful of members decided to resign from the NUJ.  What a bunch of liars and losers!


Edit: here's a link - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1176152792457


----------



## RangerRay (20 Apr 2007)

Can someone answer me this?

When the Liberals were in power, government reports were treated as gospel by the main media outlets.  When the Tories are in power, government reports are treated with suspicion, and even outright derision, by the same media outlets.  Why?

Or do I even have to ask?


----------



## observor 69 (20 Apr 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Can someone answer me this?
> 
> When the Liberals were in power, government reports were treated as gospel by the main media outlets.  When the Tories are in power, government reports are treated with suspicion, and even outright derision, by the same media outlets.  Why?
> 
> Or do I even have to ask?



Well for a start Harper from day one of his administration in Ottawa has been in a battle with the national medias Ottawa based correspondents. Remember his clamp down on all cabinet members talking to the media. I think Hillier even got in trouble on this one.
He has chosen to go around the correspondents by many methods one being going directly to local media in the various regions. Of course another is the newly launched Conservative campaign/media HQ located in suburban Ottawa, being physically more difficult again for Ottawa media access.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Apr 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Well for a start Harper from day one of his administration in Ottawa has been in a battle with the national medias Ottawa based correspondents. Remember his clamp down on all cabinet members talking to the media. I think Hillier even got in trouble on this one.
> He has chosen to go around the correspondents by many methods one being going directly to local media in the various regions. Of course another is the newly launched Conservative campaign/media HQ located in suburban Ottawa, being physically more difficult again for Ottawa media access.



So in other words, the Parliamentary Press Gallery is having a hissy-fit, and is being less than professional in its coverage of the news because of this spat?

With the mostly unknown, and few odd-ball MPs in his caucus, can you blame the PM for gagging them until the government has been more established and until who he knows he can trust?  I don't.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Apr 2007)

Hilarious one from Instapundit

http://www.instapundit.com/



> THE PLANET IS SAFE: The Eco-Socialites are on the case. But not too much:
> 
> Still, she has no plans to reduce the family’s significant carbon footprint by, say, selling the Manhattan second home. “I’m not a perfect person,” she said. “I’m not the greenest woman in America.” And there was scant indication that other guests, most of whom, presumably, knew their way up the steps of a private jet, were contemplating major lifestyle cutbacks. Glancing about the room, Ms. Barnett said, “We aren’t all going to move to one-bedroom apartments.” . . . She plans to practice conservation, to a point. Energy-saving light bulbs are fine — for the utility closet, perhaps. In other rooms, “they don’t give a very pretty light,” she said.
> 
> That's for the little people.



Link to full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/fashion/22SOCIALITES.html?ex=1334894400&en=36bc2af0db945483&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


----------



## FrenchAffair (22 Apr 2007)

Drastic steps need to be taken to bring Canada to the forefront of countering global warming. But we can’t not do that at the price of the Canadian economy.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (22 Apr 2007)

To French Affair, 

So you're going to push Canada into leading the way in reducing solar activity then?


Matthew.    ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Drastic steps need to be taken to bring Canada to the forefront of countering global warming.



OK - I feel like stirring it up again. >

I will stipulate that mankind has an impact on the environment.
Will you stipulate that there are other drivers affecting the environment generally and global warming in particular?

I will even stipulate that the earth is warming (although I am not convinced of intensity or duration).
Will you stipulate that some portion of global warming is caused by external agents many of which are poorly defined but which general fall under the header of "natural"?

Will you accept that some portion, perhaps not the majority portion although I think it is, of global warming is a result of natural forces? 

Because if you do, and if you want to "counter" global warming then you must necessarily act against those natural forces, act against nature and impose man's dominion over natural events.

If we accept that nature is not static then we must accept to achieve stasis then man needs to act against nature.

You might like a house built on a sandbar by the sea, and be inclined to invest half-a-million to get it, but nature tends to move those sandbars around.  If you want to keep the value of your investment then you need to be prepared to constantly spend money, material and energy in order to maintain the value, in fact the existence of your property.  The same situation applies to all our cities.

Personally, I am all in favour of high density housing in geologically unsound environments.  It seems to me to present a glorious opportunity to improve the gene pool.

Farmers, Ranchers and Nomads shall inherit the Earth.!!!! ;D


----------



## FrenchAffair (22 Apr 2007)

> Will you stipulate that there are other drivers affecting the environment generally and global warming in particular?



 Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact. 



> Because if you do, and if you want to "counter" global warming then you must necessarily act against those natural forces, act against nature and impose man's dominion over natural events.



 The only effect that we have to counter is the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, which is caused by our consumption and use of fuels.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Apr 2007)

To FrenchAffair,

Since you ignored my first post, I'll direct you to the following study which compares surface to troposphere temperatures.  The key behind the greenhouse gas model is that it is an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the troposphere which acts as an insulator and 'warms' the planet.  Specifically, if greenhouse gases are causing global warming, the insulation effect would have the troposphere (insulation layer) warming at a higher rate than the surface.

The problem is that the data shows the exact opposite.  That is, the surface is warming a greater rate than the troposphere.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/216.pdf

I'll await your analysis....


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Apr 2007)

Frenchaffair: After you have read Matt's reference perhaps you could consider this.  Note the references to St. Albert and his investments.

From Yesterday's National Post - An Interview by Linda Frum of MIT Atmospheric Physicist Richard Lindzen....apparently he doesn't feel the Science is settled.  



> "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger.





> Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?
> 
> A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.
> 
> ...





> Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
> 
> A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.





> Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
> 
> A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
> 
> If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.





> Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
> 
> A Well, he's dead.
> 
> ...





> Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
> A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that *Gore's book was a sham*. They appreciate that *Michael Crichton at least included references*.



http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=ebd65ed3-80c2-441b-98ca-c4fbc7233e96&p=3


----------



## FrenchAffair (23 Apr 2007)

You do realize that the accredited scientific societies that reject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports combined equates to less than 1% of the world scientific community? 

There are “scientists” that will always have opposing opinions on issues. Hell there are “scientists” that still deny evolution, but when you have such concrete scientific evidence of global warming that upwards of 90% of the world scientific bodies agree on the findings on the IPCC I fail to see how you can continue to deny it. 

 They state that “The probability that this [Global Warming] is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.”

 You might benefit from reading their reports, as they are the authoritative scientific body on the issue of climate change

http://www.ipcc.ch/


And Richard Lindzen is the same scientist who denied that 2nd hand smoke was harmful, it seem he just likes to be vocally critical about widely accepted ideas to get attention.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill,

You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.



> Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact.



FrenchAffair-

So humans are also responsible for the warming being experienced on Mars?  How did we manage that, precisely?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

I don't expect you to change your mind on "global warming", but would you at least consider the possibilities that:

a. The climate on Earth is variable.  Always has been, always will be.

b. There is alot of money to be made and political power to be gained by successfully scaring the bejesus out of most of the Western World.

c. No one (and I mean NO ONE) really understands exactly how the climate system works on this planet.

Should we be conservative with a climate system we don't fully understand?  Sure- that is prudent.  Should we beggar every Canadian by unilaterally accepting a Kyoto target that was based soley on the hubris of a former Prime Minister and not science?  Well- you be the judge...  

edit-removed extra word


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> You do realize that the accredited scientific societies that reject the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports combined equates to less than 1% of the world scientific community?
> 
> There are “scientists” that will always have opposing opinions on issues. Hell there are “scientists” that still deny evolution, but when you have such concrete scientific evidence of global warming that upwards of 90% of the world scientific bodies agree on the findings on the IPCC I fail to see how you can continue to deny it.
> 
> ...



I have read their reports....and many more.

I've now given you *two* opportunities to counter my arguments in both cases, you've done the typical end-around.

Either step up, read it, and refute it using scientific method, or go find another sandbox.


Matthew.


----------



## Flip (23 Apr 2007)

Speaking of scientific method........

I use this to explain my position to family and friends-then they look at me funny.

Go to your aquarium and turn the heater off.
If you have one of those CO2 test kits you will note the CO2 level will drop.
Now crank the heater way up and a day or so later the CO2 will pop up
as if by some man-made phenomenon.

That's right - CO2 FOLLOWS temperature, at least in my aquarium.
If you scale the thing up to the size of a tide pool or small lake - It still works.
If you do the same in a terrerrium, it still works.

Right, now try to prove that changing the atmospheric concentration 
from 320ppm to 390ppm makes any difference at all.
I don't know how to do that.
Neither does anyone else.

BTW - It's been wayyy higher than that before.

The debate's over Mr Suzuki? ( reference to ageing hippie and GENETICIST ) 

Hmmm.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Apr 2007)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.



Roger that SKT.  I had one of many momentary lapses in judgement in engaging him.  On the other hand perhaps somebody else will gain something from the Lindzen-Frum interview.

Cheers.


----------



## FrenchAffair (23 Apr 2007)

> So humans are also responsible for the warming being experienced on Mars?  How did we manage that, precisely?



 The studies do not say that 100% of the increase in tempter is manmade. The earth goes though cycles of warming and cooling due to natural causes. We all know and accept this. How ever the rate and amount of increase on earth is far in excess of any natural causes. The slight increase in temperature on mars is only equlivent to a small portion of that on earth.  



> Should we beggar every Canadian by unilaterally accepting a Kyoto target that was based soley on the hubris of a former Prime Minister and not science?



 Nope, but we should do something drastic to curtail our contribution of greenhouse gases.



> I've now given you two opportunities to counter my arguments in both cases, you've done the typical end-around.



 What are *Your* arguments? Are you an accredited scientist? Did you issue a report based on scientific data?

 You’re arguments are countered by the ICPP report and the basically unilateral acceptance of it’s findings by the scientific community.  

This is the internet, I’m sure I could copy/past some “report” from some “scientists” proving that evolution is a myth or the earth is 6000 years old. Doesn’t mean it refutes accepted science (which Global Warming is).



> Speaking of scientific method........
> 
> I use this to explain my position to family and friends-then they look at me funny.
> 
> ...



 There we have it, 20 years of Scientific research by people who commit their entire life to it, hundreds of years of data, thousands of scientific minds….. all debunked by Flip playing around with his fish tank heater.



> You do know that you aren't going to change FrenchAffair's mind, right?  I mean- he is 20 and knows everything with only the certainty that youth can muster.



 So denying proven science is a milestone only come by with age?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2007)

'ho boy.

FrenchAffair- I responded to your post, where you said this:


> Of course, but no such factors are large enough to cause the drastic and prolonged increase that we are currently experiencing. The only factor that is capable of this is humans and our ecological impact.



The Only factor?  Ever?  In the 4.5 Billion year history of the planet?  You know this how?  You read it somewhere or someone told you?

Little anecdote time-

When I was in grade 4 or 5 (in the mid 70s), no less an authority than the Government of Canada distributed every school kid in the country a comic book about how not to waste energy.  It was actually a pretty good production, but the uncategorical government line of the day, based on the best scientific advice available was that, the planet would be out of oil (and I mean every last drop) by the year 2000.  It is now 2007.  See any problems with that line?  See the problem with uncritically accepting scientific evidence about anything?  Google the ether-based theory of light if you don't believe me on how the scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong.

Also I fly for a living, which means that, while I am not a metorologist or climatologist, I know more than the average bear about weather and the climate. I therefore know that most of the examples of what the media pounces on as "proof" of a warming climate (storms, heat, snow in June- you name it) is all within the range of what is possible for the Earth's climate.  Our decent weather records for most of the world only go back to WW2.  Much of the ocean still is not instrumented.  I will stipulate that we don't really have a good idea of is "normal" for Earth.  I personnally don't think that there is a stasis point for the Earth's Climate. I think we just swing from Ice Age to warm period and back again- but I cannot prove it.

What is bothering me about your posting style, FrenchAffair, is your absolute, arrogant, certainty about everything.  You could at least allow that the jury is out on somethings and that you don't know everything.  You might be surprised at what you learn.


----------



## GAP (23 Apr 2007)

10 to 15 years ago a lot of these same scientists were just as certain we were entering an Ice Age. Ooops....uh, gee, maybe not....

Ice cores from glaciers have definitly proven that the earth's climate does exactly what SeaKing Tacco commented on. The earth's climate swings from one extreme to another, largely due to the inclination of the earth changing. 

We haven't got to that, but all that wonderful oil up by the Bering Sea, et al was created from lush, rich jungles and heavy plant life...wonder where that came from....maybe that the earth's inclination changed 90 degrees? 

Read the "Life of Barney"....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (23 Apr 2007)

Alright French Affair, your song & dance is getting old as I've been very clear with the argument and provided scientific breakdown of the dataset for you to review.

On more time, my argument is this:
1)  If GHG insulation was the primary factor in Global Warming then we'd see temperatures rising in the troposphere faster than at the surface.
2)  Because when we look at the data sets we surface temperatures rising faster than troposphere temperatures, then the GHG insulation model upon which Kyoto is based, is bad science.

The link for ease of access is:  http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/216.pdf 

Since you're sceptical, I'd start on page 7 & 8 to review the references to first determine if you find them credible.  Once you're comfortable with the references, then read the findings.


Matthew.  

P.S.  The ICPP is not as popular as you believe.  The actual number of names on the report is not the 2,000 that some bandy about.  The names were counted and it's less than 550.  On the other hand those actively promoting the solar activity model continues to increase, primarily because the data sets show a direct cause (more solar activity) and effect (immediate rise in temperatures) as opposed to CO2 which Kyoto-ites promote as a cause, but the datasets show is a trailing indicator (oceans warm, a warm liquid can hold less gas than a cold liquid, and so the oceans release CO2 *after* the earth's temperature has risen), not to mention rising surface temperatures on other planets in which GHG's are obviously a non-issue.


----------



## FrenchAffair (23 Apr 2007)

Well I guess if someone is really committed to denying the sky is blue no one can change their mind. No different with this argument. 

 I feel kind of sorry for the people who continue to deny the massive human effect on our environment. Not only are you the people who will do nothing to combat our footprint on this earth and do what they can to ensure that we do not experience the drastic effects of global warming we will face if we continue this path, but I feel sorry most of all that you are the people will suffer the most. The vast majority of the western world is committed to changing our effect on the environment, and those of us who deny it exists and refuse to change their ways will be the ones who will be on the losing end of the social, political and economic changes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Apr 2007)

Sigh.

This is becoming really tiresome, especially your sanctimonious sulking because you were unable to "convert the heathens" on army.ca to your "church of the Holy Kyoto".

Look- the Earth may or may not be warming right now.  It may or may not be a trend.  I'm not convinced, based on what I have read, that extra CO2 in the atmosphere (at our current levels, anyway) is a causal factor of warming- it may be the result of something else- like solar loading.  If the Kyoto zealots turn out to right (it could happen), then I'm still not convinced that other factors like extra cloud cover caused by more water vapour in a warmer atmosphere and increased snowfall at high latitudes will not just balance things out anyway.  I just don't know.  Which is a hell of a lot more intellectually honest than I think you are being.  

Anyway- if you feel like living in a cave; burning nothing for heat and wearing nothing petroleum based- that's up to you.  I prefer to live in the real world.

I'm out...


----------



## FrenchAffair (23 Apr 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> As I began to tire of "debating" him in the Libertarian thread, I posted:



Nice little quote, how ever it seems rather hypocritical that you would post it in reference to me when though out the entire libertarian thread you and your libertarian cronies made no concessions, you claimed that the only solution to every issues is to let the “market force” deal with it and that there was no way your political philosophy was anything other than the savory of man kind. 

 I support a political system that has a history of success, you support one based in nothing more than idealistic philosophy. If anyone is guilty of presenting the false illusion of knowledge, it is that of the “libertarians”.


----------



## FrenchAffair (23 Apr 2007)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> This is becoming really tiresome, especially your sanctimonious sulking because you were unable to "convert the heathens" on army.ca to your "church of the Holy Kyoto".
> 
> ...



I never said I supported Kyoto. I said we need to take drastic and rational steps, never said we need to sacrifice the Canadian economy in the process. 



> I just don't know.


 
 Neither do I, like you I am not a scientists. I do not have the education or time to spend years upon years researching the issue. Thus I differ to the experts, and the over 2000 leading experts from over 100 nations accost this world agree that humans are most likely the main cause of this warming that will continue unless we do something to stop it.


----------



## stealthylizard (23 Apr 2007)

French Affair

So what steps have you taken to reduce your carbon footprint?  Stop driving yet, turn off the heat year round, got rid of your lighting, and rely on sunlight only?  I could go on and on here.  

Will you suffer the loss of a job due to government environmental legislation?  
My current job is in the oilfield, it is what I have done off and on since I was 18.  Are you ready to support a bill that lays off 2/3's of the work force in Alberta?  That is not an exaggeration of the employment consequences.  Directly or indirectly, most jobs in the recent years are tied to the booming economy of Alberta, which is mostly because of the rising oil prices, and the success of the Tar Sands.  I have not been spoon fed any messages from oil corporations.  The subject has not ever been brought up as a part of our daily safety meetings.

I do believe that climate change is happening, but is it all man, or is cyclical forces playing a large part?  I do not believe the "experts" 100%, nor do I believe the deniers at the same rate.  

David Suzuki and Al Gore make the matters worse while telling us to change, and not changing themselves.  As much as I dislike Bush, even he has done more in his personal home to reduce his greenhouse gas emissions.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Apr 2007)

Relax everyone; the grown ups in Ottawa are moving away from Kyoto and environmental absolutism and are joining (perhaps formally later) the Americans and some asian nations in voluntary reduction.

It worked quite well for the United States; our GHG emissions rose almost 30% after we signed Kyoto while theirs rose by about 16% in the same period without (gasp) Kyoto. The invisible hand works against pollution and GHG too!


----------



## a78jumper (23 Apr 2007)

If you thought that the distribution of $$$$ by the UN in the Iraq "Oil for Food" programs was rife with graft and corruption (made the Federal Fiberals Quebec Ad campaigns look like small change) watch and wait when we start send carbon credits aka cash to all these third world nations largely controlled by criminals and strongmen.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Apr 2007)

Further to a_majoor's last:

If you needed proof that the Liberals have backed a losing horse on this one here's a recent editorial from the Globe and Mail.  "Toronto" doesn't want Kyoto under the current circumstances.

They reinforce the Tories and Don Drummond and undercut Dion and the Liberals.



> Those Kyoto costs
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> April 19, 2007 at 5:42 PM EST
> ...


----------



## FrenchAffair (24 Apr 2007)

> So what steps have you taken to reduce your carbon footprint?  Stop driving yet, turn off the heat year round, got rid of your lighting, and rely on sunlight only?  I could go on and on here.



 I own a hybrid car (Lexus GS), but most of the time around the city I take the bus or bike majority of the time, most of the heating in my house comes from electricity and most of the electricity that supplies my house comes from nuclear plants. Very eco-friendly. 

 All the appliances in my house use reduced power and or water, I use as little non-degradable materials as possible, we installed low-flow toilets and shower heads, don’t use the dryer any more and do everything we can practically to lower our effect on the environment. It has been this way for the vast majority of my life. 

 I’m not a hypocrite, I do the best I can to do as little harm to our environment as I can practically. 



> My current job is in the oilfield, it is what I have done off and on since I was 18.  Are you ready to support a bill that lays off 2/3's of the work force in Alberta?



 Hopefully in 20 years we won’t have to rely on fossil fuels anymore anyways.



> That is not an exaggeration of the employment consequences.  Directly or indirectly, most jobs in the recent years are tied to the booming economy of Alberta, which is mostly because of the rising oil prices, and the success of the Tar Sands.



So we shouldn’t enact moral policies towards the environment because of the economical implication? Obviously we can not do it all at once, but we need to scale it back and no matter what the current success Alberta is having currently will not last. 

Would you have opposed the abolishment of slavery because of the negative impact on the economy? The south survived so will we.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> I’m not a hypocrite, I do the best I can to do as little harm to our environment as I can practically.


Oh of course you're not. You're only a twenty year old who has shown a distinct pattern since joining this site of choosing one "hot topic" to choose to post endlessly in until you think you've impressed your own ethical and moral ideals onto others. That's certainly not hypocritical.



			
				FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Hopefully in 20 years we won’t have to rely on fossil fuels anymore anyways.
> 
> So we shouldn’t enact moral policies towards the environment because of the economical implication? Obviously we can not do it all at once, but we need to scale it back and no matter what the current success Alberta is having currently will not last.
> 
> Would you have opposed the abolishment of slavery because of the negative impact on the economy? The south survived so will we.



Such easy words to slip from one's mouth when it's not your own livelihood being discussed. That's pretty hypocritical. Don't turn this into a heart tug-fest with your emotional input exampling slavery. Apples & oranges. One involved the systemic abuse and enslavement of people, and one is nothing of the sort.

No thanks, FrenchAffair. I get the distinct impression from your posts and your history on this forum that no one will ever live up to the mighty high ethical & moral pedestal you've got yourself sitting on.

I'll place you on ignore now; I'm not about to compete with perfection. Get over yourself.


----------



## FrenchAffair (24 Apr 2007)

> Such easy words to slip from one's mouth when it's not your own livelihood being discussed. That's pretty hypocritical. Don't turn this into a heart tug-fest with your emotional input exampling slavery. Apples & oranges. One involved the systemic abuse and enslavement of people, and one is nothing of the sort.



 The current trends of global warming will cause far more human destruction than slavery did if the current conditions are maintains and the scientific models vastly agreed upon by the majority of the scientific community is correct. 

 How ever obviously the two are very different situations, but the fact of the point I was making does not need them to be comparable situations. Both are wrong and we can not (could not) justify doing nothing about it simply because doing something to change it would cause economic decline in certain areas of our economy. 



> Oh of course you're not. You're only a twenty year old who has shown a distinct pattern since joining this site of choosing one "hot topic" to choose to post endlessly in until you think you've impressed your own ethical and moral ideals onto others. That's certainly not hypocritical.



"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." - Joseph Joubert


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Apr 2007)

FrenchAffair said:
			
		

> Well I guess if someone is really committed to denying the sky is blue no one can change their mind. No different with this argument.
> 
> I feel kind of sorry for the people who continue to deny the massive human effect on our environment. Not only are you the people who will do nothing to combat our footprint on this earth and do what they can to ensure that we do not experience the drastic effects of global warming we will face if we continue this path, but I feel sorry most of all that you are the people will suffer the most. The vast majority of the western world is committed to changing our effect on the environment, and those of us who deny it exists and refuse to change their ways will be the ones who will be on the losing end of the social, political and economic changes.



You are absolutely pathetic....

You've now been given *three* opportunities to review data sets, and counter the scientific argument that blows a hole through Kyoto and the best you can come up with is try to belittle those that you have neither the resources nor intellectual faculties to debate effectively.

Either reply to the argument made, or go play in traffic.  Those are your only two choices....because trolling is not tolerated here.



Matthew.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2007)

Now that the troll is gone I don’t mind rejoining this debate.

This (ecology, etc) is not my field but I’m not poorly educated and I think I have a reasonable grasp of bits of the issue.

There are, as Don Rumsfeld might say, some things we know:

1.	Climate change is occurring. No argument.  It has been occurring, at varying rates, ever since there was a climate;

2.	There are three major_ drivers_ to climate change –

a.	The sun;

b.	The earth; and

c.	The  atmosphere.

The sun is, far and away, the most important driver over time – the sun’s direct energy _received_ on the planet’s surface (land or water) (insolation) is the main driver of climate.  Equally, the sun’s energy actually _creates_ the ionosphere, the topmost layer of the atmosphere.

The earth was the major driver of climate change for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of years.  When volcanoes were the norm the gases and debris they spewed out created the atmosphere as we understand it and volcanic residue is still one of the main _drivers_ of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the atmosphere.

Mankind obviously has some impact on the atmosphere.  How much is not clear.  Relative to insolation and geophysical effects it is, probably, trivial.

----------

What we have, throughout Europe and America is a new *children’s crusade*, complete with modern day _Stephens_ and _Nicholases_ who have talked to David Suzuki and Al Gore, demigods, at least, in the ecological pantheon.  Like all _children’s crusades_ this one is all about myth and magic and the triumph of belief over science.

Kyoto is nonsense.  I think I’m repeating myself when I say it was designed, by the EU, to try to trap America and Japan into doing the same sorts of damage to their economies which the European had to do to their own to clean up the _socialist_ mess – the USSR’s policies were totally destructive to the ecology of its former _colonies_ in eastern Europe.  The Europeans knew they had to divert resources to the environment; this would put their economies at a significant competitive disadvantage; they wanted to coerce the rest of the West to join them – to divert their economies towards ecological issue, too.  Canada (Jean Chrétien’s _regime_) signed Kyoto for base, cynical and dishonest reasons: to fan the flames of anti-Americanism.  The Liberals never believed Kyoto would be ratified by enough countries – they pinned their hopes on Russia because they *knew* that Canada could not, not without forcing a recession, meet the targets to which they agreed.  It was a disgraceful display of governance by a, generally, ‘bad’ government.

The fact that only the terminally stupid put any faith in Kyoto is neither here nor there.  This is, as I said, a _children’s crusade_ and it will have to run its course until the stupid people leading it are out of the way.  In the meantime we can only hope that there are (barely) enough thinking Canadians to prevent the _useful idiots_ (Dion, Duceppe, Layton, May, Suzuki, _et al_) from doing serious damage.


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Apr 2007)

My 10 year old is continually fed this drivel at school.  She said yesterday that she saw some movie. I asked her if it was "An inconvenient truth" with internet inventor  : Al Gore.  It wasn't.  
Anyway, when I tell her about the "Little Ice Age" and the "medieval warm period", she just looks confused.  I tell her that the climate has been constantly in flux.  I mention to her the farms in Greenland around the 10th Century, and I can tell that this is new information for her.
I tell her that the Sun is the prime factor in our climate.  I also let her know that pollution is not good, but the effects aren't as devestating as one is lead to believe (there's that "b" word again!)

*sigh*.  I may have to home school her to keep her both intelligent and not brainwashed...


----------



## eerickso (25 Apr 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Speaking of scientific method........
> 
> I use this to explain my position to family and friends-then they look at me funny.
> 
> ...



Really?  

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm


----------



## Flip (25 Apr 2007)

> The fact that only the terminally stupid put any faith in Kyoto is neither here nor there.  This is, as I said, a children’s crusade and it will have to run its course until the stupid people leading it are out of the way.  In the meantime we can only hope that there are (barely) enough thinking Canadians to prevent the useful idiots (Dion, Duceppe, Layton, May, Suzuki, et al) from doing serious damage.



E.R. - I have to disagree, but only a bit. 

These people are probably not stupid, if they were they would have no influence.
There's the danger.
I would characterize them as unwise, misguided, cynical, intellectually corrupt,
or just plain wrong.  Not stupid.

Most people have no real background in things technical.
They are simply not used to puzzling things out for themselves.

I still think of this as a Godless religion.
People love to be awed by and afraid of things they don't understand.
I think inventing false crises is in our nature.

My sister's "significant other" and I had a discussion that lasted about 40 
seconds before I heard all about "mother earth".

An invented morality and philosophy was all that was presented.
My rather technical remarks just made peoples eyes glaze over,
or maybe that's just me. ;D

Personally, I found battling the troll amusing.
I wouldn't want do do it every day though.


----------



## Flip (25 Apr 2007)

eerickso,

Thanks I stand corrected - as simple experiments, go it's not too bad.
perhaps I'll try it.  If you accept my fish tank comment - I should accept this.

My reference was more in terms of the complex system of earth's atmosphere
and a far smaller difference in CO2 levels.

I still don't think the cause and effect can be proven in the more complex 
system.( earth )


----------



## eerickso (25 Apr 2007)

Just to be clear, are you talking about a tank with lots of water? Warm water releases C02. So yes, I accept your results. 

So with the increase of manmade CO2 and the CO2 released by the earth's water and the CO2 released by melting arctic tundra. We, as citizen of the earth, are conducting not only the world’s largest uncontrolled experiment, but also the world’s most dangerous experiment.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Apr 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, are you talking about a tank with lots of water? Warm water releases C02. So yes, I accept your results.
> 
> So with the increase of manmade CO2 and the CO2 released by the earth's water and the CO2 released by melting arctic tundra. We, as citizen of the earth, are conducting not only the world’s largest uncontrolled experiment, but also the world’s most dangerous experiment.



Oh puppycock.

The earth has warmed and cooled, had dramatically higher and dramatically lower levels of CO2 during earth's history.  Most importantly, CO2 levels were not causal.  They trailed temperature increases by 800 years.  

In respect to your experiment, no one on the anti-Kyoto camp I know is contending that CO2 (and even worse methane) act as insulators.  Our argument is that the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is not significant enough to cause either a global warming or cooling trend.  Your experiment with 100% CO2 versus the real world where concentrations are measured in ppm's are not even in the same universe.   Further to that, the anti-Kyoto camp I know, is of the belief that since manmade CO2 only contributes < 5% of total CO2 emissions, than we our ability to affect global emissions including natural sources is limited to say the least.  Lastly, that Canada who produce only 3% of 5% of total emissions (0.15% of global emissions), Canada's impact in the grand scheme of things, even with draconian clawbacks is laughable and if you want to get some progress on the 5% manmade portion, we need to focus on China, India and the United States.

Lastly, please don't believe that those who are against Kyoto are anti-environment, because we're not.  In particular, I would be investing large sums of money ensuring that we eliminate to the best of our ability heavy metals from the air and our water, and I would put punitive import tariffs on countries that contribute to global increases in those heavy metals as they directly impact our citizens.  I also remain baffled that Canadians have come to accept beach closings due to ecoli from poorly treated sewage as the norm.  

Bottom Line:  I'm all for creating an environmental fund worth $1 billion+/annum dedicated to environmental projects from wind power, to municipal sewage system upgrades, to increased industrial audits for emitters of heavy metals and particulates.  What I will not back is sending hundreds of millions of dollars overseas to buy carbon credits based on science that just doesn't work (again, please refer to the surface temperature vs troposphere temperature study I've linked in previous posts) primarily from European countries who've overstated their initial emissions and thusly are selling credits they do not deserve, or to Russia who are one of the worst polluters on the planet.

Kyoto is one giant scam, period, end of sentence, full stop.


Matthew.


----------



## eerickso (25 Apr 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The earth has warmed and cooled, had dramatically higher and dramatically lower levels of CO2 during earth's history.  Most importantly, CO2 levels were not causal.  They trailed temperature increases by 800 years.



When have C02 concentrations been higher?


Anyways, I don't talk about methane because concentrations are not even close to CO2!!!!
Do you want to talk about water vapour some more?
Take a look at this chart:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

Because we now have all this lovely C02 in the air, we have an additonal 1.66 W/m^2 that does go back to outer space. How in the name of god is this insignificant??? Multiply this number by the surface area of the earth and you get a number that most people who work in the tars sands would sell their children for!!!


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2007)

I found the "everymen" character in Micheal Chriton's "State of Fear" to be the most believable. The "well everyone knows" reaction to every statement "pro" global warming and the denial, confusion or beligerent attitude when confronted with contrary facts and information mirrors what I see whenever that topic comes up.

For more contrary facts and information we also have the "Al Gore vs Arithmetic" thread and "Science Fiction by Nicholas Stern"


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Apr 2007)

erickso, 

As per my previous frustrations with FrenchAffair, please respond to the study attached which breaks down why your science doesn't work, or go play elsewhere.

It's only 8 pages of which 1 is references to the data sets.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/216.pdf

I'll look forward to your explanation of those datasets.


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2007)

A preview of the Kyoto economy from the "London Fog"

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-carbon-markets-work.html#comments



> Monday, April 23, 2007
> *How carbon markets work*
> According to many politicians lining up behind the idea of greening the economy, cap-and-trade carbon markets are an ideal market-based solution to the problem of carbon emissions and, far from hindering the economy, promise economic opportunity instead by rewarding carbon efficiency with credits to sell as a sort of added value asset to a company's stock. Of course, by themselves markets would never in the first place have come up with the idea of trading something so intrinsically valueless as regulatory room for carbon outputs unless an artificial value had been forced on it through regulated scarcity, so calling it a market-based solution is a bit of corruption of idiom designed to confuse and mislead. Nevertheless, market actors will naturally respond to incentives even if they are artificial and arbitrary in making, and it is this characteristic of markets that political actors hope to steer to a desired effect. One must first suppose, of course, that the politicians who hope to be in charge of the carbon market regime will be somehow more immune to corruption in the allocation of carbon caps than they are in their use of language to promote it.
> 
> ...



How many companies will decide to cash in on "carbon credits" and how many will simply shut down and move to where they don't have a "carbon cap" (say India or China maybe?) will only be determined by the market.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Apr 2007)

In a related vein - Alcan was given permission to build a dam to generate electricity to smelt aluminum from (I believe) imported bauxite in Kitimat, BC thereby employing people.
Now it can get rid of the cost of importing bauxite, operating a plant and employing people and just sell electricity and make much more money - saving the environment along the way. 



> Kitimat takes Alcan to court
> The district of Kitimat appeared in B.C. Supreme Court recently in an attempt to stop Alcan from selling electricity generated at its Kemano power plant.
> 
> Kitimat Mayor Richard Wozney said Alcan has been cutting aluminum production in Kitimat so it can sell more power, while at the same time increasing production in Quebec. Smelting aluminum in Kitimat is extremely profitable but Alcan can make more money selling electricity. As a result, said Wozney, it's breaking its contract with the people of B.C.



http://www.electricityforum.com/news/jan04/kitimat.html

Money and water - both follow the path of least resistance.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Apr 2007)

There are few sources of amusement greater than the relative handful of people in government and civil service offices trying to outguess and get inside the decision cycle of markets.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (25 Apr 2007)

Just as a side note I have two favourite "Environmentalist-driven stories":
1)  Rio de Janeiro where the sugar-derived ethanol (which replaced gasoline) has turned everything into a yellow haze (as M.I.T. predicted by the way).
2)  How Europe's desire for Palm Oil as a "renewable fuel" has resulted in hundreds of thousands of acres of virgin rainforest being cut down [addition]*in Indonesia*[/addition] in order to grow Palm plantations.

The fact that local environmentalists still trumpet both cases as success benchmark in the fight against evil fossil fuels clearly demonstrates both how arrogant and how disattached from reality they have become.


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Apr 2007)

If this development pans out, Carbon Dioxide will become a valuable raw material. Real science vs Kyoto consensus.......

http://digg.com/environment/Turning_carbon_dioxide_into_fuel_using_solar_power



> *Turning carbon dioxide into fuel - using solar power*
> 
> Submitted by News on 18 April 2007 - 12:20pm. Energy
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (25 Apr 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, are you talking about a tank with lots of water? Warm water releases C02. So yes, I accept your results.
> 
> So with the increase of manmade CO2 and the CO2 released by the earth's water and the CO2 released by melting arctic tundra. We, as citizen of the earth, are conducting not only the world’s largest uncontrolled experiment, but also the world’s most dangerous experiment.


eerickso,

Sorry - you don't get it.
In my fish tank - super basic illustration that it is, As temperature rises the CO2 output 
from all the little beasties from bacteria on up increases. There is some compensation from
any plants that exist but they lag rather badly in their net O2 output as temperature continues to rise.  
If you notice the difference between spring in your garden and summer, The plants grow really well until it gets hot in the summer.  Once summers' heat hits however, the
plants' metabolic processes don't speed up as much as the aphids and caterpillars in the yard.

June is glorious and August is blight. (CO2 absorption is driven by light.)
CO2 production ( even in plants ) is driven by temperature.

By the Bye I heard on the CBC today that Ontario will NOT be putting scrubbers onto their
remaining coal fired power plants.  The reason given was that is was too expensive,
and it did nothing about greenhouses gases anyway.

I'm personally horrified.
Acid rain, smog and other pollution is OK to the liberal government but greenhouse gases
get their knickers in a twist.  We ALL KNOW what comes from coal fired plants.
I would guess we all agree that it's bad and should not be tolerated.
We should all know that in Ontario Smog kills people.
But that's Ok because were all more concerned with this theoretical thing that
cannot be proven to be a threat.

Exactly the kind of logic that scares me the most.(environmentally speaking)

Here's a link to a Sun Column that sorta says the same thing
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/04/26/4130711.html


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2007)

So while we are on the subject of unintended consequences:  Behold Biofuels

They are driving up ALL food prices, depriving the third world of staple foods, cattle of feed and Coca Cola of sugar and sweeteners.  It will result in deforestation of the rain forest as poor countries attempt to cash in resulting in reduced carbon sinks - and the carbon of which the biofuels are made will STILL be released to the atmosphere.  And to top it all off the energy-mass balance still means that it costs more energy to produce the biofuel than it produces. 




> EU green targets will damage rainforests
> By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
> Last Updated: 5:51am BST 27/04/2007
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/27/wgreen27.xml



> Ethanol Demand Threatens Food Prices
> Rising corn prices are already affecting everything from the cost of tortillas in Mexico City to the cost of producing eggs in the United States.
> 
> The recent rise in corn prices--almost 70 percent in the past six months--caused by the increased demand for ethanol biofuel has come much sooner than many agriculture economists had expected.
> ...



http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18173/

Oh, and by they way - those nifty high efficiency, low heat fluorescent light bulbs?  Be prepared for your heating bills to go up when you switch to them.  Those traditional incandescent light bulbs, emitting heat right where you are sitting reading, typing, watching TV, having a beer, are helping to keep you warm meaning your furnace doesn't have to run as much.  Also because the heat is right where you are you can live with the thermostat a little lower in the rest of  the house.  Without that local heating then you will likely be raising the overall temperature of the house. That always assumes that your forced air circulation system is working well and all your vents and ducts are well placed.

As well, those lights which are supposed to reduce your lighting bill and last longer thereby justifying their additional expense - the long life only applies if you leave the light on all the time.  Normal bedside use reduced the 5 year life expectancy to 1 year.

But.............we're all Green now.  All Hail Gaia.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> If this development pans out, Carbon Dioxide will become a valuable raw material. Real science vs Kyoto consensus.......
> 
> http://digg.com/environment/Turning_carbon_dioxide_into_fuel_using_solar_power





> (Interpolation: they are probably referring to the F-T process, where CO and Hydrogen are combined over a catalyst to make hydrocarbon fuels)
> 
> The device designed by Kubiak and Sathrum to split carbon dioxide utilizes a semiconductor and two thin layers of catalysts. It splits carbon dioxide to generate carbon monoxide and oxygen in a three-step process. The first step is the capture of solar energy photons by the semiconductor. The second step is the conversion of optical energy into electrical energy by the semiconductor. The third step is the deployment of electrical energy to the catalysts. The catalysts convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide on one side of the device and to oxygen on the other side.



Alternately Flip can put his aquarium out in the sun and be paid to bubble CO2 through it.  The algae will take care of the rest and produce a reusable fuel.


----------



## vangemeren (27 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> So while we are on the subject of unintended consequences:  Behold Biofuels
> 
> They are driving up ALL food prices, depriving the third world of staple foods, cattle of feed and Coca Cola of sugar and sweeteners.  It will result in deforestation of the rain forest as poor countries attempt to cash in resulting in reduced carbon sinks - and the carbon of which the biofuels are made will STILL be released to the atmosphere.  And to top it all off the energy-mass balance still means that it costs more energy to produce the biofuel than it produces.
> 
> ...



That is why I'm a big proponent of *just cutting consumption*. Habits save a lot more energy than switching technologies if that choice is available.

While you did point out that your heating bills would rise by switching to CFs, the flip side is that by keeping your incandescent light bulbs your *air conditioning* bills would be higher
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls

Another thing you have to consider is that CFs contain Mercury, so they are not supposed to end up in the regular garbage.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/energystar/english/consumers/questions-answers.cfm#dispose

Do you have a source for your last statement because I could not find anything about that.

Cheers

Jack


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2007)

Which one?  They paean to Gaia or the life expectancy of the CFLs?

If you are talking about the CFLs that is from personal experience.  A 5 year life was promised if the bulb wasn't turned on and off frequently.  I don't consider a bedside lamp as being one that is turned on and off excessively but after only 1 year my 5 year bulbs were dead. Both lamps (wife's and mine) expired within a couple of weeks of each other.  My conclusion is that the 5 year life can only be achieved if the number of times that the bulb is switched on and off is reduced towards zero.

Cheers.


----------



## vangemeren (27 Apr 2007)

The only reason I ask about the lightbulbs is that I've had a completely different experience with mine, they've lasted me for 4 years and I can assure you they've been turned on and off many a time and not just continually running.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2007)

Point taken re anecdotal evidence.  Unfortunately our experiences differ and I generally don't go back to the store that sells me inferior product.


----------



## Flip (27 Apr 2007)

Kirkhill - you were stealing my thoughts! - It's a conspiracy.

For about 9 months of a year we run heat our homes here in the great white north.

Most of the bulbs we run are inside and contributing to heating the house.

If we save 50W on the light bulb it will cost us 50W from our hydro
or however we heat the house.

Net Greenhouse gas  savings - Very nearly zero!
( based on my most of the bulbs - most of the time model)
I think this is a dumb idea. Sorry Mr Baird.

The new technologies to watch for are LED and cold cathode flourescent
devices.  The LEDS have a huge carbon footprint in manufacturing
and the cold cathode contains no mercury (I think). But the cold cathode
lasts about as long as the others.

Cheap energy has always been the foundation of our standard of living.
I think we can expect a decline in the standard of living for everyone
on the planet.  Nuclear energy is probably our most credible alternative.
Try to sell that to the green crowd.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Kirkhill - you were stealing my thoughts! - It's a conspiracy.



Most 'umble apologies  >

PS I also agree with you on nuclear power although I do have to admit that if people would just stop screaming about the end of the world I would be forced to admit that industry can find ways to reduce operating costs and increase efficiencies thereby reducing consumption and waste and pollution.  But that would be to let the market take its course and where would the fun be in that?


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Apr 2007)

This is what our environment minister started out with, before he revealed the governments new environmental plan yesterday. 

 Banning incandescent light bulbs by 2010, in favour of the new more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs seems to be the only concrete evidence of any plan that I could see. Its business as usual otherwise. Oh and coming up with a plan for industry to let the government know how much CO2 they put into the air yearly, they must cut CO2 output levels by 6% a year until 2010 and then by 2% every year after. But to do this, industry has some mathematical formula they must use to figure out the end result. The government left the industries to police themselves, hello, I can do all kinds of wonderful things with math and numbers, like maybe shaving a few numbers of here and there and voila, I have a winning number. That's like leaving the fox in the hen house overnight and thinking all your chickens will be still there in the morning. 
I was under the impression that a parliamentary committee had been formed and had hashed out a true plan, not this half hearted of the shelf crap. But it seems that Mr Baird either didn't see it or he just ignored it.

Many Canadians have already made the switch to the new bulbs, so that's not a new initiative. What about monies for new energy development, more fuel efficient cars, raising the gas guzzler tax on those big dinosaur SUV's that the auto industry are still selling. Raising the tax break for people who purchase fuel efficient cars. 

I support the conservatives, but please don't insult my intelligence by putting this in front of me and telling me its a good plan. To me, its doing the same thing the Liberals did for decade, nothing and then patting themselves on the back, for a job well done. 

Mr Baird i implore you to get up from the oil barons table and go have a chat with the environmentalists and come up with a plan that will at the very least, have some semblance of a plan that will actually work. And put in place some policing to ensure industry is kept accountable to the new initiatives and please have the teacher "check their math".


----------



## stealthylizard (28 Apr 2007)

The Tories already announced a tax on gas guzzlers in their budget, as well as a skimpy rebate for those who buy hybrid powered vehicles.  There was a committee formed to make recommendations of change to the previous clean air act.  I imagine it was scrapped because they went overboard, making over 100 amendments to it, then having the gall to expect the Conservatives to pass it.  I don't like the forced switch to CF lighting myself.  Do you really think people will start saving their new light bulbs and take them to a specialized recycling plant to safely dispose of them?  Probably not.  They will end up in the landfill, leaking mercury into the ground, trading one problem for another.  

The difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives this time around is that the Conservatives actually put something forward in writing, unlike the Liberal party that just signed an agreement and never had any intentions of abiding by it.  In some ways, I am just as displeased by the lack of penalties for not following the new Act, but relieved at the same time, being an oilfield employee.  Maybe now I can return to work, seeing as how the industry knows what effects this will have on their operations.  It was because of all this, waiting on legislation in the first place, that I have been laid off since the end of January.  Our clients were waiting to find out what was going on so put the contracts on hold.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Apr 2007)

I can't remember where, but some blogger posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation to support his hypothesis that there may already be enough manufacturing capacity for the new bulbs to support our requirements and that the rate of adoption is already high enough.  His point is that the bulbs last so long that after the initial buying surge there will be a trough in sales for a few years while the first generation of bulbs runs down its life span.  If the hypothesis is correct, we are not doing the market any favours by providing additional incentives (subsidies, bans) to increase manufacturing capacity right now.  It should be self-evident that for a long-lifed replacement product, it is better to allow it to be phased in gradually.  A handful of years may not be enough.


----------



## GAP (28 Apr 2007)

incandescent bulbs will not be banned. At present they produce 10% light 90% heat. These specifications are what is being banned. 

They have until 2012 to bring up the specs to 30-40 % light and 60-70 % heat (where the fluorescent is now). At those ratings the incandescent is good to go.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Apr 2007)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can't remember where, but some blogger posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation to support his hypothesis that there may already be enough manufacturing capacity for the new bulbs to support our requirements and that the rate of adoption is already high enough.  His point is that the bulbs last so long that after the initial buying surge there will be a trough in sales for a few years while the first generation of bulbs runs down its life span.  If the hypothesis is correct, we are not doing the market any favours by providing additional incentives (subsidies, bans) to increase manufacturing capacity right now.  It should be self-evident that for a long-lifed replacement product, it is better to allow it to be phased in gradually.  A handful of years may not be enough.



Call me cynical ("no way!" I hear you shout),  but as soon as regular bulbs are banned/scowled at in the grocery lineup, we will see a marked decrease in the life expectancy of the new bulbs.  My house is fully converted to the new guys, except a ceiling fixture with a dimmer that is near to impossible to find the mini bulbs for.


----------



## Flip (28 Apr 2007)

As I've mentioned before - heat might not be so bad.
Most of us pay money to heat the house-most of the time.
If the heat doesn't come from the light bulbs it comes from somewhere else.
If you heat with electricity, the cost is the same.

For all the bulbs in doors and in the winter it's a zero sum effort.
I would guess that's 80% of the bulb use.

Then there's the mercury.  A little mercury in your eco-system
can make the forecasts of global warming etc. purely redundant.

An entirely new incandescent technology like those little quartz buggers
made by Phillips would be nice. (my lamp of choice)

Still not a huge fan of flourescents.

Super high intensity LEDs are nice but expensive. But again these are a variation on the flourescent theme.

If you look at the spectral output of a flourescent bulb, it's very
limited in breadth. That is, a chandelier or you wife's diamond will
look like something that came from the ice tray in the freezer.

Incadescent bulbs provide all of the wavelengths in some measure and
color up things very nicely.

If you ever try to paint or photograph anything under flourescents a
ban on incandescents is not good news.

I don't think this is one of Baird's better ideas.

If you are right GAP, and I suspect you are, I have no problem with it.


----------



## Kunu (28 Apr 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> As I've mentioned before - heat might not be so bad.
> Most of us pay money to heat the house-most of the time.
> If the heat doesn't come from the light bulbs it comes from somewhere else.
> If you heat with electricity, the cost is the same.



Just a friendly reminder to everyone that the most expensive way to heat a house is by pushing electricity through bigass resistors.   ;D

Also, I believe the main reason most people chuck things like CF bulbs in the trash instead of taking them to the depot is the whole inconvenience of finding where the depot is (which is inevitably different for each product), fitting in the awkward hours they are open into their schedules, and actually going to whatever out of the way industrial area they happen to be in.  Now if people could simply drop used bulbs, etc. off at the local grocery store or Crappy Tire, perhaps with a deposit reward, do you think as many would be let go into le garbage?


----------



## Flip (28 Apr 2007)

Or better yet,..............

Make the CFs so they last in the first place! ;D

Any place where they have Hydro for heat, 50W == 50W from a heater.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Apr 2007)

From:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/28/gore.html
"Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, now one of the world's most famous climate-change activists, has called the federal government's new green plan "a fraud."
Gore criticized the plan while in Toronto on Saturday to attend the Green Living Show and screen his documentary on the environment, An Inconvenient Truth."

More on link

My take: someone should call Al Gore a Fraud, quit selling his propaganda here and basically, "buzz off".  Again, only my take.


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Apr 2007)

The thing I want to ask Gore and Suzuki and all the rest is *"Where the hell were you when the Liberals did nothing on the environment for 13 years?"*  This criticism is the height of political hypocracy.  Both Gore and Suzuki should be asked that question point blank in front of as many television cameras as possible in as many ways as possible.  

Both of these environmental hypocrites don't have a leg to stand on.  Suzuki tours the country in a pollutant spewing diesel bus when the technology exists for him to have done so in a fuel cell vehicle and Gore jet set's across the globe in a private jet and castigates GWB when Georgie's Texas ranch uses a variety of environmentally efficient and effective measures while Gores mansion burns the equivalent power of a small town in a year.

Political hacks and environ*mental* hypocrites.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (28 Apr 2007)

For those who are unsure about the ban of incandescent bulbs as we know them today, here's the link to the environment ministers website. 

http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/news-nouvelles/20070425-eng.cfm


----------



## Shec (28 Apr 2007)

What David Suzuki says is worth listening to and considering.  What some has been I-wannabe-US-President-but-only-made- Veep-straight -man says has no relevance this side of the 49th.  He should mind his own business. 

PS.  I'm trying to be polite.


----------



## MediTech (28 Apr 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> What David Suzuki says is worth listening to and considering.  What some has been I-wannabe-US-President-but-only-made- Veep-straight -man says has no relevance this side of the 49th.  He should mind his own business.
> 
> PS.  I'm trying to be polite.



One of my university profs studied under Suzuki and said that he is more of a self promoting celebrity than a scientist.  I wouldn't trust anything that he has to say.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Apr 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> What David Suzuki says is worth listening to and considering.  What some has been I-wannabe-US-President-but-only-made- Veep-straight -man says has no relevance this side of the 49th.  He should mind his own business.
> 
> PS.  I'm trying to be polite.



The problem is that a lot of environmentalists (David Suzuki among them) are anti-industrialization.  

Sadly, they operate under the Machiavellian belief that the ends justify the means, and in this case, I believe many of them KNOW the science behind GHG-Global Warming is a fraud, but if it means fewer cars and factories, they're willing to promote the lie.

I have ZERO respect for that.  


Matthew.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Apr 2007)

Who really cares what Al Gore has to say.


----------



## Shec (28 Apr 2007)

i just said Suzuki was worth listening to and having his opinion considered and respected;  but not necessarily agreed with. The man does know a thing or two about this country.  Some US politician on the other hand...?


----------



## MediTech (28 Apr 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> i just said Suzuki was worth listening to and having his opinion considered and respected;  but not necessarily agreed with. The man does know a thing or two about this country.  Some US politician on the other hand...?



I don't believe that Suzuki is worth listening to.  He says what sells.  He doesn't care if what he's saying is true or follows the codes and conventions of the scientific communitiy.  I'd say that Al Gore probably know just as much as Suzuki but that's not saying much.  Suzuki doesn't care about he environment.  He cares about publicity so that he can make money.


----------



## frist one (28 Apr 2007)

Al Gore.I don't trust I have no respect for him.I just think he should go away .In stay out of Canada. :threat: :threat:


----------



## FascistLibertarian (28 Apr 2007)

Med. Tech if you only read and listen to people who have the same views as yourself then you will get a very slanted world view. I am a liberal Conservative so I try and go out of my way to read Al Jazeera, the economist and other liberal press.
Half of the problems in this world have to do with people on the right only reading stuff ont he right and people ont he left only reading leftist stuff.
I personally disagree with Suzuki but if the Tories want to win green votes than they need to pay attention.
It is not all about global warming either, it is clear that we consume to much and are wrecking our enviroment on a national and international level.
I wish people would focus beyond global warming.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Apr 2007)

Shec said:
			
		

> i just said Suzuki was worth listening to and having his opinion considered and respected;  but not necessarily agreed with. The man does know a thing or two about this country.  Some US politician on the other hand...?



Ask him about his cross country, green environmental tour. The one he took on the fume spewing diesel guzzling, rock star bus. The one that had only eight people on board. He's a hypocrite.


----------



## larry Strong (28 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Med. Tech if you only read and listen to people who have the same views as yourself then you will get a very slanted world view. I am a *liberal Conservative * so I try and go out of my way to read Al Jazeera, the economist and other liberal press.



Identity crisis or what??


----------



## Flip (28 Apr 2007)

> I wish people would focus beyond global warming.



The very thing I've been thinking all along!

Al Gore is a politician. So it's fair to say he has a political motive.

David Suzuki is a geneticist. Then he became a celebrity by wandering
out of his lane.

If you could show them they were wrong unequivocally, it's a fair bet
they wouldn't care.

Legitimate environmentalism goes down the drain and people who
disagree with the current trend get a label.

The world just has to be flat.


----------



## FascistLibertarian (28 Apr 2007)

Liberal = party
Conservative = party
liberal = political feelings
conservative = political feelings
I am liberal BUT only the CPC really supports the military so I vote CPC even though socially I am not a conservative.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> From:
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/28/gore.html
> Gore criticized the plan after leaving one of his vast, energy consuming mansions, riding in a limosine motercade to the airport and flying in on a private jet, being met by another motercade in Canadawhile in Toronto on Saturday to attend the Green Living Show and screen his documentary on the environment, An Inconvenient Truth."



I wonder how many average people's energy consumption that one way trip to Toronto represents? Now double that for the return leg and multiply by each time he comes out somewhere to screen his film..............


----------



## BernDawg (28 Apr 2007)

Gore is a hypocrite of the highest order.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

STFU!


----------



## 3rd Horseman (28 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I am a liberal Conservative



Then you would be a Progressive Conservative. Socially responsible fiscal conservative = CPC so keep voting CPC and no need to feel guilty.

Oh ya Gore STFU, cant wait for the new counter gore movie that is coming out.


----------



## Flip (28 Apr 2007)

And now as if to whip the old grey mare up and out of her grave.............

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010

A much older doc about the mythology we all know and love.

Looks like it was out around 1990.
Some stuff is a little different.

Some of the characters are different.
Not a bad way to spend 51 minutes - make your popcorn first.


----------



## MediTech (29 Apr 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> Med. Tech if you only read and listen to people who have the same views as yourself then you will get a very slanted world view. I am a liberal Conservative so I try and go out of my way to read Al Jazeera, the economist and other liberal press.
> Half of the problems in this world have to do with people on the right only reading stuff ont he right and people ont he left only reading leftist stuff.
> I personally disagree with Suzuki but if the Tories want to win green votes than they need to pay attention.
> It is not all about global warming either, it is clear that we consume to much and are wrecking our enviroment on a national and international level.
> I wish people would focus beyond global warming.



Listen to people with other political views?  The prof who told us that Suzuki was into nothing but self promotion was the same prof who told us to eat "brownies" because it's better for your lungs than smoking marijuana.  I didn't get that view from a Conservative, I got it from a microbiology prof.  It has nothing to do with politics or the media.  How about you read my post before you go flapping off alright?


----------



## rmacqueen (29 Apr 2007)

The inconvenient truth for Gore is the fact that his powerpoint/book/movie is so full of scientific inaccuracies and errors he would have failed basic highschool science if it were submitted as an essay.  As for that envirofacist Suzuki, the fact that he is trying to shove Kyoto down everyones throat, while negating any other type of pollution controls, shows that what is doing has little to do with real science and more to do with grabbing headlines.  I recently heard one of his former students, and co-founder of Greenpiece, saying how Suzuki had completely given up on true science and was pushing his own political agenda of anti-globalization.

One more little item in this debate is this, CO2 in not and has never been a pollutant.  Without CO2 everything on the planet dies and the current average of 385ppm atmospheric CO2 is barely above what is needed.  Anything below 300ppm starts to affect plant growth and, by extension, planetary oxygen levels.

I applaud the Tories for not buying into the eco-politics and actually going after true pollutants, the ones that are actually killing people.  Even if we accept that climate change is driven by humans, a theory that even the UN commission on climate change couldn't prove, it would affect our way of life, not kill us.  Ground level ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, etc, etc is killing people now, today, and the fact the Tories have taken that on is the true green plan.

Just to put this in perspective, cancer in on the verge of replacing cardiovascular disease as the number one killer in Canada.  I, for one, would rather live with climate change than die because of chemical induced cancer.


----------



## TCBF (30 Apr 2007)

We don't need Al Gore coming up hear preaching American-style Enviro-facsism.  The fact that he can't draw a crowd on his own in the USA speaks volumes.  We don't need foriegn rabble-rousers interfearing in our internal affairs.



- A short word of explanation:  I am merely using the "Language of the LEFT" that they use to criticize visitors like the president of the NRA, when she is invited to dinner in Ottawa by the CSSA.

Fun, isn't it?

 ;D


----------



## Flip (30 Apr 2007)

I seem to remember someone pointing out that Democrats like to meddle
in Canadian affairs 

When Paul Cellucci ( the former US ambassador ) made a few comments
concerning national defence the liberals howled about Americans
meddling in Canadian affairs.

As far as I'm concerned, If you can't take criticism from your friends
you might not have any.

My deepest regret (as far as politics goes) is that social activism is now 
an end in itself, to the extent that Science can be high jacked by political
agenda and endanger legitimate environmentalism and indeed democracy itself.

How's that for a loaded run on sentence?

How can Suzuki and Gore be held to account?
When they are proved wrong - they will have an excuse.
Whatever goes wrong will be someone else's fault.

Like the poor fool scientist who wants to launch mirrors into space. ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Apr 2007)

For gore (couldn't win a presidency so become a envirofacist) and suzuki (who I used to respect), I present my old question? Who was responsible for global climate change 15,000-10,000 years ago. As I said before, must of been the wooly mammoths driving monstrous SUVs and the saber tooth cats heating their homes year round.

Their are other concerns i think present a bigger danger than the natural phenomnon of climate change. Over population, smog, trash pile ups, etc, etc.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Apr 2007)

"Gore never read Ottawa's green plan, Baird says"

http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070430/GORE30/Front/frontpage/frontpage/2/2/3/
Excerpts...

"Mr. Baird also said the government's plan will make Canada the *international leader * in emissions reductions over the next 13 years, and that its proposal would be hailed as "revolutionary" if it came from a U.S. government because "it's so tough.""
...........
Mr. Gore wasn't available for comment yesterday, but a spokeswoman said that before criticizing it, the former U.S. vice-president had definitely read the Tory emissions plan that was unveiled last week. "Obviously *he had a chance to read and review it * ," Kalee Kreider said.
....

Well, he had a chance, but did he act upon that chance?  "Smoke and mirrors" indeed.....


----------



## observor 69 (30 Apr 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> "Gore never read Ottawa's green plan, Baird says"
> 
> http://www.rbcinvest.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/PEstory/LAC/20070430/GORE30/Front/frontpage/frontpage/2/2/3/
> Excerpts...
> ...



When Baird told Suzuki the Conservatives were going further than any other government in Canadian history, Suzuki said it wasn’t enough.

The Conservative government strategy focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality. But the plan failed to spell out precisely what many of its regulations will look like.

Gore said he was surprised to see that the Tory plan employs the concept of “intensity reduction,” which he said is poll-tested phrase developed in Houston by the so-called think tanks financed by Exxon Mobil and some other large polluters.

Gore acknowledged he is not a Canadian citizen and said he has “no right to interfere in your decisions.”

However, he said, the rest of the world looks to Canada for moral leadership and that’s why this week’s announcement was so “shocking.”

Baird’s statement also offered an invitation for Gore to discuss climate change and the Conservatives’ environmental policies with him.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6f3441c2-377e-4e14-9383-fe69e2ff6889&k=66850


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (30 Apr 2007)

As Gore, Suzuki, _et. al._ keep babbling on about "consensus" ...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21636036-5012769,00.html



> *Ocean currents to blame for warming: expert*
> 
> By Dab Elliott in Denver
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Apr 2007)

And of course:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/006101



> *Global Warming is Real and Melting the Glaciers...*
> 
> on Mars.
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (30 Apr 2007)

I recall a couple of months ago, Suzuki was on a talk radio program in Toronto.  When the host dared to suggest that there was still a debate, Suzuki lost it, declared the debate over, and stormed out of the studio!  Or hung up, I can't remember which.  To me, a scientist who is unwilling to defend his theories is not a real scientist.  I too have had science profs declare in class that Suzuki is 10% scientist, 90% publicity hound.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 May 2007)

My acquaintance, the political insider, said: “No election any time soon.  No one wants to govern the damned country; both the Conservatives and the Liberals are terrified.”

“Let me tell you a story,” she said.  “It's like one of those old western movies we used to watch when we were kids.  There's a nice lady, let's call her *Bess*, who owns a big ranch – she lives far away but the cattle are kind of fond of her.  For the last few years she's had the same set of wranglers – the foreman changed but the system for herding the cattle was pretty much the same.  A few years ago there was a wolf scare.  The cattle get sacred, spooked and started it mill around.  The foreman and his wranglers met a pedlar who sold them a wolf repellent system called Kyoto.  The cattle were content – for a while.  But the wolves kept howling and Kyoto didn't appear to frighten them off.  In fact the wranglers were using Kyoto back-asswards, targeting it against some upstarts who wanted their jobs rather than protecting the cattle.”

A little over a year ago *Bess* hired new wranglers and a new foreman.  The old gang was furious and decided to play a practical joke: they went out and they howled like wolves: _'Kyoooootoooo ... Kyoooootoooo .... Kyoooootoooooooo!'_ they howled.  The cattle stampeded.

Everyone knows that this Kyoto thing the peddler sold doesn't work – everyone, that is, except the cattle.  All they can hear is the fearsome wolf howl and they are stampeding, hell bent for the big cliff.  The new foreman and his wranglers think they know how to divert the cattle, to turn them a bit so that they can _'run themselves out'_ but not go charging over the cliff.  The old foreman and his wranglers think they know how, too.  They would like to turn the herd the other way.  The end result is that the two teams of wranglers are prowling around the edges of the stampede, working a cross purposes.  Both are afraid to get out in front of the stampede and turn the wild eyed, frothing lead cattle – the ones called _David_ and _Maude_ and _Elizabeth_.

*Bess* is not sure she has the best team of wranglers – but now both teams are afraid of the stampeding herd and neither wants the job.”

My acquantance is serious.  The environment is, she thinks, the new _super-issue_.  I called it a _children's crusade_ and she agreed that's an apt description.  The people know what they want; the experts – especially the senior bureaucrats and finance, industry and the PCO are horrified; they are convinced that pandering to the electorate's fears and desires will bring on a major recession – far worse than the '80s.  Both Stephen Harper and Stephane Dion understand that what's _on offer_ by the Conservatives is environmentally useless (in so far a GHG reduction is concerned) but economically acceptable while C-30 is environmentally _acceptable_ but an economic disaster in waiting.  The problem is that the people have _decided_ they want C-30. 

Harper will ignore C-30 for as long as he can but, eventually, unless he can find a way to distract the public, he will be under so much pressure that he will have to bring it in and then hope against hope that he will lose the next election and Dion will have the pleasure of leading the country into financial ruin.  Dion fears exactly the same thing.

I think she's right.  The _people_ have not just spoken, they have screamed and shouted: *Kyoto! Kyoto! Kyoto!*  They will not be denied but, when the cows come home, they will severely punish the unfortunate politicians, of either major party, who listen to them.


----------



## GAP (1 May 2007)

ER....I disagree. I don't think there is all that rabid a desire for Kyoto. The MSM is pushing it, as are a bunch with their own agenda's, but all in all, I think most people just want the issue to go away without any guilt.

That's really what has been happening. The Kyoto crowd and environmentalists are guilting people into doing something stupid. A lot of people applauded Harper's crowd when they didn't fall in line. I also don't think the Kyoto crowd can sustain their reasoning for any length of time. More and more is coming out correctly pointing out that the facts don't fit the fantasy.

edited to add: or maybe that last is just my fantasy.....meh.


----------



## Flip (1 May 2007)

> ER....I disagree. I don't think there is all that rabid a desire for Kyoto. The MSM is pushing it, as are a bunch with their own agenda's, but all in all, I think most people just want the issue to go away without any guilt.



Bingo! give my learned friend a cookie!

It's All about the guilt ( the SUV in the driveway ).
Freud said guilt was the fear of punishment, or something like that.

The media do push this thing, In Edmonton with local programming included,
I hear at least some noise about global warming EVERY DAY!
If you repeat something enough it becomes true.

I loved your story E.R.
I think I'm in love with Bess.
You forgot to mention the dogs that work for the wranglers - about a quarter as many
as there are sheep. and they never go away! Even when you change the wranglers.

I'm pretty sure of three things.
1. Rona Ambrose had the right policy - just not politically right.
2. At some point there will be a backlash. People will only accept what we
can't have for so long - we aren't a people who will accept major social
re-engineering without real evidence for ever.
3. The environment will be damaged by all this GW nonsense.
We will pollute, cut down forest and do preposterous things because of global warming.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 May 2007)

In general terms I agree with ER's associate and with ER's analogy of the Children's Crusade.

But I am not sure that the game has played itself out just yet.  Phase II of Kyoto has to be negotiated yet and although the new lot have "failed to live up to Kyoto I" they can legitimately argue that they have demonstrated more commitment than the previous mob.  Having thus demonstrated a good faith attempt then they go into the next round of negotiations with an improved hand.  Not a great hand but a better hand than the Liberals left them.

I found the following article from yesterday's G&M to be interesting.

The long and the short of it seems to be that Al Gore (the "green evangelist" ;D) Suzuki et al, and the Club of Rome* are going to use Canada, specifically Stephen Harper, as a whipping boy to "encourage" the US and other laggards to get in line.  I find it noteworthy that the anti-US rhetoric is decreasing, noting that the US is actually working towards Kyoto aims if not Kyoto targets, likewise for Australia.  Carrots are being extended along with the stick.  The real question now is whether the LeftTM is prepared to allow some wiggle room in return for a broader consensus that might include the US and Australia (if not China, India and Brazil).

It seems to me that de Boer of the UN is leaving some doors open to Canada for reevaluation of its Kyoto targets - especially if Canada can point to Australia as having met Kyoto while staying outside of the Kyoto regime.

It is more important to the UN that they are seen to be relevant than that they are relevant.

Likewise Europe is going to find the second round a lot harder pegging than the first round.  The don't have the advantage of the collapsed Russian economy any more.  That has been discounted.  The Eastern European economies, where much Western industry was transferred has already benefited from massive investment into new plants built to Western standards which produce less pollution than their Russian era counterparts.  What Western industry is left is in the process of being transferred to China, India and Brazil where they pollute to their heart's content supplying jobs to the Chinese and making Europeans rich while congratulating themselves on both improving the environment (arguable) and increasing the wealth in the developing world.  All this leaves Europe in the same place as Victoria, and soon Vancouver: a green and pleasant land for aging entrepreneurs, welfare claimants and hypocrites.  Luxembourg writ large.  But I digress (as usual).

If I were betting I would bet against an election any time soon (at least before 2009). I would expect the noise from the LEFT to increase.  Despite that The Kyoto II round will produce some sort of compromise that allows Canada, Australia and the US (and perhaps China, India and Brazil) to be declared friends of Kyoto.  For the Liberals the real threat will be who gets the credit for achieving that international respectability.  If a deal is close will they want to pull the plug on the government so that they can put their signature on the document and claim the credit?  Or are they still going to be hamstrung by Stephane Dion as a leader?

There ARE a lot of people working at stampeding the herd and the wranglers ARE working at cross purposes.  At the same time I don't think that the herd is moving yet. Some strays are headed for the cliffs and the herd is restless but I don't think it is running.

The basis for determining if the herd is running is response to polls, and has been regularly demonstrated polls are subject to a variety of vagaries making the whole exercise as much art as science.  One of the errors is people not wanting to appear to be abnormal to their questioners.  This is particularly true if they think that taking a position will result in a time consuming argument or a negative opinion of themselves.  Consequently people will give the expected answer.  Currently the expected answer is pro-Kyoto.

However, to change metaphors for a bit, the situation may be broadly analogous to Catholics being able to recite the catechism at school (or Protestants being able to recite the 10 commandments and the Books of the Bible) but not showing up for Church on Sunday.  The deeds of the "herd" are not matching its words.  (Great example of how to mix metaphors  ;D).  

Buzz and his buddies are now finding themselves out of step with the Greens and there goes the NDP, and possibly the Liberals.

The Conservatives are in tough with a poor hand, but at least they are the ones at the table and it is their hand to play.  (Cattle, Catechisms, and Cards in one missive - whodathunkit?)



> Head of Kyoto body questions emissions strategy
> JENNIFER DITCHBURN
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070430.wunemiss0430/BNStory/International


*(Who knew the Club of Rome were still in existence? They have been spectacularly wrong since 1972.  According to them we were supposed to be out of oil, copper and food by the 1990s and in the midst of a grimy ice age).

PS - I just saw Flip's post.  I agree with the backlash issue.  Some early signs:

Al Gore described as "green evangelist" - not good counter-pointing for the Leftists
Elizabeth May's speech to the congregation of a church as a Minister in Training (today's National Post) - likewise
Globe and Mail editorials offering support for the Government's plan  - Don Drummond's Bay Street imprimatur
The Vancouver Sun Editorial of yesterday - calling for The Great Climate Change Swindle to be shown alongside An Inconvenient Truth if Gore's propaganda is to be distributed in schools (personally I think they should also show Ice Age 2 - The Great Meltdown.  It was much more accurate the Gore's piece)
And finally - one of CNN's stations will be broadcasting a Made in America type version of The Swindle on Wednesday (Glen Beck on HNN).


----------



## RangerRay (1 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Vancouver Sun Editorial of yesterday - calling for The Great Climate Change Swindle to be shown alongside An Inconvenient Truth if Gore's propaganda is to be distributed in schools



If I had a kid in public school, I would be annoying the hell out of his/her teachers demanding that they did this.  How can you have an honest debate by showing a slick film portraying one side, but not show a slick film portraying the other?  That our institutions of learning focus so much on one side on so many issues is very disheartening.


----------



## a_majoor (2 May 2007)

OK Kirkhill, I'll see your cow and raise you two heifers.... ;D

One thing which the "Greens" do not understand (or keep quiet if they do) is opportunity costs; i.e. if you expend your resources to do one thing they are unavailable to do something else. Peple implicitly understand this, there was a p[oll which asked if Canadians were for protecting the environment; a majority said "yes", but when asked would they pay a X% environmental tax on gasoline (I believe), the overwhelming answer was "NO".

This concept needs to be hammered home by the Government when they sell their plan: "do Canadians really want to pay for cleaning murcury out of landfills (from compact flourecent bulbs) in order to meet a mythical Kyoto target? If not, then here is the plan we propose...."

There are any number of examples of foolish spending and irresponsible diversion of resources that can be marched out against Kyoto (as a matter of fact, there are a vast number of factual and scientific arguments that can also be raised against the "man made global warming hypothesis, but this is harder for the crowd to understand.)


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> OK Kirkhill, I'll see your cow and raise you two heifers.... ;D



Considering your current circumstances I will cheerfully accept 4 goats in lieu of the 2 heifers - but make sure they're young - none of your randy auld billy goats.   

Edited for spelling


----------



## Flip (2 May 2007)

The assertion of some, that Oil companies are responsible for the
opposing science..............  I don't get it.

Why would oil companies have any problem with a socially 
"progressive" way to raise the price of their products.

Peak oil arguments would not provide a pretext of this quality.
Expanding demand would not even make the proletariat happy.

Environmentalism is the perfect cover!

I don't think there is some big conspiracy.( like the big tobacco companies)
I just don't think they have a reason to pay off scientists or anything. 

Just a notion................ feel free to laugh.


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2007)

The "Great Climate Change Swindle" (I think that's what it was called) was very interesting.  Showed a bit of Al Gore doing his charting of CO2 and temperatures.  Then they highlighted Al's term "complicated relationship between temp and CO2".  What was so complicated, they asked?  Well, they answered.  It seems that the evidence suggests that higher CO2 doesn't cause higher temps, but rather the opposite is true: higher temps cause higher CO2 output.  Where from?  The oceans.  And, the oceans lag a few hundred years behind the temps ups and downs.  Curious: given the recent "increase" in CO2, what was the earth's temperature over the past 500 years?  Interesting to see.....


(BTW: of all sources of CO2, which include the oceans, plants, animals, decaying things, people, etc), human contributions of industry, cars, etc, is less than 10%.  Awesome!)


----------



## Haletown (2 May 2007)

http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/index.html

click  . .  "watch the movie"  . .  .  two parts about 25 minutes each.  Worth you while.

trying to calm the hysteria.

The Goreacle now gets $200k per presentation + all expenses ( can you say private jet).

he's got the herd stampeded, now he's making his killing.  Laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Haletown (2 May 2007)

and another . . . .  he's in Oz so the date is "correct"

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Another skeptic comes out

He tells the tale of his conversion by the data below. He puts it in the context of a bet he has made with a Warmist believer:

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on "FullCAM"). When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" In the late 1990's the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming was basically:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.

2. Global warming has been occurring for a century, especially since 1975, and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century, especially since 1975. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.

3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points were generally more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lock-step: there was an extremely high correlation, they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!

4. There weren't any other credible suspects for causing global warming. So presumably it had to be carbon emissions.

This evidence was good enough: not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm, and actions started to happen. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 -- with the aim of curbing carbon emissions.

And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed. Using the same point numbers as above:

2. Closer examination of the last century using better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled at about 0.1C/decade while atmospheric carbon increased. But any warming effect of atmospheric carbon is immediate. By 2003 or so we had discovered global dimming, which might be adequate to explain this 35-year non-correlation. But what had seemed like a good fit between recent atmospheric carbon and global warming now looks shaky, in need of the recently-discovered unquantified global dimming factor to explain 35 years of substantial cooling. I reckon the last century of correlation evidence now neither supports carbon emissions as the cause nor eliminates it. Further quantitative research on global dimming might rescue this bit of evidence, or it might weaken it further.

3. As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years the temperature increases generally started about 800 years *before* the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 -- it runs the opposite way. Presumably temperature rises cause a delayed rise in atmospheric carbon because it takes several hundred years to warm the oceans enough for the oceans to give off more of their carbon.

It is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming ("amplification" of the initial warming), but the ice core data does not prove that. It could just be that the temperature rose for some other reason, that this caused the oceans to raise the atmospheric carbon levels, and that the increased atmospheric carbon had an insignificant effect on the temperature.

The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role.

4. A credible alternative suspect now exists. Clouds both reflect incoming radiation (albedo) and prevent heat from escaping (greenhouse), but with low clouds the albedo effect is stronger than the greenhouse effect. Thus low clouds cause net cooling (high clouds are less common and do the opposite). In October 2006 a team led by Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and thus that :

Stronger sun's magnetic field
=> Less cosmic rays hit Earth
=> Fewer low clouds are formed
=> Earth heats up.

And indeed, the sun's magnetic field has been stronger than usual for the last three decades. So maybe cosmic rays cause global warming. But investigation of this cause is still in its infancy, and it's far too early to judge how much of the global warming is caused by cosmic rays. So three of the four arguments that convinced me in 1999 that carbon emissions caused global warming are now questionable.

The case for carbon emissions as the cause of global warming now just boils down to the fact that we know that it works in the laboratory, and that there is no strong evidence that global warming is definitely *not* caused by carbon emissions. Much the same can be said of cosmic rays -- we have laboratory evidence that it works, and no definitely contradictory evidence. So why did I bet against global warming continuing at the current rate? Let's return to the interaction between science and politics.

By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions. This was a good and sensible response by big government to what science was telling them.

But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken the carbon emissions hypothesis. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming? None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to recapture the attention of the political system later on. What has happened is that most research effort since 2000 has assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

(BTW, I quit my job in carbon accounting in 2005 for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with my weakening belief that carbon emissions caused global warming. I felt that the main value of our plant models was in land management and plant simulation, and that carbon accounting was just a by-product.)

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics. The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effects of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence in favor of carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. Which makes it a good time to bet the other way 

I would like to bet against carbon emissions being the main cause of the current global warming. But I can't bet on that directly, because all betting requires an unambiguous and measurable criterion. About the only related measure we can bet on is global temperature. So I accepted Brian's bets about trends in global temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years. Basically, if the current warming trend continues or accelerates then Brian will win; if the rate of warming slows then I will win. Even if carbon emissions are not the main cause of this global warming, I can still lose:

* Global warming might be due to a side-effect of industrialization other than carbon emissions. Possible causes include atmospheric reactions of industrial chemicals that hinder the rate of low cloud formation.

* Global warming might be primarily due to a non-human cause, such as something related to the sun or to underground nuclear reactions. If this cause persists over the next 20 years as it has for the last 30 years then I will lose, but if it fades in the next decade then I win.

I emphasize that we are making a bet involving odds and judgment. The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it *is* possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might in turn put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.

Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue that is subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. Looking back in another 40 years, we will almost certainly know the answer and Brian and I will be in agreement on the issue.

Given that betting is thus possible on this issue, it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money. Betting something of one's own money adds, shall we say, credibility. And people whose own money is at stake try a little harder -- a well known advantage of private business over public. A good side effect of widespread betting would be a market in betting that would represent a community-wide best guess. Such markets exists in sports betting, and are the best predictors of game outcomes. Let's hope for the planet's sake that I win the bets  Meanwhile let's do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions!


----------



## vonGarvin (2 May 2007)

Here's an interesting photo:

(Shared from the Toronto Sun, http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/home.html  2 May, 2007)


----------



## Benny (3 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I find it noteworthy that the anti-US rhetoric is decreasing, noting that the US is actually working towards Kyoto aims if not Kyoto targets, likewise for Australia.  Carrots are being extended along with the stick.  The real question now is whether the LeftTM is prepared to allow some wiggle room in return for a broader consensus that might include the US and Australia (if not China, India and Brazil).


Two things that are keeping us out of Kyoto.

1 - It is pissweak. We have actually reduced the proportional amount of renewable energy we use, yet are still beating the kyoto targets we were supposed to sign on for.

2 - It is a pointless agreement without the US, China and India all signing up to a fairly stringent code.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2007)

Summed UP!


----------



## Flip (14 May 2007)

I found the following:

Interesting...............

Power plan dooms world's poor 

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

     
Environmentalists keep telling us they love humanity. 

So apparently it's just people a lot of them have trouble with. 

This tendency is being noted with alarm even by former environmental crusaders, as the hysteria over global warming escalates. 

In the British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as "anti-human", adding they tend to see people as "scum." 

Moore says that's why they think "it's OK to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die" and in particular why "the environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries." 

  

Paul Driessen, a former environmental campaigner and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death notes in the same film: "My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world's poorest people." 

He means that if environmentalists succeed in their campaign to have developing countries abandon fossil fuels to produce electricity, and to substitute unreliable and expensive wind and solar power, it will doom the world's poorest to permanent poverty. 

Without affordable, reliable electricity, human society is condemned to low productivity and to disease, famine and early death. Driessen complains global warming crusaders always talk about the speculative risks of using fossil fuels in terms of climate change, never about the known risks of not using them. 

African economist James Shikwati, also featured in the film, describes First World environmentalists descending on Africa urging it not to use its coal and oil resources, as effectively counselling Africans to commit "suicide." 

James Lovelock, a founder of the global green movement, criticizes selfish, ill-informed, affluent environmental radicals in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, for condemning millions of people living in the developing world to death from malaria because of their overly hysterical campaign against the pesticide DDT. 

Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, makes the same point in "The Human Cost of the Anti-pesticide Movement" in the April edition of the Fraser Forum. 

In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet." 

With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time. 

But this idea that the major problem with the Earth's environment is that there are too many people is common in the environmental movement. 

Of course, the more people you have, the more pollution there is. But that's not the issue. The issue is what do you do about it, and, as Moore, Driessen and others warn us, that's where the thinking of many environmentalists gets scary. Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their actions. 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/05/10/4167971.html


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2007)

This may also be appropriate for the "Scary situation: no more oil" thread, but since the global warming crusaders are primarily against energy generation (i.e. what keeps us alive and with a decent standard of living), then this is also appropriate here (many embedded links in the post; link, follow and be amazed):

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/06/AnewManhattanProject.shtml



> In my perusals of my referer logs, I noticed that Greg Burch had linked to an old article of mine, for which I thank him. Unfortunately, I don't agree with his post in which he did so. I started writing a letter to him explaining why, and it got longer and longer and so I decided to post it instead.
> 
> Greg comes to a conclusion which many others have also reached. It's been a pretty regular fixture in my mailbox for a long time. He explains it this way:
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

My environmental plan remains:
1)  Increase the price of electricity dramatically so that people have an incentive to conserve.  Our current model which we have brought about ourselves as voters is that we literally subsidize our own electricity through our income taxes so that we can waste electricity at a horrid rate (running air conditioners with windows open, etc.)  In short, until people pay AT LEAST the actual price of electricity, we will get zero real effort towards true conservation.  Additionally, I would phase in a 15% premium on actual rates (which would bump current rates by about 30% total) with that 15% being dedicated to all green projects focused primarily on nuclear power and wind power.  This will fund our ability to eliminate the coal plants in Ontario and elsewhere....
2)  Build those new nuclear plants as part of an international plan to create the equivalent of a nuclear power plant assembly line.  I don't care who we partner with whether it is EU or American, or somebody else, but our previous habit of spending billions on one-off designs is beyond stupid.
3)  New investment for water clean-up.  Specifically, a combination of low-interest loans and follow-on grants upon completion for water treatment facilities.  Specifically any water we put back into rivers or our lakes should be drinkable and these lovely Ecoli blooms that we get each summer should be a thing of the past....it's just gross.
4)  New air quality guidelines based specifically on airborne particulates and heavy metals, because that's the stuff that hurts people.
5)  Enact new environmental trade legislation where-in tarrifs can be applied to nations whose emission impact the health of Canadians.  Specifically, I'm looking at the new build Chinese coal power plants which are already putting up enough heavy metals into the air, that it's already causing smog days on the West Coast.

Getting those ducks in a row would be "Year One"....


Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> My environmental plan remains:
> 1)  Increase the price of electricity dramatically so that people have an incentive to conserve.  Our current model which we have brought about ourselves as voters is that we literally subsidize our own electricity through our income taxes so that we can waste electricity at a horrid rate (running air conditioners with windows open, etc.)  In short, until people pay AT LEAST the actual price of electricity, we will get zero real effort towards true conservation.



Matthew, I am not sure that I can agree with this point (the rest of it I can easily).

Back to TANSTAAFL.  While individuals may be sheltered from the costs of providing energy, society isn't.  You say yourself that the difference between what the consumer pays directly and the real cost is made up by the consumer paying indirectly through taxes.  The costs are still covered.  The difference is that it is society at large that bears the cost of the service with individuals paying a "nominal" user's fee.

Given that we have decided that providing energy is best handled "collectively/communally (where's that shudder emoticon when you need it?)" then we rely on politicians to make sure that the lights stay on.  When they don't, we get rid of the politicians.  When that doesn't work we take matters into our own hands and buy noisy, smelly gas generators at our own expense and then have to fuel and maintain them, or cut down tree lots to heat the house (that only works until you run out of trees).

In the meantime the regularly fired politicians get the message that "something must be done" in the immortal words of Mel Brooks "to protect their phoney baloney jobs".   At the same time the population finds that they have been able to find a bit of extra cash for that generator and wouldn't be adverse to sending some of that money to a third party to supply the energy without all the fuss of maintaining the gear and having to worry about wind direction to avoid the smell.

Market prices for energy have already promoted conservation and alternative energy plans.  Industry's interest in conservation has always been there but becomes especially acute from time to time (WW1, WW2, Arab Oil Embargo 1973....).  Each time one of those events happen Industry responds by ratcheting itself up to a new efficiency standard.  That is why we have gone from electric motors of 80-85% efficiency to a current standard of 95% efficiency.  Industry currently is investigating new energy sources as it tries to trim costs in the face of rising energy prices.  I have been involved in a few of these discussions already.  The reality is that for the vast majority of industries energy is still a marginal cost, as is labour.  Most projects that I have seen in my field (the food industry) the major cost drivers are: the cost of money, the cost of marketing and the cost of raw materials.  

Energy impacts project profitability.  It can even impact the decision to close down a facility that has paid itself off and the costs of money and marketing are no longer issues - maintenance then starts ramping up.  But it is seldom the deciding factor in determining the feasibility of a project.

The projects that I have seen so far have yet to be encumbered with an energy supply cost anything close to the cost necessary to offset the capital and operating cost of investing in alternative energy sources.  (Fish Oil is one that I have revisited a few times, along with biodiesel from slaughterhouse waste and I have had a chance to look at a remote Wind installation for a small community).


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

This in today's National Post by Lorne Gunter, commenting on the appointment of a Zimbabwean thug that can't grow corn on his previously productive purloined pharm, as the head of the UN's Council on Sustainable Development (CSD).  Interesting that Mugabe has long been a Chinese client.....



> The Third World mocks our green agenda
> Lorne Gunter, National Post
> Published: Monday, May 14, 2007
> 
> ...



China and India not signing on to Kyoto.  Unsustainable Ministers of Sustainability.  IPCC recommending more Nukes.  Methinks the chorus needs to shout louder.

Louder Al.  Louder Dave.  Louder Stephane.  Louder Liz. Louder Maude.......... Maybe that way you can win the argument.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

Kirkhill, you think electricity rates *should* be subsidized by our income taxes so it's cheaper to waste, and in doing so guarantee we put extra heavy metals into the air via our coal-fired plants?

In addition, do you not think we should have create an constant re-investment fund for both power generation and power transmission, rather than waiting for system failure and then having to borrow billions to after-the-fact clean it up?

Little help....


Matthew.    ???


----------



## Benny (14 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, you think electricity rates *should* be subsidized by our income taxes so it's cheaper to waste, and in doing so guarantee we put extra heavy metals into the air via our coal-fired plants?
> 
> In addition, do you not think we should have create an constant re-investment fund for both power generation and power transmission, rather than waiting for system failure and then having to borrow billions to after-the-fact clean it up?
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, that's exactly what is happenning here.

Since the early 1980s there has been little spending on power infrastructure here in Victoria, Australia, and it has bitten us. We now cannot cope with demand. This year a bushfire knocked out one line easement, and took 1/3 of the state's power with it.

Our state govt is in the pockets of the greens, and has refused a new electricity/synthetic fuels plant from opening, which has necesitated the continued running of the worlds dirtiest power station, Hazelwood. They will not build any more dams (necessary to take full use of wind power) either. Madness. We are now in a scramble to make up the difference via upgraded transmission, and gas turbines. Which isn't going to work. Wind is unreliable, and the last gas plant built was banned from operating between 9am and 5pm weekdays...which is when the highest demand is. The price of electricity is going to rise significantly, and system losses are going to increase, as we now have to run our lines hotter than before, just to meet demand.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 May 2007)

Matthew, I think our electricity rates ARE subsidized by our taxes.  Therefore we are either going to pay for investments in generation, transmission, distribution and emissions control (however emissions are defined) by paying higher rates or higher taxes.  Rates are a directed tax or a mail paid either to the government or the supplier.  We are already paying full price for the electricity.
The price of electricity doesn't have to rise.  It just has to be reallocated.  

If you are going to charge me directly for the full value of the service then reduce my taxes by a level commensurate with the subsidy I am already paying.

Generally I dislike handing the Government a lump sum of taxes for services in any case.  I would prefer to dinged for a series of "Insurance Policies" where I know how much I am going to spend on Employment, Energy, Policing, Health, National Defence, Pensions etc. with those that are disadvantaged legitimately being individually subsidized and taxed back like all other tax payers.

The other point I was trying to make is that the current blended system of cost recovery through taxation and direct user fees is not without its feedback mechanisms.  Those mechanisms have already served to induce industry to improve efficiencies.  They have also served to push politicians to make changes to the supply system.  Although not as efficiently as the market, the political process does produce change...eventually.

But somethings, like your heavy metal issue from burning coal, are best addressed centrally in central facilities - Beijing and Delhi currently, and most of Northern Europe in the 50s (London in particular) are great examples of the effects of individuals taking responsibility for supplying services with each household operating a number of open hearths rather than diverting the same coal to a coking plant and a generating facility.

I should have been more precise.  It was the first sentence of that paragraph that I was disputing.  Gut reaction to anybody telling me that prices should go up I guess.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Matthew, I think our electricity rates ARE subsidized by our taxes.



In case, you missed it, my whole point was that they shouldn't be.....(Just read your last line, I think we're on the same page)  :warstory:



> Therefore we are either going to pay for investments in generation, transmission, distribution and emissions control (however emissions are defined) by paying higher rates or higher taxes.  Rates are a directed tax or a mail paid either to the government or the supplier.  We are already paying full price for the electricity.
> 
> The price of electricity doesn't have to rise.  It just has to be reallocated.
> 
> If you are going to charge me directly for the full value of the service then reduce my taxes by a level commensurate with the subsidy I am already paying.



This goes without saying.  



> Generally I dislike handing the Government a lump sum of taxes for services in any case.  I would prefer to dinged for a series of "Insurance Policies" where I know how much I am going to spend on Employment, Energy, Policing, Health, National Defence, Pensions etc. with those that are disadvantaged legitimately being individually subsidized and taxed back like all other tax payers.
> 
> The other point I was trying to make is that the current blended system of cost recovery through taxation and direct user fees is not without its feedback mechanisms.  Those mechanisms have already served to induce industry to improve efficiencies.  They have also served to push politicians to make changes to the supply system.  Although not as efficiently as the market, the political process does produce change...eventually.
> 
> ...



See if the prices went up for a "pay-as-you-go" model, and we kept your taxation at the same level, that would be gouging, and I'm not into that either....unless it's for debt reduction, but that's a debate for another thread (I'm a believer that Canada should have zero debt).


Matthew.    ;D


----------



## Benny (14 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Matthew, I think our electricity rates ARE subsidized by our taxes.


Yes and no. The generation is not subsidised, but the transmission is effectively paid for by taxes, as their construction and operation is government funded. Connections to the grid are what is private.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 May 2007)

Generation is certainly subsidized in Ontario.

The government of Ontario had to assume about $9 billion in Ontario Power Generation debt within the last 7 years because it was about to go bankrupt because the "company" had to pay real costs, but were legislated not to raise rates to consumers.


Matthew.   ???


----------



## a_majoor (14 May 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Generation is certainly subsidized in Ontario.
> 
> The government of Ontario had to assume about $9 billion in Ontario Power Generation debt within the last 7 years because it was about to go bankrupt because the "company" had to pay real costs, but were legislated not to raise rates to consumers.
> 
> ...



They still do, and so the Ontario taxpayer pays peak rates for electricity generated by American coal fired generators. The irony of it all is quite amazing (anti Americans who want to end coal fired generation in Ontario paying Americans for coal fired electricity.....); and if carried out for much longer will probably spark the greatest financial disaster in Canadian history (Sorry Mr McGuinty, but these Government of Ontario Bonds just are not AAA grade anymore.....)


----------



## FascistLibertarian (17 May 2007)

well at least the solar farm Ontario wants to build will power 2000-3000 houses EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!
global warming is finally on the ropes


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2007)

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> well at least the solar farm Ontario wants to build will power 2000-3000 houses EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!
> global warming is finally on the ropes



And how will that _small village_ be powered EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, on cloudy days, when it rains or snows?  : : :

At the very minimum, there will need to be some sort of fossil fuel generator on permanent stand by to take up the slack when clouds roll in, or the grid will become unbalanced, with unpleasant knock off effects.

If we are serious about energy efficiency, we need to invest in technologies which wring the most out of every unit of fuel. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells consume hydrocarbons with 40-50% efficiency, and generate enough waste heat to serve as boilers for steam turbines or heat sources for gas turbines; combined cycles like that can get up to 70% efficiency from the fuel vs @ 30-40% for gas or steam turbines. Of course there is a LOT of energy loss in the transmission system, and further losses converting electricity into light and power in the homes and industries downstream.

Systems like that on the upstream side and high efficiencies in the transmission leg will provide equal or greater amounts of electricity with lower fuel inputs, and put a dent in real pollution like Ozone, Sulphur Oxides, Nitrous Oxides and so on.

Putting a dent in Global Warming will require adjusting the output of the Sun, a somewhat more ambitious project. Some evidence exists to suggest cloud formation is driven by the production of cosmic rays, which are a result of violent astrophysical process in the Galaxy. Controlling Supernovas and the accretion disks of Black Holes is certainly going to be a formidable task in the near term..........


----------



## observor 69 (17 May 2007)

http://tinyurl.com/2pblgh

Canada should seize challenge of clean coal
NEIL REYNOLDS 

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

May 16, 2007 at 5:56 AM EDT

OTTAWA — In basic ways, Alex Fassbender's breakthrough in clean-coal technology retains James Watt's methodology from the 18th century. You pulverize coal into particles as fine as talcum powder, then burn it in a furnace surrounded by pipes filled with water. You direct the steam into turbines that spin to produce electricity. In other basic ways, though, it is very different. For one thing, there's no smokestack.

Mr. Fassbender is the American engineer whose invention - as tested last year in the federal government's energy labs in Ottawa - delivered clean electricity at a lower cost than the inventor himself had expected. Code-named TIPS (Thermo-energy Integrated Power System), the technology strips coal of its pollutants and captures its carbon emissions in power plants a 10th the size of conventional plants.

In his assessment of the technology, federal research scientist Bruce Clements described it as potentially the most competitive source of electricity - in cents per kilowatt-hour - in the world. A TIPS-based demo plant, he calculated, could produce zero-pollution, carbon-captured electricity for 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. In regular commercial operation, the cost would fall significantly. (The 2006 retail cost of electricity in Ontario ranged from a subsidized 5.8 cents per kilowatt-hour to 9.7 cents; the 2006 national average retail cost in the United States was 9.8 cents U.S.). By these calculations, the world's most abundant fossil fuel could supply clean, green electricity at the world's most economical prices.

Mr. Fassbender says the downsizing of power plants would enable them to fit comfortably into large cities, close to consumers - any place served by a railway line for the delivery of coal. "A conventional 500-megawatt plant has to be built in the hinterland," he says. "You lose 4 per cent of your electricity from the transmission lines." With an urban coal-fired plant, the captured greenhouse gases would be moved to storage sites either as a compressed liquid or as a compressed gas.

Indeed, everything in the TIPS process is compressed. You begin with a separate tank that fits alongside the furnace. You fill this tank with atmospheric air and put it under pressure -- 1,250 pounds per square inch. You separate the oxygen in the air from the nitrogen, and direct pure oxygen to the furnace to drive the combustion. Then you burn the coal under pressure -- again, 1,250 psi. You subject the steam itself to higher pressures -- from 2,500 psi to 3,700 psi. At the end of the combustion cycle, you have nothing left in the furnace except ash, used commercially in the making of concrete.

You capture the pollutants (sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, mercury, particulate matter) from the hot exhaust fumes that exit the furnace. When you pass these fumes through a condensing heat exchanger, you get very hot water. At 400 degrees Fahrenheit, this water becomes a significant energy source all on its own. "This is what the [high] pressure buys you," Mr. Fassbender says. "It means that the pressure pays for itself."

When the exhaust fumes release the water, they release the pollutants, which are easily separated and packaged for commercial use. You direct some of the carbon dioxide back to the furnace to exploit the residual energy in it. You cool the rest - still under high pressure -- to 87 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point it turns into a compressed liquid, ready for underground storage.

Clean-coal furnaces have existed in various forms for a decade or more, some more effective than others. In primitive form, chemical "scrubbers" captured pollutants as they vented from smokestacks. In advanced form, the furnace converts the coal into a synthetic gas from which pollutants are extracted before they reach the chimney. IGCC (Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) plants, though, do not capture CO{-2} emissions. "They can be made to capture CO{-2} emissions," Mr. Fassbender says, "only by turning them into chemical factories." And they are expensive to build, costly to operate.

Canada and the United States have coal reserves that will last for hundreds of years.

Coal is thus an inherently sustainable, relatively inexpensive source of primary energy. The TIPS technology remains theoretical. It needs a real-life test. As a research partner, Canada is well placed to fund the demo TIPS plant - and help to rescue for future generations the most democratic of the fossil fuels.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Putting a dent in Global Warming will require adjusting the output of the Sun, a somewhat more ambitious project.


We could do what the "Monolith Aliens" did in 2061: Final Odyssey.  Make a bunch of monoliths that "shade" the Earth from the Sun!  Of course, only Lucifer was effectively blocked, though the sun did "flicker" momentarily, according to some.

;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 May 2007)

Save your money; 2025 isn't that far away:

http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2007/05/everyone-must-buy-suv-by-2025



> Friday, May 18, 2007
> Everyone Must Buy an SUV by 2025
> 
> Here
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 May 2007)

Anyone else believe Suzuki and ilk would still try to find a way to blame the cooling on GHG's?

I'm sorry, but Global Warming is a religion to some of these freaks and regardless of the empirical evidence available, they will find a way to deny, deny, deny in order to hold onto their "faith".


Matthew.   :threat:


----------



## Kirkhill (19 May 2007)

What do Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, the Ayatollah Khomeni, Osama bin Laden, Jerry Falwell and David Suzuki have in common?  

All believe that man is corrupt and needs to be saved from himself.


----------



## Flip (19 May 2007)

Kirkhill - How dare you lump Martin Luther in with Osama and Suzuki! ;D

"All believe that man is corrupt and needs to be saved from himself."
So, what's wrong with that? :

I feel the need to get a little technical here. Let's see if I can remember what I learned in Sunday School.

A "religion" is a movement based on common system of belief(s) uniting it's members in common cause.
These beliefs are held as sacred and are not subject to outside influences.  Also these beliefs are the foundation for a set of values and traditions practised by a religious community. 

A "faith" is the keeping of a spiritual relationship on which we might build a religion.

We practice a religion and we keep faith. They are not the same thing.

If we call Suzuki and Gore adherants to a religion, we are saying that their beliefs are not informed by anything outside their cause.  We can also say they are developing a set of values which they wish to share, if not inflict on others.  
No need for faith or a Deity in this picture.

Where religion comes off the rails in history, we have a religion departing from it's faith.
Osama BinLadens' "religion" has little to do with the Muslim faith.
( IN MY OPINION )
Where Martin Luther got it right, was in that he perceived a disconnect from the Christian faith in the Catholic religion. The phrase "Catholic Faith" implies a reconnection. 

This is why I've called this global warming movement a religion 
- and why I consider that to be a problem.

I hope this post serves to keep the piece, and I hope my meaning at least, is clear.
If anyone wants to freak out on me or wants to persue this religion angle further 
Let's do it by PM


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 May 2007)

> If we call Suzuki and Gore adherants to a religion, we are saying that their beliefs are not informed by anything outside their cause.  We can also say they are developing a set of values which they wish to share, if not inflict on others.
> 
> No need for faith or a Deity in this picture.



I would argue there is.  For anyone to believe anything strongly there must be an overriding purpose.  For Christians, the faith is that if you take Jesus Christ into your heart and pray for forgiveness for your sins, he will forgive you and you will go to heaven.  

You have faith that an act on your part will provide you with a result that you cannot guarantee.

In this case, the faith of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."

They have a faith that an act on mankind's part will provide them with a result they cannot guarantee.

Each takes specific action with the hope that act is rewarded by something they individually have no control over.


Matthew.


----------



## Flip (19 May 2007)

Matthew,

I think you are confusing faith and belief.  
Faith has a colloquial meaning,  as in having "faith" the oilers will win.
This is belief.

In strictly spiritual terms, faith is a gift from God.
You accept it or you don't.
Faith can be misconstrued as hoping you get what you want.
It's not.
An act of faith is to do as the spirit moves you.
A very different thing.
This kind of faith does not really depend on a reward.

If you substitute "belief" in your post - I agree with you!



> In this case, the "belief" of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."



The part I would emphasize is that faith absent religions can be very
dangerous, as they really are something somebody made up.  A such they are
subject to manipulation and ulterior motive.

I think we can imagine why Gore would preach what he does - whether
he believes it or not.  Suzuki is a de-industrialist as described in your paragraph.
The Global Warming religion is the perfect device.

See the difference?


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

Since this is really just a thread dedicated to bashing Al Gore, I might as well add my 0.02 cents in here. 

I don't really see how global warming is a "religion", unless the majority of the scientific community are off their nut. Second, a large proportion of scientists have supported Gore's claims as facts[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html]. 



> In this case, the faith of those who are part of the Global Warming Religion is that: "Corporations and Industry are inherently evil and only by returning to a non-industrialized cooperative-based system (which they will gladly administer) can mankind be saved."



Not really, a well regulated economy works best in my own opinion. The primary motive of business is to make profit, that's it. Adopting radical individualism will not create a better society, and it will not create a better democracy. Support a free market, of course, but in doing so don't put the rest of society at risk because you can save money by not ensuring heath and environmental standards are up to par. 



> I'm sorry, but Global Warming is a religion to some of these freaks and regardless of the empirical evidence available



Freaks being a large majority of the scientific community. I'm just wondering what "empirical evidence" you are refering to, as their have been plenty of peer reviewed articles showing climate change to be a real phenomenon. 

In the end I usually put the global warming skeptics in the same league as those who believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, or that the WTC towers were brought down by demolition, Bigfoot, etc. Usually they only consist of a small but vocal minority.


----------



## Flip (27 May 2007)

Sigs Guy,

The term "religion" in this thread is reference to how a perfectly reasonable theory
has taken on a life of it's own and exists for it's own sake.

As for empirical evidence - check back on this thread, there's tons.
There are also many in the scientific community that dispute that 
man made green house gasses drive our climate - they don't

What I have ALWAYS disagreed with is that environmental movements 
always act for their own benefit.  The environment is second or third.
The drive for influence and power is the real motivation.

In very many cases the rush to do the "green" thing has unintended 
consequences far worse than any perceived original problem.

The movement leads the science, or ignores the science, and damage is done
for the sake of the movement. There is spin. The public are deceived.
The movement gains popularity.

This thread contains examples - just read it.
You are free to disagree, but let's not lump anyone in with other sceptics.
or cast aspersions when you clearly have not read what's in the thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2007)

My list's bigger than your list. My list's bigger than yours.....



> Global Warming Petition
> 
> We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
> There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.





> Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers
> 
> During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
> Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
> ...



http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

And another reason for construing Global Warming as "religion" is because of the number of proselytizers predicting "the end is nigh".  

If there is a case to be made for "green technologies" (and I believe they have their place when cost effective) then Governor Arnold is closer to the track than Al Gore.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

I've read whats in the Scientific American, Washington Post, Globe and Mail, and PBS, with regards to climate change. I've posted a link which shows a large portion of scientists agree with climate change. In all honesty it is a small but vocal minority who disagree with climate change and isn't representative of the scientific community. As well it's odd that so many industrialized nations and most major cities in the United States would buy into this "religion" if their was no basis behind it. If you want to provide the links then by all means go ahead. However if its nothing more than the usual junk science brought forward by Exxon Mobil and the oil lobby I doubt I'll pay much attention. 

I still find it hard to believe that people are so petrified of renewable energy, recycling, hybrid cars, and living a more sustainable lifestyle. I don't think we'll become a third world nation on par with Kenya if we lower our greenhouse gas emissions, even if climate change is a "hoax" which I highly doubt what's gonna be the problem, we'll have less pollution, will become less reliant on natural gas, and have a more sustainable society. 

Here are more than enough links to show where the Scientific consensus lies with regards to climate change. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf

Now you might be correct on climate change, it might be all a big hoax, but if you're wrong then what will we end up with. I don't see any issues with becoming a more sustainable economy, and I fail to see how becoming less reliant of non-renewable resources will destory our economy.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

> And another reason for construing Global Warming as "religion" is because of the number of proselytizers predicting "the end is nigh".
> 
> If there is a case to be made for "green technologies" (and I believe they have their place when cost effective) then Governor Arnold is closer to the track than Al Gore.



Upon further research...



> In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)





> *None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher.* They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon.





> Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program. Today, the Marshall Institute is still a big fan of high-tech weapons. In 1999, its website gave prominent placement to an essay by Col. Simon P. Worden titled "Why We Need the Air-Borne Laser," along with an essay titled "Missile Defense for Populations--What Does It Take? Why Are We Not Doing It?" Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the Marshall Institute has adapted to the times by devoting much of its firepower to the war against environmentalism, and in particular against the "scaremongers" who raise warnings about global warming.





> The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."





> In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."





> When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." *This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists.*





> The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.





> Notwithstanding the shortcomings in Robinson's theory, the oil and coal industries have sponsored several organizations to promote the idea that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is "good for earth" because it will encourage greater plant growth. The Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association, has produced a video, titled "The Greening of the Planet Earth Continues," publishes a newsletter called the World Climate Report, and works closely with a group called the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.



http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

In my own personal opinion you should consider finding new sources of information.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

Another interesting tidbit about the OISM.



> The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.





> Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2007)

"Now you might be correct on climate change, it might be all a big hoax, but if you're wrong then what will we end up with. I don't see any issues with becoming a more sustainable economy, and I fail to see how becoming less reliant of non-renewable resources will destory our economy."

Climate change is not a hoax.  Climate change happens.  We need to adjust accordingly.  We have already managed through a sea level rise of 120 meters since the North American ice sheets melted and trees started growing in the Fraser Valley.  Some folks drowned.  The rest of us moved to higher ground.  Some areas became deserts with the inhabitants becoming nomads, or piping in water from elsewhere or moving towards the rain.  Our options are still the same.  The world isn't going to end.

I too don't see any issues with a sustainable economy, nor moving to becoming less reliant on non-renewable resources - people, industry and the economy will adapt.  BUT, and here's the big BUT, only if there is enough time make the adjustment.  Fortunately everything that man or God makes wears out over time - and man's stuff wears out faster - so there is ample opportunity to replace old technologies with new ones.  Industry does it all the time, every day.  They are constantly on the lookout for technologies that increase efficiency and decrease waste - remember that for most people in industry "waste" represents unused or squandered raw materials that they have paid for.   If they can get more energy out of flue gases they will - if the costs are right, ie if the technology stands on its own merits.

Consider the revolution in home lighting that went from oil lamps to gas lamps to electric lights in the space of some 40 years.  Or the replacement of coal by hydro power (still an underutilized green house gas free resource because of arguments put up by Greenpeace amongst others).

It is hard not to see those that argue Global Warming as anything more than modern day Luddites insofar as they decry not only the problem (carbon in their view) as the solutions ("clean coal", hydro-dams, nuclear plants and some are already moaning about the Wind Farms destroying sight lines, birds and making noise).  I don't doubt that if we installed tidal systems the operators would be charged with disrupting the migration patterns of green spawn.

It isn't the challenges that I disagree with.  It is the panic.


----------



## observor 69 (27 May 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Climate change is not a hoax.  Climate change happens.  We need to adjust accordingly.
> 
> It is hard not to see those that argue Global Warming as anything more than modern day Luddites insofar as they decry not only the problem (carbon in their view) as the solutions ("clean coal", hydro-dams, nuclear plants and some are already moaning about the Wind Farms destroying sight lines, birds and making noise).  I don't doubt that if we installed tidal systems the operators would be charged with disrupting the migration patterns of green spawn.
> 
> It isn't the challenges that I disagree with.  It is the panic.



+1


----------



## Haletown (27 May 2007)

Martians might be the cause . . . .

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

Michael Crichton, I still laugh whenever people use a science fiction writer as a point of reference to attack climate change. 

Kirkhill there is a large difference between man made climate change and natural climate change. The effects of climate change can have extremely negative effects on the planet. 

As for the green activists decrying the solutions, this is a great tactic for those with the Republican Party and the right wing, the people that decry them are usually a small minority which is not at all representative of the majority concerned about the environment.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2007)

Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.

As for man-made or natural being different - tell that to the people occupying the ground when the North Sea flooded and the English Channel breached at about 6500 BC.

PM me an email address and I will send you a file for your consideration.


It really boggles my mind that the people that argue AGAINST teaching Creationism (which ultimately posits an unchanging - Edit: and young - world) and FOR teaching Evolution (which posits an ever-changing -Edit: and ancient - world) are the same people that argue that our world is UNCHANGING unless man changes it.  At the same time they argue against man taking actions against natural changes.

Change happens. We adapt.  Period. Full Stop. Punkt.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> ...I still laugh whenever people use a science fiction writer as a point of reference to attack climate change.


Would you laugh if someone quoted Arthur C. Clarke on something?  
(For those too lazy to google him, A.C. Clarke wrote a lot of science fiction.  In 1945, he proposed that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays.  He also wrote a lot of science fact stuff, though remembered best for 2001: A Space Odyssey")


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2007)

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Would you laugh if someone quoted Arthur C. Clarke on something?
> (For those too lazy to google him, A.C. Clarke wrote a lot of science fiction.  In 1945, he proposed that geostationary satellites would be ideal telecommunications relays.  He also wrote a lot of science fact stuff, though remembered best for 2001: A Space Odyssey")



I'd forgotten about my favourite RAF Radar Tech.  Good one Mein Herr.


----------



## canadianblue (27 May 2007)

> Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.
> 
> As for man-made or natural being different - tell that to the people occupying the ground when the North Sea flooded and the English Channel breached at about 6500 BC.
> 
> ...



The funny thing is some of the people most adamantly against fighting climate change are also organizations like Focus on the Family who are firmly anti-science. Doesn't it say something when the scientists who actually have a clue throw their support behind fighting climate change. As well their is a difference between man made change and natural change, if you pump carbon dioxide into your car what will usually happen.

Yeah, humans can have no negative impact on the world. In fact the other day I decided to throw all of my empty oil containers in some creek. 



> Michael Crichton, Cheryl Crow, Al Gore......at least as someone pointed out Crichton has a science background and the good grace to cite his sources.



Sorry for the sarcasm, but all of these organizations apparently have nothing to do with science either. 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf


----------



## larry Strong (27 May 2007)

I don't think anyone is denying that man has had some influence on the climate, but to blame it *all* on humans is ludicrous. 

You with 749 Comm Sqn?I suppose that National geographic does not know what they are talking about either!!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/


----------



## Haletown (27 May 2007)

and I laugh when the leftoids & enviro jihadis use a failed politician and a fruit fly scientist  as their heroes.

What part of his speech did you disagree with and why ?  Skip any cheap personality attacks, lets just discuss the facts


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (27 May 2007)

To answer one of the questions, much of this thread is dedicated to bashing Al "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbearpig">Manbearpig</a>" Gore as the comments were taken from another thread, "Al Gore vs. Arithmetic," which referred to some questionable calculations he was making WRT to CO2 emissions or something: the fact that he has tried to reinvent himself as the poster-boy for the Global Warming crusade gave us all the more reason to pile on his hypocritical ass.

Michael Crichton's strongest argument is that the idea of "consensus" (real or imagined) does not equal fact.  IIRC in his book "State of Fear" he compares the scientific consensus on global warming with the (one-time) scientific consensus on eugenics.  The same argument could probably be made WRT opinions on the existence of "the ether" ... why should we stunt development (which for us means a lower standard of living, but in other countries is a death sentence) for a "consensus" that is unproven, AND has a pretty vocal opposition?!?  Much the same happened with DDT and millions have died because of (the ban on) it.

This was on the front page of the National Post last week:


> *So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?
> Even climate change experts say many of the claims in Al Gore's film are wrong.*
> Kevin Libin, National Post
> Published: Saturday, May 19, 2007
> ...


http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047&k=32084


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> I don't think anyone is denying that man has had some influence on the climate, but to blame it all on humans is ludicrous.
> 
> You with 749 Comm Sqn?I suppose that National geographic does not know what they are talking about either!!



No one is suggesting that man is the only reason the climate changes, however it is reasonable to believe that when man pumps a large amount of GHG emission's into the atmosphere it can change the climate.

No, I'm a reg member working at Winnipeg right now and going to Suffield.

From your very own link...



> "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.





> All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
> 
> These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
> 
> ...





> Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
> 
> He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
> 
> ...





> and I laugh when the leftoids & enviro jihadis use a failed politician and a fruit fly scientist  as their heroes.



Are you talking about the Oxford Professor mentioned in the quote above yours? 

As for the failed politician, I'm fairly sure most American's would at the moment take Gore over the current president, who is now believed to be one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. 



> Michael Crichton's strongest argument is that the idea of "consensus" (real or imagined) does not equal fact.  IIRC in his book "State of Fear" he compares the scientific consensus on global warming with the (one-time) scientific consensus on eugenics.  The same argument could probably be made WRT opinions on the existence of "the ether" ... why should we stunt development (which for us means a lower standard of living, but in other countries is a death sentence) for a "consensus" that is unproven, AND has a pretty vocal opposition?!?  Much the same happened with DDT and millions have died because of (the ban on) it.



Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT. Doesn't DDT cause cancer and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys. As for stunting development, what are we going to do once we start running out of oil. I think that we have to look somewhat ahead and try to find new and innovative solutions in bringing new energy to our homes.

I once again still fail to see how renewable energy, a sustainable economy, or for the matter becoming less reliant on middle eastern oil will make us a worse society. Eugenics can't really be compared to climate change, many countries are now starting to take action on climate change, and I don't think they will result in a large proportion of deaths. 

As for the greedy eco-radicals intent on destroying the world in Crichton's novel, that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. How much did Exxon Mobil make in profit last year, seriously. As well I have a hard time believing that getting rid of environmental regulations is really going to be healtheir for our society. 

In all honesty, I take Crichton about as seriously as this commentator. 

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81744


----------



## Flip (28 May 2007)

About 40 years ago, I recall my science teacher describing how an ice age was
overdue and would soon be upon us.  The evidence was solid, The scientists had a consensus - we were doomed!  Except of course, they were wrong. 
At about the same time they banned DDT.  The unintended consequence was that
infant mortality rates in the third world shot up.  A 1% cancer risk is really a moot point if you don't make it to your 4th birthday.



> Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT. Doesn't DDT cause cancer and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys. As for stunting development, what are we going to do once we start running out of oil. I think that we have to look somewhat ahead and try to find new and innovative solutions in bringing new energy to our homes.



If you want an innovative solution - develop a fusion reactor you can put in your back yard.  How long will that take?  Are you willing to go without groceries in the meantime?
Of course not! You would however, enact policy that will separate that same third world
from their groceries.



> I once again still fail to see how renewable energy, a sustainable economy, or for the matter becoming less reliant on middle eastern oil will make us a worse society. Eugenics can't really be compared to climate change, many countries are now starting to take action on climate change, and I don't think they will result in a large proportion of deaths.



Just because a political movement ( and this is ) gains momentum, doesn't mean it's right.
Marxism is one example.  It spread like a bugger.  Are Marxists right?

There is three basic facts.
Our standard of living absolutely depends on fossil fuels.
The current population levels on this planet depend on fossil fuels.
100% of that fossil fuel was at one time CO2 and then living breathing stuff.

Technological change will take a lot of time - I outta know.

My example:

My little manufacturing company manufactures electronic gear (mostly industrial).
For me to cut my CO2 footprint by 30% or so would force me to double my prices.
Since there is no support in the market for that - I close.

Maybe someone in China starts doing what I'm doing.
No controls on heavy metals, no Kyoto, no substantial wages paid to anyone.
My job has been exported by environmentalists.
What should I do?, start a massage parlour? 
What has been gained in the big picture? - nothing.
Actually worse than nothing.

Now if you were to propose some legitimate environmental initiative,
I'd be all for it. Stop deforestation.  Stop Smog and acid rain.
Ban boom-boxes and loud car stereos.
Figure out how to farm salmon properly.  Whatever.

Just don't take my living from me on what is likely a myth.


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> Just because a political movement ( and this is ) gains momentum, doesn't mean it's right.
> Marxism is one example.  It spread like a bugger.  Are Marxists right?



That's a red herring. The same can be said of the anti-environmental movement in the United States.



> There is three basic facts.
> Our standard of living absolutely depends on fossil fuels.
> The current population levels on this planet depend on fossil fuels.
> 100% of that fossil fuel was at one time CO2 and then living breathing stuff.



Oil has already peaked in the United States, and has peaked in Alberta. Right now the largest deposits of oil are in the Middle East, and I think we all know what's happening in Iraq right now. Moving away from fossil fuels would be the smart move because it reduces our dependance on foreign sources of energy. 



> My little manufacturing company manufactures electronic gear (mostly industrial).
> For me to cut my CO2 footprint by 30% or so would force me to double my costs.
> Since there is no support in the market - I close.



Once again this is scaremongering, and its typical of larger corporations who are opposed to increased OSHA regulations and improved environmental regulations. studies have shown that becoming more environmentally friendly would not destroy the economy. In fact companies which produce automobiles which are better for the environment are currently gaining money and employing people while the United States is once again behind the pack. 



> Maybe someone in China starts doing what I'm doing.
> No controls on heavy metals, no Kyoto, no substantial wages paid to anyone.
> What should I do?, start a massage parlour?
> What has been gained in the big picture? - nothing.



Doesn't really matter since the United States is already exporting most of their manufacturing jobs overseas to China, the reason being is its cheap labour. As well China actually has more regulations in terms of making their cars more environmentally friendly, and has actually been making steps towards cutting GHG emmissions. In the end I don't think you'll have to worry about your manufacturing job being lost due to environmentalists, if anything you should blame globalization because they can make the same product at a minimum of the cost. 



> Now if you were to propose some legitimate environmental initiative,
> I'd be all for it. Stop deforestation.  Stop Smog and acid rain.
> Ban boom-boxes and loud car stereos.
> Figure out how to farm salmon properly.  Whatever.





> Just don't take my living from me on what is likely a myth.



Here's the thing, scientists have made the case, Donald Kennedy the editor of chief of Science has said their is a consensus on this, as well their are plenty of organizations which have also supported the science behind climate change. 48 Nobel Prize winning scientists signed a letter stating that Bush need to commit to action to fight climate change. The Kyoto Treaty was ratified by 132 nations with the exception of 2, as well most major cities in the United States have "ratified" the Kyoto Treaty pledging to reduce emissions. California is right now bringing in some of the toughest environmental regulations in the US in order to fight climate change, and I highly doubt they will be reduced to a third world country. 

As for taking your living from you, I really don't see how that's going to happen. In all honesty if you haven't been paying attention people in the manufacturing industry in the US have been losing their jobs for years, yet America hasn't signed on to the Kyoto Accord.


----------



## Flip (28 May 2007)

> Once again this is scaremongering, and its typical of larger corporations who are opposed to increased OSHA regulations and improved environmental regulations. studies have shown that becoming more environmentally friendly would not destroy the economy. In fact companies which produce automobiles which are better for the environment are currently gaining money and employing people while the United States is once again behind the pack.



I've been running a technology business for 25 years. I've seen what environmental change can do to my bottom line.  I've seen what globalization has done to my bottom line.
I can tell the difference.  Both ways, I'm under pressure.

The only way I'm scaremongering is if you believe I'm lying.



> As for taking your living from you, I really don't see how that's going to happen.



What a 20 year old sees or doesn't see is really nothing to do with the facts.
I know what the circumstances of my business are - you don't.
I know what the coming changes will bring - You clearly don't.
I'm certainly not advocating not becoming more environmentally friendly.

We ( my company ) was the first in Canada to use a totally lead free 
process for manufacturing printed circuits.
We were also the first to change some of the manufacturing basics so 
as to acheive a greener result.  We never used some of the more dangerous
additives to our process.  I've written articles in trade mags about the virtues 
of being lead free.

I have to admit Sigs Guy, I'm pissed off.
You've shown all the sensitivity of of a bad tooth.

You know best of course.
It's ok for manufacturing to go down the pipes in Canada.
You actually believe the Chinese will clean up their environmental act.

Who else's job is ok to axe?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2007)

Sigs Guy, you have made some wild accusations about oil peaking in Alberta, China's enviromental laws being tougher...........got some proof??

Since you won't believe a guy who has to live it everyday.


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> What a 20 year old sees or doesn't see is really nothing to do with the facts.
> I know what the circumstances of my business are - you don't.
> I know what the coming changes will bring - You clearly don't.
> I'm certainly not advocating not becoming more environmentally friendly.
> ...



I still want to know how exactly your company will be run into the ground by reducing greenhouse gas emission's. 



> You know best of course.
> It's ok for manufacturing to go down the pipes in Canada.



Manufacturing will go down the pipes as we have seen south of the border, that is the result of globalization. 



> You actually believe the Chinese will clean up their environmental act.



http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html



> Sigs Guy, you have made some wild accusations about oil peaking in Alberta, China's enviromental laws being tougher...........got some proof??



On China, read above, the fuel economy and GHG emissions of China are in fact tougher than those of the US with the exception of California. 

As for peak oil, read the link provided.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/post/Vol-IX-No1/02anielski.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2007)

_when global demand for oil is growing, driven by the voracious energy appetite of China

China's national legislature, through its model of "Cleaner Production" and other attempts to reduce air pollution, has significantly altered the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, which was revised in 2002. Still, a report issued by SEPA in June 2003 said officials were "still not optimistic" about the overall success of efforts to curb air pollution._


Nothing I read in there supports your arguements at all.

Where does it say for one instance that China's laws are tougher than the US or Canada?  All it says are "tough new laws",...well any new laws are "tough" when there wasn't any before....d'oh!


and just what is Mark Anielski doing 2 years later?
_Mark Anielski - Senior Associate Consultant, Pembina Institute_

Awww, getting paid to "spread the news".


----------



## Haletown (28 May 2007)

Little reported news from last week . .   China now exceeds the USA in output of GhG's.

All those new dirty coal fired electrical generation plants  . . one every five days.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT.



Like the World Health Organization, I am against the ban on DDT!



> Doesn't DDT cause cancer


 No, it doesn't.



> and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys.


I don't know what Michael Crichton's position on the ban on DDT is, but I suspect he is against it.  I have no idea to which "recent studies" you are referring, but Malaria infects something like 300 to 500 million people annually.  It's been shown over and over (including in the real-world examples of North America and Europe) the Malaria would no linger meaningfully exist had DDT continued to have been used.

The "consensus" that DDT caused cancer was based upon pseudo-scientific and misrepresented studies, as well as flat-out lies.  Despite the relentless propaganda that I even remember from grade school, DDT is not passed-up the food chain (it goes inert in something like 90 days) and has never been shown to cause cancer in any event!  Every 30 seconds, somewhere, a child is killed by this little bit of environmentalist "enlightenment" ... I just have a problem with being led down the same road by these same people again ...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5350068.stm

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=42

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=8&Itemid=32


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

Well first off the vast majority of the scientific community supports the notion that we have to fight climate change not environmental wackjobs as some of the fringe right like to claim. As for DDT, their are still studies which show that DDT could cause gradual harm to people and the environment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1434580.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5145450.stm

While DDT may be helpful in some situations, overall we can't let a free for all happen as many people would seem to prefer, and while DDT may be able to help people in the short term we have to consider the long term effects of that usage. 



> I just have a problem with being led down the same road by these same people again ...



Actually upon further research again, the environmentalists that you bash for bringing in the ban on DDT once again are not the cold hearted eco-nazis as some would wish them to be. 



> According to the WHO's plan, DDT will be used in a controlled manner, sprayed on the walls and roofs of houses only, instead of mass spraying outdoors.
> 
> Reading and Discussion Questions
> This technique, called indoor residual spraying, is tentatively endorsed by environment groups like the Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.
> ...



DDT is still believed to harm the environment, animals, and can cause long term health issues. That's why DDT is considered alright under certain circumstance for controlled spraying. The science isn't pseudo-science, it's still there, but instead we learn how to reasonably use any method to do the least amount of damage possible to the environment. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec06/ddt_9-18.html



> Your fixation on GHG emissions is a bit narrow; a person with your strong views should surely view environmental concern as a holistic approach, whereby insisting stridently that the small manufacturer creating a limited range of products must meet an arbitrary reduction standard for GHG is less important than viewing, as Flip has pointed out, the whole picture view of environmental improvements that a business makes.  Lead, mercury, toxins, dioxin, carcinogens, other heavy metals and toxic wastes, not to mention nuclear, biohazard material and plain old plastic that decomposes and accumulates in sea animals, killing them slowly, are also concerns.



The same people who are opposed to climate change initiatives down in the US are also the same people who support axing environmental and health regulations set by previous governments as well. Sure we should take a general idea to improve the environment, which is why as I said before we should find ways of becoming more energy independant, using renewable sources, and becoming more sustainable. 



> Your fixation on one element only may lead the outside observer to believe that you are a "trendy crusader" but lack true depth in environmental issues.  This is not a flame, it's an observation from looking at this debate and the strong tones you have taken in your other posts in threads like the gun carriage one.



It's not about a lack of depth as much as common sense. If your doctor tells you that you might have cancer what do you do, you would take action on it, you don't go to 100 different doctors hoping that atleast one tells you that if you continue smoking it'll have no effect on your health. 

A trendy crusader, you mean a person that doesn't adopt to the majority view. So far this topic was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, marxists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether. It's not being close minded its thinking critically about an issue, so far many of the example I have come across such as the Oregon Petition [signed by a spice girl and Perry Mason] show the depth of ineptitude when it comes to the professional skeptics. Not just that but it's odd that every major political party in Canada has bought into the issue, as has 132 nation's in the world and the majority of major cities in the United States which include Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Denver, Baltimore, Boston, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Seattle, etc. 

As for the consequences all have been cited, and the sources are shown below.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

I've heard the arguments that it will destroy the economy, but it simply doesn't pan out in the end. Changing behavior will not result in the west becoming third world, and I have yet to see a study which shows that happening. 

Even if this is a myth what could be the massive downside to us, we'll become more sustainable and less dependant on resources which are non-renewable. In my own view the consequences of not taking action will have worse effects on us than simply putting our heads in the sand and hoping the science is wrong.


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (28 May 2007)

> A trendy crusader, you mean a person that doesn't adopt to the majority view. So far this forum was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether.[



You sir, need to take a deep breath.  Throw the wagon in park and sit for a while, breathe in, then breathe out.

I don't recall calling you a _nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc_ or anything of that stripe.  I noted, once again I will say again slowly for you, that your posting style and lack of sources give a certain impression, that of being a trendy crusader that stridently defends issues based on sketchy or thin justification, solely focused on part of an issue without looking in a broader context.  I don't recall attacking you personally or calling you any names.  I certainly don't have any problem with the environment and do believe that environmental issues are something that should adopt more importance, both in the social responsibility of business and that of governments.  

I also don't have any problem with freedom of thought or debate.  Look at my profile and some of my past threads.  You are defending against an attack that is not there, against someone who has not stepped forward to call you names or sling mud in your direction.  I certainly feel that you were off the mark with the tone and content you took with Flip, who was engaging in what I consider to be rational and well-reasoned debate, but not in accordance with your opinion.

In terms of "adopting to a majority view" there is a majority out there in certain quarters of society that believes that all government, military, etc are the evil destroyers of everything that is good, a gang of camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals.  Which majority view do you ascribe to me? 

You, my friend, need to calm down, you have some good ideas and a lot of desire to express yourself.  But you need be neither hateful nor disrespectful to the other members here, particularly when offered constructive criticism.  I did praise the originality of your thesis and offer some sources to better develop it.  

Now, sir, please get over yourself and put your misplaced hurt feelings away in the hurt feelings locker where they belong.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So far this forum was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether.



I think "we" can let Mr. Bobbitt make those decisions, thank you.

I am a severe enviromentalist, just not a 'hook, line and sinker' swallower.
[ re. "trendy crusader"]

 I prefer to do what I can at my level, in my space, and not scream it from the rooftops for my own personal gain. No Weed and Feed, my yard waste and compostables go to the town wet/dry facility, if I can't eat it, then it don't get watered and I have my rain barrels all ready for the summer.

Gee, and here I always thought I was a 





			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> fringe right


 guy.......................... :


----------



## larry Strong (28 May 2007)

The reason I asked if you were with 749 was your bio locates you in Parkland County Ab.



			
				Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Oil has already peaked in the United States, and *has peaked in Alberta*. Right now the largest deposits of oil are in the Middle East, and I think we all know what's happening in Iraq right now. Moving away from fossil fuels would be the smart move because it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy.



Guess not, because any good ole boy  from Alberta would have know better:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/01/11/canadian-oil060111.html

*"....Alberta's oilsands could become the single biggest contributor to the world's supply within 10 years, says a report released Wednesday by CIBC World Markets....." * 


 Yes I know the report is over a year old, however we are far from peaked, have not even topped out yet.


----------



## canadianblue (28 May 2007)

> You sir, need to take a deep breath.  Throw the wagon in park and sit for a while, breathe in, then breathe out.



All of my arguments have been based in reason, and I have no reason to "throw the wagon in park and breathe in and out" as you suggest. If you have any concerns with my arguments by all means provide sources to show your side of the argument.



> I don't recall calling you a nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc or anything of that stripe.  I noted, once again I will say again slowly for you, that your posting style and lack of sources give a certain impression
> , that of being a trendy crusader that stridently defends issues based on sketchy or thin justification, solely focused on part of an issue without looking in a broader context.  I don't recall attacking you personally or calling you any names.  I certainly don't have any problem with the environment and do believe that environmental issues are something that should adopt more importance, both in the social responsibility of business and that of governments.



Upon further reading you'll find plenty of references by other members where people supporting the science behind climate job were attacked with such insults. As for the thin justification, I have provided links showing my side of the debate and have shown that people with stellar credentials have supported the science of climate change. So far you have failed to give sources for your own argument. 



> I also don't have any problem with freedom of thought or debate.  Look at my profile and some of my past threads.  You are defending against an attack that is not there, against someone who has not stepped forward to call you names or sling mud in your direction.  I certainly feel that you were off the mark with the tone and content you took with Flip, who was engaging in what I consider to be rational and well-reasoned debate, but not in accordance with your opinion.



I asked specifically what would the losses be for the economy if we became more sustainable and reduced GHG emissions which is not unreasonable. 



> In terms of "adopting to a majority view" there is a majority out there in certain quarters of society that believes that all government, military, etc are the evil destroyers of everything that is good, a gang of camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals.  Which majority view do you ascribe to me?



That's an overly simplistic view of the debate which is more or less your either with us or against us. Canadian's have said in many surveys that they consider the environment to be important and they believe it should be a priority, this is also reflected in politics as each major political party supports some kind of course to fight climate change. I certainly don't believe the government is out to destroy society, and I don't believe the military is out to destroy society, if anything I think government intervention is sometimes needed for the common good. As for the camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals, that is a fairly obtuse term for people who support the science behind climate change and I'm sure the vast majority of Canadian's would disagree with that label being pinned to them.



> You, my friend, need to calm down, you have some good ideas and a lot of desire to express yourself.  But you need be neither hateful nor disrespectful to the other members here, particularly when offered constructive criticism.  I did praise the originality of your thesis and offer some sources to better develop it.



I offered criticism of his post which should be expected in a debate. Once again I asked for specifics in how reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using renewable energy would hurt business. 



> Now, sir, please get over yourself and put your misplaced hurt feelings away in the hurt feelings locker where they belong.



My feelings weren't hurt, however its fairly easy to place a label on anyone if you disagree with them. I have gone over the argument against fighting climate change. Look at my previous posts and I believe I have added links where appropriate with regards to climate change which include the National Academy of Science, PBS, BBC, etc. If I go on a tirade full on profane insults then you'll know my feelings were hurt.



> "....Alberta's oilsands could become the single biggest contributor to the world's supply within 10 years, says a report released Wednesday by CIBC World Markets....."
> 
> 
> Yes I know the report is over a year old, however we are far from peaked, have not even topped out yet.



Alberta will continue to be large producer of oil, however in the future that production will begin to decrease. As well Alberta will have its own problems with the environment due to the massive growth in the oil industry which in my own opinion should be slowed down. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001429.html?referrer=emailarticle

As for the oil peak, I'll correct myself on that point Canada is not believed to peak until 2035, while the US peaked in oil production in 1970.

http://www.davidstrahan.com/map.html


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (28 May 2007)

The fact that an argument like "there are still studies which show that DDT *could cause gradual harm* to people and the environment" is balanced against a certainty of hundreds of millions contracting a horrible, debilitating and deadly disease is more revealing than any argument I could make.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v6/n7/full/nm0700_729.html


> Nature Medicine  6, 729 - 731 (2000)
> doi:10.1038/77438
> *Balancing risks on the backs of the poor*
> Amir Attaran2, Donald R. Roberts1, Chris F. Curtis3 & Wenceslaus L. Kilama4
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 May 2007)

Re "Peaking"

When the "economical" oilsands that are currently being credited to our account (Edit: dry up) there are still many more barrels in the ground up there that the Alberta Government considers "uneconomical" at this time (up to 9 times as much).  And when that runs out there are deep oilsand deposits in Venezuela.  And when those run out there are shale oil deposits.  And when those run out the then there are always the coal deposits that can be converted to oil.......or not because at some point in time the increasing cost of hydrocarbon energy will make other energy sources look more interesting to consumers (both industrial and individual).

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/AB_OilReserves.pdf



> A recent recalculation has revealed that the amount of oil buried underneath the ground in Northern Alberta was not millions of barrels - but trillions (1.75 to 2.5 trillion to be exact).  Alberta's internationally recognised reserves are now put at 175 billion barrels of crude. Only Saudi Arabia has bigger reserves.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4649580.stm

http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/resource.html

And don't forget Saskatchewan is getting into the game as well

US Shale Oil - 2 Trillion Barrels http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NPR_Oil_Shale_Program.html

We may want to capture, control, possibly even recycle the carbon from the hydrocarbons, we may even want to strip some of those stored hydrocarbons to generate hydrogen, but it is going to be quite some time before we run out of hydrocarbons.


----------



## Haletown (28 May 2007)

some common sense to cut through the hype & hysteria

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT US
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts
NCPA Study

No. 285



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/


----------



## Kirkhill (28 May 2007)

Re "DDT" (My lane, I believe).

Check into the Delaney amendment (thankfully repealed in 1996 by Bill Clinton's administration).

The Delaney amendment was the ultimate expression of the precautionary principal and, together with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", it did in DDT.

Simply put it said that if a compound was proven to produce cancer at any concentration then it could not be included in food.  Consequently DDT and many pesticides were delisted.

Unfortunately the test for carcinogenicity was more of a test for toxicity (the Ames test) and it was discovered that Vitamin D failed the test, as did selenium, both critical for life.  Vitamin D was so critical its presence was mandated in milk.  So the US government found itself requiring the addition of a "toxin" to the nation's milk supply.

Two other factors entered into the discussion.  New technology meant that virtually all chemicals could be detected everywhere.  In 1958 when the Delaney amendment was introduced the standard of analysis was wet chemistry with results reported in parts per thousand (a drop of water in a liter of milk).  Currently the standard is parts per billion (a drop in a swimming pool) with parts per trillion coming up fast.

As well, it has been clear for a long while that "anything" will kill you.  Salt has an LD50 of 10 kg - 10 Kg of salt will kill 50% of the people to whom it is administered if administered intra-anally according to my recollection of the Merck index (who does these studies anyway?).

Short answer these days is that the Delaney amendment was ditched as unenforceable and without merit - and with it went the best argument that the environmentalists had in trying to base their arguments on science.  But not to worry - they came up with the stentorious "Precautionary Principle" - trading philosophy for science.

Meanwhile science has long ago come to terms with the concept of "cost/benefit" and "risk analysis".

http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/delaney.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/env/enpestic.htm
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/pests_05.html


----------



## Flip (28 May 2007)

> I still want to know how exactly your company will be run into the ground by reducing greenhouse gas emission's.



Sigs Guy - You have represented your "orthodoxy" and made my point (I think) about religious zeal regarding this issue.

In business there is a ritual called accounting.
There are costs on one side and revenue on the other.

Globalization only really affects the revenue side ( it's down ).
This is true in manufacturing, agriculture and many other backbone of the nation type business.

The rise in cost of doing business in Canada is in part due to environmental regulation.
Some of it, I agree with.  This regulatory burden costs me around 7% of my revenue per year.

Your suggestion that manufacturing is tanking , only due to globalization is specious.

Green house emission reduction WILL increase the cost of energy and EVERYTHING else.
Shipping, manufacturing, virtually ALL industrial activity will cost more. In many cases, a lot.
Electronics in particular is extremely energy dependant because there are so many stages
in manufacturing any product.  So in my case ALL of my input costs WILL go up.

The capital cost of decreasing "in house" consumption of natural gas in particular is prohibitive.
Reducing the cost of electricity and water( yes water costs energy too) is also prohibitive.

So if I spend $100K on upgrades - my return on investment is potentially zero or likely to pay back over
a very long time. Will the bank loan me the money? - NO.

You are too young to remember the energy crisis in the 70s.
Artificially high energy costs ultimately led to a recession  and then a short depression.
Many in Alberta lost their entire business investment.

Two more examples of regulation: 

My neighbour, a former WWII Commando owned a dry cleaning plant.
The City of Edmonton tried to enact a zero hydrocarbon discharge limit on his wastewater.
Kirkhill's already figured out the punchline;
No one in this plant could flush the toilet without violating "zero"
Meanwhile, at a city facility up the road - All kinds of unabated discharge!

In my own business, the ink for printing the lettering on circuit boards was changed overnight.
Without warning our product appearance went to crap.
It took fully 8 years before an acceptable replacement was developed.
In Asia - no such problem.

Get it now?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2007)

> Quote from: Sigs Guy on Yesterday at 16:00:31
> So far this forum was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether.



I don't think many of us are "troubled by freedom of thought".  Moreso, we're troubled by people who continually join this thread, throw up some pro-Kyoto hyperbole, ignore the evidence that has REPEATEDLY been posted in this thread which not one of you have even attempted to disprove, then proceed to call the rest of us names equivalent to "neanderthal" for not rushing out to follow you in your infinite wisdom.

Prove me wrong?

Tell me how the Global Warming Model you trumpet can actually work if surface temperatures are rising faster than tropospheric temperatures....and if you don't why that's relevant, I think you should find another thread to post in.

I'll leave the current warming of Mars and now Nepture too where there are no man-emitted GHG's for later....as I will man's pitiful contribution to overall GHG production at less than 10%, and the fact that we're now getting predictions the current solar storm cycle is actually scheduled to weaken in 15 years which means we're going to have a massive cooling influence on the planet at which point we could be hoping and praying for all the insulation we could get.

....but since you seem to know everything, after you.


Matthew.


----------



## canadianblue (29 May 2007)

> I don't think many of us are "troubled by freedom of thought".  Moreso, we're troubled by people who continually join this thread, throw up some pro-Kyoto hyperbole, ignore the evidence that has REPEATEDLY been posted in this thread which not one of you have even attempted to disprove, then proceed to call the rest of us names equivalent to "neanderthal" for not rushing out to follow you in your infinite wisdom.



What evidence would that be, OISM's Oregon Petition which containted the names of a spice girl and Perry Mason, or would it be the Great Global Warming Swindle which one scientist featured in the film compared to Nazi propaganda.

 http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/



> For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets on our planet.



http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf



> I'll leave the current warming of Mars and now Nepture too where there are no man-emitted GHG's for later....as I will man's pitiful contribution to overall GHG production at less than 10%, and the fact that we're now getting predictions the current solar storm cycle is actually scheduled to weaken in 15 years which means we're going to have a massive cooling influence on the planet at which point we could be hoping and praying for all the insulation we could get.



and once again scientists have explained that as well...



> "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.
> 
> "And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)
> 
> ...





> ....but since you seem to know everything, after you.



Don't know everything, just don't base all of my opinion's on something that comes from a right wing free market think tank. 



> I don't have a counter argument.  I don't disagree with you.  If you woke up and stopped lashing out at the other serious posters here, you'd realize that.



I fail to see the lashing out that happened, and I'm sure you'll find much worse said on the other side. 



> Your attitude with Flip bore all the marks of a crusader, one who refuses to even countenance the other side of any debate.



I have looked at the sources given by the other side and they are usually always disputed by scientists, as well their are plenty of discrepencies in others. The same in the gun thread, I've shown statistics which supported my case and have shown how giving people that are living in fear doesn't create a safer society. 



> There is more to life and education than books and theory.
> 
> Once again, get over yourself.



If you don't disagree with me then why don't you post anything in response to the skeptics? 

In the end though this is futile because the only response which would be somewhat acceptable and considered "rational" would be to be in total agreement with the argument that climate change is a huge hoax.


----------



## Dissident (29 May 2007)

You haven't show anything. I have better things to do than debunk your statistic at the moment. But the time will come.

As far as being affraid, it almost amounts to a personal attack. You have no basis to come to the conclusion the supposed feelings I have. If you can not understand the difference between being intellectually aware of something and being emotionaly driven by it, you have failed to understand something very basic in human nature.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> In the end though this is futile because the only response which would be somewhat acceptable and considered "rational" would be to be in total agreement with the argument that climate change is a huge hoax.



You really need to get a grip on yourself because here is where you lose just about everybody with your condensendance, NOT ONE poster in this thread,[ for either side] has said climate change is a hoax, some say its natural, some say its manmade, some say its a split........we all admit its happening.

I, personally, think mostly its a natural occurance that we are pushing faster than it would've happened this time but that Mother Nature will once again, after a few years of punishing us, will crack a volcano or come up with some gaseous "magical trick" that we, sitting in our 'know-all labs' had no idea could happen, and in about 50 years mankind will be wondering how to keep the ice from scraping off so much fertile farmland...........


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 May 2007)

> What evidence would that be, OISM's Oregon Petition which containted the names of a spice girl and Perry Mason, or would it be the Great Global Warming Swindle which one scientist featured in the film compared to Nazi propaganda.



Sigs Guy-

This is known as "cherry picking".  You can't make fun of the lack of scientific qualifications of your opponent's supporters and not open yourself up to an equivalent charge against the Global Warming supporters.  What particular scientific background do Sheryl Crowe and Bruce Cockburn have that make them qualified to shill for the pro-Kyoto crowd?  What particular scientific background do you have?

I would also like to point out that scientific consensus does NOT equal scientific fact.  Science is not a democratic institution where voting on something makes it so.  For instance, when Einstein put forward a general theory on relativity, the scientific consensus of the day was that he was wrong.  At one point, the scientific consensus was that the atom could never be split.  30 years ago (mid 1970s) there was a strong scientific consensus that the planet would enter an Ice age by the 1990s. Do you see where I am going with this?  

Like CSA and several others here, I am not particularly pleased with your style of argument.  You frequently belittle those who disagree with you or point out gaping flaws in your evidence.  A good debater takes that disagreement and uses it to polish their argument- they do NOT descend to Ad Hominem attacks.  We are not neandrathals for refusing to be stampeded with the rest of the herd without asking first if it is a good idea to run and, if it's not to much trouble, are we about to jump ourselves off of a cliff while trying to solve a problem that might not even turn out to be a problem.  As a personal note, I get very worried when large groups of people get panicky about a subject and begin clamouring for politicians to do something, ANYTHING.

IMHO, climate change always happens- we just don't notice it very well because we only live about 80 years, which makes most people's frame of reference too short.  Are GHG's changing the climate?  I'm not sure.  I see, scientifically, how it is possible.  I just don't know if it is actually happening.  The interaction between atmosphere and the oceans (the major drivers of climate on Earth) are actually surprisingly poorly understood.  What I do know, however that Canada is a large and cold country.  For us to quit hydrocarbon fuels cold turkey would not only destroy our economy, but would probably kill a few million of us as well. Is it prudent to increase energy efficiency?  Absolutely- as the cost of energy inputs rise, it only makes sense for people and businesses to use less of an expensive commodity.  Are we going to be saved by wind power, solar and hydrogen?  Probably not.  Nuclear might- if people stop being terrified of it. We are probably going to be using hydrocarbons as fuel in some form for at least the next 50 years.

Anyway- keep in mind that many of us here have been through more than one of these doomsday scare scenarios over the past decades and have learned some sceptism.  You should, too.


----------



## Flip (29 May 2007)

SigsGuy,

Look at the following:



> I don't really seehow global warming is a "religion", unless the majority of the scientific community are off their nut.





> I don't see any issues with becoming a more sustainable economy, and I fail to seehow becoming less reliant of non-renewable resources will destroy our economy.





> I once again still fail to seehow renewable energy, a sustainable economy, or for the matter becoming less reliant on middle eastern oil will make us a worse society.





> As for taking your living from you, I really don't see how that's going to happen.





> I fail to see the lashing out that happened, and I'm sure you'll find much worse said on the other side.



There's a recurring phrase.
You say it over and over.

All I can say is yes, you do "fail to see". I think deliberately.

I come to ARMY.ca primarily to learn.
I engage in discussion for the fun of it.

Some of the trolls have been fun. You haven't been.

Command-Sense-Act 105  has shown leadership and I think, a lot of class.
You haven't.
How in creation do you expect to persuade anyone, or to share your thoughts
in this manner?
How do you expect to learn anything? Clearly you don't

If you came down the mountain with stone tablets at this point - I wouldn't care.

Sorry kid, You've lost me.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 May 2007)

What a shock....I gave you the opportunity to redeem yourself by answering a direct question, and you dodged it.



Matthew.   :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 May 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> If you came down the mountain with stone tablets at this point - I wouldn't care.


 :rofl:
Sorry to take this off topic but please tell me you don't have a copyright on that phrase........because it's  going into the Monk's repertoire.


----------



## Flip (29 May 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> Sorry to take this off topic but please tell me you don't have a copyright on that phrase........because it's  going into the Monk's repertoire.



You can use it free of any encumbrance except;

You have to shave your head and wear sackcloth  ;D


----------



## canadianblue (30 May 2007)

> What particular scientific background do Sheryl Crowe and Bruce Cockburn have that make them qualified to shill for the pro-Kyoto crowd?



What Scientific background do the following organizations have?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
http://books.nap.edu/html/climatechange/summary.html
http://www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position10.htm
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WOOD-5ZD6BT
http://www.chemistry.org/portal/resources/ACS/ACSContent/government/statements/2004_statements/2004_07_global_climate_chg_env.pdf
http://www.agu.org/fora/eos/pdfs/2006EO360008.pdf



> This is known as "cherry picking".  You can't make fun of the lack of scientific qualifications of your opponent's supporters and not open yourself up to an equivalent charge against the Global Warming supporters.



The OISM is a notorious organization which is not exactly known for its stellar credentials, I believe the founder created a home schooling program which was intended to fight against socialism. 



> I would also like to point out that scientific consensus does NOT equal scientific fact.  Science is not a democratic institution where voting on something makes it so.  For instance, when Einstein put forward a general theory on relativity, the scientific consensus of the day was that he was wrong.  At one point, the scientific consensus was that the atom could never be split.  30 years ago (mid 1970s) there was a strong scientific consensus that the planet would enter an Ice age by the 1990s. Do you see where I am going with this?



According to medical researchers paid by big tobacco smoking doesn't cause cancer, you can't compare Einstein with scientists who are paid by companies which would see their profits do down if we switched to renewable energy.



> IMHO, climate change always happens- we just don't notice it very well because we only live about 80 years, which makes most people's frame of reference too short.  Are GHG's changing the climate?  I'm not sure.  I see, scientifically, how it is possible.  I just don't know if it is actually happening.  The interaction between atmosphere and the oceans (the major drivers of climate on Earth) are actually surprisingly poorly understood.



That's understandable, however the vast majority of scientists who have stellar credentials disagree. 



> What I do know, however that Canada is a large and cold country.  For us to quit hydrocarbon fuels cold turkey would not only destroy our economy, but would probably kill a few million of us as well.



Yeah, those liberal radicals really want to see million's of Canadian's dead. 



> Like CSA and several others here, I am not particularly pleased with your style of argument.  You frequently belittle those who disagree with you or point out gaping flaws in your evidence.



Not really, I have provided links supporting my view and have corrected myself when proven wrong. It's simply people getting angry because they don't agree with somebody else's opinion. If I started going on some rant calling people [excuse the language], fucknuts, turds, whatever, then it's fair to say that I have unfairly slandered people. 



> We are not neandrathals for refusing to be stampeded with the rest of the herd without asking first if it is a good idea to run and, if it's not to much trouble, are we about to jump ourselves off of a cliff while trying to solve a problem that might not even turn out to be a problem.



The thing is though that the science is there, and when we say lets wait 50 years before making a decision on climate change, I highly doubt it'll really make much of a difference then. 



> We are not neandrathals for refusing to be stampeded with the rest of the herd without asking first if it is a good idea to run and, if it's not to much trouble, are we about to jump ourselves off of a cliff while trying to solve a problem that might not even turn out to be a problem.  As a personal note, I get very worried when large groups of people get panicky about a subject and begin clamouring for politicians to do something, ANYTHING.



I'm not exactly running with the herd on this topic.



> Anyway- keep in mind that many of us here have been through more than one of these doomsday scare scenarios over the past decades and have learned some sceptism.  You should, too.



I'm more skeptical of science bought by big oil.



> All I can say is yes, you do "fail to see". I think deliberately.



See what? So far you have shown no sources to back up your arguments, and much of the argument here has simply been an attack on the environmental movement and bashing people who support fighting global warming as eco-terrorists. I guess I fail to see how the vast majority of scientists with stellar credentials, 132 countries, the majority of American major cities, each one of the major political parties in Canada, and a large majority of Canada has been duped into being destroyed and killing off million's of people by supporting renewable energy, driving hybrid cars, and becoming more sustainable. 



> How in creation do you expect to persuade anyone, or to share your thoughts
> in this manner?



I have backed up my thoughts with the support of scientific organizations and countless links to my sources. So far you have none, my manner is not arrogant, it simply makes no sense for me to buy into your notion that because you have no sources, no links, no articles, that I should buy into what you have to say. 



> Some of the trolls have been fun. You haven't been.



Yeah, that's mature. I disagree with you, thus you must be a troll. :

Get over yourself, if you somehow have failed to make me see its simply due to the lack of any credible sources beyond the talk here about million's in Canada being killed due to supporting tougher environmental regulations to combat climate change. 



> What a shock....I gave you the opportunity to redeem yourself by answering a direct question, and you dodged it.



If your referring to Mars heating up, you simply have to read the National Geographic link provided.


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2007)

As long time readers know, I am a "sceptic", and believe based on certain evidence presented in this and other threads that climactic changes are driven by natural external forces. The world will warm and cool (along with the other planets) according to long standing cycles.

Global warming is an industry, and operates like any other industry. Drumming up fear is advertising, trying to create a demand for their particular brand of "science", and get a lock on government subsidies and funding. I once heard a similar example from the past, when President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer", every biological scientist suddenly "discovered" their work was related to the study of Cancer and thus worth a Federal subsidy. 

We can see one example in Canada with the granting of a $100 million subsidy for ethanol production in Ontario. This is great for the producers (and American farmers, ironically, since they can supply corn at a competitive price), but ridiculous otherwise since ethanol requires more fossil fuel energy than it delivers. Global warming proponents will push more schemes like this so long as they can get the money, so keep your hand on your wallet!


----------



## Hunteroffortune (30 May 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> As long time readers know, I am a "sceptic", and believe based on certain evidence presented in this and other threads that climactic changes are driven by natural external forces. The world will warm and cool (along with the other planets) according to long standing cycles.
> 
> Global warming is an industry, and operates like any other industry. Drumming up fear is advertising, trying to create a demand for their particular brand of "science", and get a lock on government subsidies and funding. I once heard a similar example from the past, when President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer", every biological scientist suddenly "discovered" their work was related to the study of Cancer and thus worth a Federal subsidy.
> 
> We can see one example in Canada with the granting of a $100 million subsidy for ethanol production in Ontario. This is great for the producers (and American farmers, ironically, since they can supply corn at a competitive price), but ridiculous otherwise since ethanol requires more fossil fuel energy than it delivers. Global warming proponents will push more schemes like this so long as they can get the money, so keep your hand on your wallet!



Yes, funny that the price of corn has now risen to great heights, so much for supply and demand. The free market is not free anymore.

Something all the scientists (pro or anti) never mention is that statistically, noone can predict with any accuarcy beyond the data. In other words, if you are using monthly data, you can predict the next month accurately, but no further. So, how can environmentalists predict, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50 years into the future? 

Easy answer, they can't, and they know it!


----------



## Flip (30 May 2007)

> So, how can environmentalists predict, 3, 5, 10, 20, 50 years into the future?


Good point!
If the weather man can't get it right more than 40% of the time how
can we say the end is near?


----------



## Flip (30 May 2007)

On a cheerier note,

I remember grinning broadly when I saw this broadcast a few years ago.

CBC: Documentaries : Doomsday Called OffDOOMSDAY CALLED OFF. Sunday November 27, 2005 at 7pm ET on CBC Newsworld ... from all over the world explode the doom and gloom of global warming. ...
www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doomsday.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages 

 CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off - Google Video
A very good unbiased documentary about the real cause of ...
44min - 
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295

It's a fun watch, of course I don't know if anything on CBC can be believed. :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 May 2007)

Sigs Guy,
Did you actually read your links or did you just cut and paste them from somewhere else?  I just read through them and, all of them except one, being at least two years old, seem to support my theory that this is natural with us giving it a faster push........and the only one that isn't old is just someone knocking Michael Crichton for moving from writing to "science stuff', which is really funny considering Al Gore..........


Some snips from the first two links........[ the post was going to be waaaay too long otherwise]

_The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

What is the range of natural variability in climate? 

The range of natural climate variability is known to be quite large (in excess of several degrees Celsius) on local and regional spatial scales over periods as short as a decade. Precipitation also can vary widely. For example, there is evidence to suggest that droughts as severe as the "dust bowl" of the 1930s were much more common in the central United States during the 10th to 14th centuries than they have been in the more recent record. Mean temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because of the sparse spatial coverage of existing data and difficulties in inferring temperatures from various proxy data. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that global warming rates as large as 2°C (3.6°F) per millennium may have occurred during retreat of the glaciers following the most recent ice age_


----------



## Flip (30 May 2007)

Arnold is coming!

California Governor Arnold Shwarznegger has come to Canada to beat the drum
for Hydrogen powered cars.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=3ec4d880-dae1-4729-aeb7-8ef8a7ef54b4&k=64071 

So what? you might ask.

I found this,

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7/1

The climatic effects of water vapour
Feature: May 2003



> Contrary to common belief, the greenhouse effect may have more to do with water in our atmosphere than gases such as carbon dioxide



What occurs to me ( back to unintended consequences ) is that if water vapor
is a more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, is there not some danger
in powering everything that moves with Hydrogen?

From what I have read this morning, Water, molecule for molecule has about
twice the capacity to trap IR than CO2 when in the atmosphere.
There is also a lot more of it!

It also has about 10 times the specific heat capacity as CO2 as it emerges from the exhaust pipe. As I run my car more heat comes from the engine as water vapor
than CO2.

So.............. How grand an idea is running the car on hydrogen?
Do we not run the risk of warming the globe a lot faster?
Or is it more important to do something, anything, right now
- to hell with what comes after?

Me, I love the idea of cold fusion, too bad it didn't work out. 


P.S. - I found out where you get Hydrogen on a commercial scale
  ( actually I knew all along )

http://www.uigi.com/hydrogen.html

 Punchline on link


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2007)

Further to Bruce's observation:

Interestingly the anti-Crichton post is one group of scientists (apparently) criticizing another group of scientists (recognized) because the recognized group of scientists apparently endorses Crichton's views concerning global warming and media manipulation - so much for the consensus - although the recognized scientists do get their bills paid by the oil industry.

Meanwhile the rest of the "supporting" blurbs stipulate:
- that global warming is real;
- that climate change is a natural phenomenon;
- that climate change involves greenhouse gases;
- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas;
- that CO2 is produced by human activities, along with other greenhouse gases;
- that there are many natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases;
- that if it is possible to "cost-effectively" control CO2 emissions then that could be a wise move;
- that the facts of the matter are still unknown and require more research.

I don't think anybody here would disagree with any of those stipulations.  

The only stipulation up for debate is what constitutes a "cost-effective" control on an imprecisely defined problem.

And by the way Scientists calling for more research equates to Scientists asking for more money to fund their programmes - which in turn equates to them making more of a personal profit.

Scientists make their livings from uncertainty and hate to be proven wrong.  Consequently the IPCC technical documents from the scientists say "probably", "may", "might", "could", "based on current data, understandings..." .  Implicit in all their statements is that with different/better evidence they would come up with a different/better understanding that will hold until new, different/better evidence comes along.

No Politician likes to hear those types of uncertainties uttered, unless they utter them themselves.  They want other people to make definitive statements so that the risk of being wrong is transferred from them, the decision makers, to those making the observations.

Interestingly enough the only people with a vested interest in making a definitive statement on anything are activists and salesmen.  And salesmen are at least constrained by the knowledge that eventually they will be held accountable for their words by their clients and their colleagues.  

Activists will never have to make a decision and will never be held accountable.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 May 2007)

My comments.....    

Meanwhile the rest of the "supporting" blurbs stipulate:

- that global warming is real; 
- for the time being only because of increased solar activity.  A solar downturn and we'd very quickly see global cooling.

- that climate change is a natural phenomenon; 
- absolutely.

- that climate change involves greenhouse gases; 
- only to a small extent.  Solar activity is the overriding determinant of global termperature.

- that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; 
- a weak one.  Both water vapour and methane are far more important.

- that CO2 is produced by human activities, along with other greenhouse gases; 
- but only constitutes a very small portion of global emissions in comparison to volcanoes and the oceans

- that there are many natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases; 
- that are more much important than man-made sources, and then CO2 is relatively unimportant in comparison to other gases and the sun

- that if it is possible to "cost-effectively" control CO2 emissions then that could be a wise move; 
- I'm indifferent.  Talk to me about airborne or waterborne heavy metals and you'll get my support immediately.

- that the facts of the matter are still unknown and require more research. 
- Everything should always be in a constant state of critical analysis

I don't think anybody here would disagree with any of those stipulations.  
- Well I do....   

The only stipulation up for debate is what constitutes a "cost-effective" control on an imprecisely defined problem. 
Not me.  I'm all for a $1 billion/year environmentally friendly infrastructure fund, but I want it spent specifically on the heavy metals mentioned before as well as wastewater management (beaches being closed due to ecoli contamination is just fundamentally wrong).


----------



## Kirkhill (30 May 2007)

You would be different  : 

Frankly though I don't see a difference except in degree.  I don't find any of your comments to be at odds with the stipulations I gleaned from Sig Guy's list of supporting documentation.

Climate change occurs.  Global Warming is real.  Extent of problem undefined.  Relative import of causes undefined.  Cost-effective solutions to and undefined problem called for.  Odds of a successful outcome (impacting the climate) slim to nil.  Odds of an adverse outcome (impacting the economy) fair to good.


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2007)

Hunteroffortune said:
			
		

> Yes, funny that the price of corn has now risen to great heights, so much for supply and demand. The free market is not free anymore.



Only in the sense that "demand" has been artificially boosted by diverting corn to a new market (ethanol). More corn will be put into production until supply meets demand, however there will be additional economic and ecological consequences, such as a vast increase in demand for water, fertilizer, pesticides and fuel for farm machinery and transport trucks to support corn production. There will also be a huge increase in demand for oil or natural gas to run the distilleries to make the ethanol. 

Anyone want to explain how ethanol will save the environment or reduce CO2 again? This might be a good question to ask your elected officials.......


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jun 2007)

Eventually, this will run it's course.  The more the public gets force fed the enviro-hype, the less interested they will be.  The scientists should have been content to take their grant money and run with it, but they saw illusions of political grandeur and tried to push for actual power.  
And we all know that there is no way the nerds are going to be allowed to run the show.   
With enough time and resources, they will figure out that the human impact is negligible and get on with the next big thing. 
(Wasn't California supposted to be in the Pacific by now?  And aren't we going to get exterminated by a meteor around 2033?)


----------



## Reccesoldier (7 Jun 2007)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> (Wasn't California supposted to be in the Pacific by now?  And aren't we going to get exterminated by a meteor around 2033?)



The Mayan's were only able to calculate their calendar up to April of 2012... The end is nigh!!!


----------



## Flip (7 Jun 2007)

> Eventually, this will run it's course.



Not soon enough for me! 

I listen to CBC through most of the day.

On the early afternoon bit called Wild Rose Country we get a steady stream.
EVERY DAY!  Most of what is discussed on this talk show is framed in the 
context of this carbon footprint culture and I'm getting damn tired of it.

The mothering tone is really quite enough on it's own - but the content!
All these little domestic tips are funneled through as though they were the 
health and environment police.

What I'm beating around the bush at saying is, the GW thing has become 
so pervasive, people believe it - due to repetition.
Very few people you run into actually have any knowledge of the subject.
Most people don't care. They just go with the flow.

Pure of heart, mind and soul now means, aware of ones own carbon.
You can't be a member of suburbia without some angst over your exhaust pipe. 
Nice people don't exhale.  After all CO2 is now pollution.

We need a new crisis.

There won't be any rationality on GW until the MSM focus on something else.

Maybe I need to touch that dial -  

Rant now over............

Sorry.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jun 2007)

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> The Mayan's were only able to calculate their calendar up to April of 2012... The end is nigh!!!


Geez: if they were so good, couldn't they have figured out that May 2012 came next?   (stupid mayans!  Where's your civilization now?) >


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jun 2007)

Found this site today on the web:

http://liveearth.ca.msn.com/green/articles/article3.aspx

Also, they are showing Al Gore's tripe at Gagetown next week.  I asked if the Swindle movie were going to be shown as well.  I got no reply.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2007)

http://www.friendsofscience.org/

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=58e0c50c-1631-46ca-8719-778c0973526e

http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=17580


> The Deniers, Part XXV: They call this a consensus?   by Lawrence Solomon



http://www.urban-renaissance.org/urbanren/index.cfm?DSP=larry&SubID=163

Cap'n, try any of these links.  Especially the third one on consensus.

No. 2 is about how Al Gore had to disown his Global Warming mentor because his mentor thougt poor old Al went overboard.  Al, in a classic case of inversion, declared his mentor to be senile.  Fortunately for Al his mentor is dead and disinclined to argue.


----------



## Flip (10 Jun 2007)

Check these out.

This is a right wing jab but a fun read.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11461
The debate was won!-by the skeptics!

This is interesting.  A short list of prominent "converts".
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469
All prominent scientists who were once GW activists -but now skeptics.

Same list , different source
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

A blog some of us would agree with,
http://georgereisman.com/blog/2007/03/global-warming-environmentalisms-threat.html



> Tuesday, March 13, 2007
> Global Warming: Environmentalism’s Threat of Hell on Earth
> It is customary for old-fashioned religion to threaten those whose way of life is not to its satisfaction, with the prospect of hell in the afterlife. Substitute for the afterlife, life on earth in centuries to come, and it is possible to see that environmentalism and the rest of the left are now doing essentially the same thing. They hate the American way of life because of its comfort and luxury, which they contemptuously dismiss as “conspicuous consumption.” And to frighten people into abandoning it, they are threatening them with a global-warming version of hell.




I had to grin a bit when I read this.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2007)

> And to frighten people into abandoning it, they are threatening them with a global-warming version of hell.



The Vikings thought differently about Canada when they arrived; it was so warm at that time they called the place "Vineland". Hardly a vision of Hell on Earth.............


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2007)

Common sense is slowly seeping into the world........

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2007/06/even-some-leftists-doubt-global-warming.html



> Wednesday, June 13, 2007
> *Even some leftists doubt Global warming*
> 
> Alexander Cockburn in the leftist magazine The nation is very wary of Global Warming hysteria. It is quite interesting to read. he say the same thing as many on the right are saying. we must look at all science witha degree of scepticism. many on the left see global warming as a way to overthrow capitalism. That is why I call it envirnmentostalinism. (H/T to Newsbusters)
> ...


----------



## Flip (13 Jun 2007)

I think there's a conspiracy going on!

I can't seem to access the Google video link leading
to The Great Global Warming Swindle.

Anyone have any idea what's going on?

It's not available from YouTube either.

Court injunction?
Political pressure?
or just too popular?

Hmmmm 

Added later: Apparently WAG TV has a copyright beef so it was
taken off Google video and YouTube. Maybe we can buy the DVD soon?
I was able to watch it in segments 1 through 9 last night.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Jun 2007)

Ross McKitrick, one of the original MBH Hockey Stick debunkers, offers to let the Global Warming true believers show their faith:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad&p=1


> *Call their tax*
> Why not tie carbon taxes to actual levels of warming? Both skeptics and alarmists should expect their wishes to be answered
> Ross McKitrick, Financial Post
> Published: Tuesday, June 12, 2007
> ...


----------



## Flip (14 Jun 2007)

In one sense, it's brilliant!

I'd even go for that plan, but.............

I'm from Alberta  

"Carbon tax"makes me feel twitchy.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Jun 2007)

It'll never work...

You can't explain all that in a 15 second sound bite for the ADD riddled public.

Too bad, it's a really really good idea.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jun 2007)

> ...best of all, the T3 tax will encourage private-sector climate forecasting. Firms will need good estimates of future tax rates, which will force them to look deeply, and objectively, into the question of whether existing climate forecasts have an alarmist bias. The financial incentives will lead to independent reassessments of global climate modelling, without regard to what politicians, the IPCC or climatology professors want to hear.



I think there's something to be said for this - only turn it over to the REAL experts on forecasting.  

We all know what a lousy track record the Meteorological community has when it comes to predicting the weather. The science community has done wonders with predicting fish stocks and whether or not margarine is good for you.  Politicians and Bureaucrats are non-starters.   Financial Planners and Fund Managers - few of them beat the market, most match the market. Actuaries and Insurance companies are good bets but on long odds - although most Insurance companies have long lives occasionally they screw up and end up being absorbed because they were over-extended.

In my humble opinion that leaves only one place to get good predictions.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you your local bookie.  I'd choose Jimmy the Greek or Ladbrokes to get an accurate bet on the future.  If anybody understands risk management it has to be them. It seldom pays to bet against the house.


----------



## Flip (14 Jun 2007)

No need to predict Kirkhill!( at least not for most of us. )



> Temperatures in the tropical troposphere are measured every day using weather satellites. The data are analyzed by several teams, including one at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) and one at Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in California. According to the UAH team, the mean tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly (its departure from the 1979-98 average) over the past three years is 0.18C. The corresponding ing RSS estimate is 0.29C.


The tax rate is set by the thermometer.

Here's the real problem.



> The tax would be implemented on all domestic carbon-dioxide emissions, all the revenues would be recycled into domestic income tax cuts to maintain fiscal neutrality, and there would be no cap on total emissions.



It just won't sell unless you can tie this money to some feel good redemption
scheme.  It won't "make the rich pay" enough.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (14 Jun 2007)

Flip,

Predicting the future tax rate (and therefore the "CO2 warming rate") would matter to CO2 producers as it would greatly affect their expected rate of return on any given project.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic in your second point, but I think that a scheme like this might gain some acceptance as it very much respects the "polluter pays" principle ... the twist, of course, is that CO2 production actually has to be shown to be "polluting."


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2007)

Wise words from a wise man

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621.html



> *Freedom, not climate, is at risk*
> By Vaclav Klaus
> 
> Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44
> ...


----------



## Hunteroffortune (14 Jun 2007)

A_Majoor, great post, Klaus is right on all counts. Here's another interesting one:

Global warming good for Canada, Yale study shows
MICHAEL HILL 

Associated Press

June 14, 2007 at 5:25 PM EDT

GHENT, N.Y. — It's not in Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation, but there are some upsides to global warming.

Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.

This is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere. But still ... might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia?

“It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries. There will be — things like you'll lose polar bears,” said economic professor Robert Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.”

Read it all at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070614.wgwwin0614/BNStory/National/home


----------



## Flip (15 Jun 2007)

John Galt,


> Flip,
> 
> Predicting the future tax rate (and therefore the "CO2 warming rate") would matter to CO2 producers as it would greatly affect their expected rate of return on any given project.
> 
> I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic in your second point, but I think that a scheme like this might gain some acceptance as it very much respects the "polluter pays" principle ... the twist, of course, is that CO2 production actually has to be shown to be "polluting."



I agree with your first para, Most of us thought will never have to worry about this.

To clarify, the idea of the tax revenue going to general revenues is problematic.
In Edmonton we have a surcharge per tire scheme that does b*gger all
for the environment. The surcharge was floated as a way to protect the 
environment by paying for recycling.  Much like a deposit on your bottles.

If the tax revenue were used for something of clear and demonstrable
value, everybody can smile.  Greenspaces and tree planting come to mind.



> Freedom, not climate, is at risk
> By Vaclav Klaus



A_majoor, +1!
My fear of "Global Warming" has always been a fear of the ensuing tyranny.

and Hunterofortune +1 also! ;D

If GW actually exists - were the winners! - gotta love it.

Much better news than all that "tipping point" "irretrievable damage" hype.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Jun 2007)

http://tinyurl.com/3drjum

                                                                                     
4 June 2007
                                                   
Don't Mention the Warming
                                                           
By Gwynne Dyer

        "I cannot negotiate on the two degrees," said German Chancellor
Angela Merkel, currently president both of the European Union and of the G8
summit of the major industrialised nations that starts (started) in
Heiligendamm on 6 June.  Her goal was to get the world's biggest producers
of greenhouse gases to agree to emission cuts deep enough to limit global
heating to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) by the end of this century,
but that isn't going to happen this year. 
        In order to meet that target, Chancellor Merkel wanted countries to
commit to a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050
compared to the baseline figure for 1990, but US diplomats have already
deleted both the two degree limit and the fifty percent cut from the draft
summit declaration sent to them by Merkel. "There is only so far we can
go," they explained.
        As for China, which may overtake the United States as the world's
biggest polluter this year, a draft copy of a national global warming
assessment leaked in mid-April stated that "before general accomplishment
of modernisation by the middle of the 21st century, China should not
undertake absolute and compulsory emission reduction obligations." Like the
US government, the Chinese regime is starting to admit that climate change
is serious, but is against any preventive measures that might impair
economic growth.

More at link


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2007)

More evidence of the prime cause of climate change:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view468.html#global



> The evidence Boortz cited is on  http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/
> 
> Note that this article shows that Solar irradiance has increased by steadily from about roughly 1980 to 2000. This increase in irradiance is given as percent change per year (first derivative) rather than as a change relative to a baseline irradiance, which makes it look less significant than it actually is. I don't have time to work with these numbers this morning, but the data are interesting and the correlation is dreadfully obvious -- the onset of warming, at least, corresponds precisely with the increase in irradiance. Even more significant, when that first derivative nature of the solar data is considered, is that the sun began warming long before 1920 (since irradiance has been increasing on an annual basis since the start of the data) Even a mean 0.03%/year increase in solar radiance since 1920 corresponds to a huge percentage in total solar heating -- that graph seems to be claiming that the sun is more than 2% hotter over the last century and the rate accelerated in the 1980's.



Stellar engineering may be _the_ career choice of future generations.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jun 2007)

Does this mean that there will now be a tax on sunshine?  Will solar credits be traded between countries at the equator and those of us higher latitudes?


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Jun 2007)

Betcha didn't know that the slaughter in Darfur was a result of Global Warming....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070616212708.ymevxrx6&show_article=1&catnum=0



> Climate change behind Darfur killing: UN's Ban
> Jun 16 05:27 PM US/Eastern
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Reccesoldier (18 Jun 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> More evidence of the prime cause of climate change:
> 
> http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view468.html#global
> 
> Stellar engineering may be _the_ career choice of future generations.



This won't do... You can't blame solar irradiance on GWB, SUV's or Big Oil!  The person that wrote this obviously has no idea how to run a half decent conspiracy theory. 

Sheesh, amateurs!


----------



## Flip (18 Jun 2007)

This is from Muskrat89's quote.



> UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 percent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.



I thought a rise in ocean temps was supposed to make weather worse
I mean more extreme!  Huh?

 ;D


----------



## TCBF (24 Jun 2007)

Here's one for all of the ecochondriacs to ponder:  Planting more trees in northern countries like Canada might just INCREASE global warming!!!!

Al Gore (?..  or was it Darryl Hannah?  whatever...) was telling us to stop polluting so as to not litter our snow with smog particles.  The smog particles de-whiten the snow and causes it to deflect less of the suns rays, so we heat up.

Planted trees screens the snow from the sun, and soaks up the heat.

Our mission: Plant Trees!  Make the ecochondriacs happy and warm up the planet, thus lowering out heating bills and our carbon footprint at the same time.  A win-win for all!

By the way, if the new emission standards don't cover pick-up trucks, what's the point?


----------



## Flip (25 Jun 2007)

I found this on Celestial junk Today



> Swedish Scientist Accuses UN's IPCC of Falsifying Data and Destroying Evidence
> Posted by Noel Sheppard on June 24, 2007 - 19:45.
> If you listen to the global warming alarmists working for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or folks like soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, sea levels across the globe are rising at a rate that will eventually doom us all.
> 
> According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.



http://newsbusters.org/node/13698

And this yesterday:


> In the last week, the skeptics scored two goals.
> 
> The first was scored by a Canadian. Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University in Ottawa, published an article conclusively demonstrating climate change is a permanent condition, that the Earth's climate has never been stable.
> 
> ...



http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Byfield_Ted/2007/06/24/4285924-sun.html

Thanks CG! 

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/

Some CG comment here.


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2007)

World's oldest DNA sheds light on global warming
Updated Thu. Jul. 5 2007 2:10 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
Article Link

Using the world's oldest recovered DNA, a new study suggests Greenland was much warmer than previously thought during the last Ice Age and natural global warming trends may be as significant as human-induced warming.

The international study, published Thursday in the journal Science, was co-written by University of Alberta glaciologist Dr. Martin Sharp.

During their research, a team of international scientists retrieved ancient DNA found at the bottom of a two-kilometer ice sheet in Greenland.

The sample came from trees, plants, and insects of a boreal forest estimated to be between 450,000 and 900,000 years old.

The DNA samples suggest the temperature of the southern Greenland boreal forests was probably between 10 C in summer and -17 C in winter. By comparison, the temperatures at the ice surface in Greenland today are -8 C in summer and -30 C in winter.

"To have a forest at this location we would probably have had to melt at least the southern one-third of the Greenland ice sheet," Sharp wrote in an email to CTV.ca.

"It provides further evidence that natural processes can and do produce climate change, and that this can be large enough to produce effects similar to those predicted to result from anthropogenic warming."

The reduced glacier cover in the region also meant the global ocean was probably between one and two metres higher during that time compared to current levels.

"These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken, and what we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought," Sharp said in a release.

While the study does suggest a natural warming progression is significant, Sharp cautioned the research does not prove the current global warming trend is not human induced.
More on link


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (6 Jul 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> World's oldest DNA sheds light on global warming
> Updated Thu. Jul. 5 2007 2:10 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff
> Article Link
> 
> Using the world's oldest recovered DNA, a new study suggests Greenland was much warmer than previously thought during the last Ice Age and natural global warming trends may be as significant as human-induced warming.



[hands covering ears] LA, LA, LA!  I can't hear you!  NO, NO, NO!  The science is *IN*.  Man-made global warming is a *FACT*.  It is the consensus scientific opinion.  We must stop wasting time on these pointless and misleading studies!!!  We must stop these evil corporations *NOW*, or all will be lost!!!

_The preceding message was brought to you by the David Suzuki Foundation and Al Gore - "Buy carbon offsets from the companies we own"._


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jul 2007)

Warren Meyer has produced a readable skeptic's guide at Coyote Blog.


----------



## Strike (6 Jul 2007)

Flip,

It's nice to know that all this information that is readily preached in university oceanogrophy and enviro sci textbooks is now making it to the mainstream.  I was reading about all of this 3 years ago when I was taking these courses.

On a different note, must say that those commecials about the receding glaciers steam me.  The ones in NZ are advancing by more than 20cm/year.


----------



## Flip (6 Jul 2007)

> The ones in NZ are advancing by more than 20cm/year.



Really?..................

.....................Cool! ;D

The commercials that bugged me were the "give money to save the polar bears"
ones run by the WWF.

What is a polar bear to do with my $100 bucks?

Do polar bears have pockets?  Who will carry their groceries for them?

State Of Fear by Micheal Crichton describes this nonsense in detail......


----------



## eerickso (6 Jul 2007)

Here's a fun question:

What is the bare minimum amount  of W88 thermonuclear warheads you would need to detonate in a year to release the same amount of heat that the additional amount of CO2 in our atmosphere absorbs in a year?

W88 has a yield of 475 kilotons  ( 1 kiloton of TNT = 4.184 TJ or 4.184 E 12 Joules)


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> Flip,
> 
> It's nice to know that all this information that is readily preached in university oceanogrophy and enviro sci textbooks is now making it to the mainstream.  I was reading about all of this 3 years ago when I was taking these courses.
> 
> On a different note, must say that those commecials about the receding glaciers steam me.  The ones in NZ are advancing by more than 20cm/year.




Most folks are aware of the arts and science dichotomy at universities.  Scientists are blissfully ignorant of history and artists are equally at sea with numbers.

Fewer are aware of the dichotomy between the physical sciencies and the biologists.   

The biologists share the artists disdain for numbers and the rest of the science community's lack of knowledge of history.

Guess who leads the Global Warming charge? The biologists of the Enviro-Sciences.  The artists follow because they trust anybody that doesn't trust numbers.  > :warstory:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2007)

A bit more on the Forests of Greenland that GAP put up:

Greenland's ice caps melted to about 1-1.5 km thick with temperatures 5 C warmer than today for about 14,000 years.  The current ice is 2 km thick.

Greenland's ancient forests shed light on stability of ice sheet
Ice cores drilled from southern Greenland have revealed the first evidence of a surprisingly lush forest that existed in the region within the past million years. The findings from an international study published today in the journal Science suggest that the southern Greenland ice sheet may be much more stable against rising temperatures than previously thought. 

Researchers analysed ice cores from a number of locations in Greenland, including Dye 3 in the south of the country. From the base of the 2km deep Dye 3 core, they were able to extract what they believe is likely to be the oldest authenticated DNA obtained to date.

By analysing these DNA samples, the researchers identified a surprising variety of plant and insect life, including species of trees such as alder, spruce, pine and members of the yew family, as well as invertebrates related to beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths. The researchers believe that the samples date back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago. 

"We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland, which is currently hidden under more than 2km of ice, was once very different to the Greenland we see today," explains Professor Eske Willerslev, a Wellcome Trust Bioarchaeology Fellow from the University of Copenhagen, who led the study."Back then, it was inhabited by a diverse array of conifer trees and insects."

The research implies that ancient forests covered southern Greenland during a period of increased global temperatures, known as an interglacial period. When temperatures fell again, the area became covered in ice. This ice sheet appears to have remained during the last interglacial period (116,000-130,000 years ago) when the temperature was 5°C warmer than today, contrary to the view currently held by scientists. Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, also at the University of Copenhagen, has shown that in fact, even during this interglacial period, the ice thickness at Dye 3 would have been reduced to between 1 km to 1.5km.

"If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought," says Professor Willerslev. "This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming."

However, Professor Willerslev was keen to dismiss the idea that this meant sea levels would not rise to the levels predicted by scientific models. 

"We know that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by 5-6m, but this must have come from other sources additional to the Greenland ice cap, such as Antarctic ice. I would anticipate that as the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels."

The results also show conclusively that ancient biomolecules from the base of ice cores can be used by scientists to reconstruct the environments hidden underneath ice-covered areas and can yield insights into the climate and the ecology of communities from the distant past. 

"Analysing ancient biomolecules from beneath glaciers and ice sheets is challenging due to the very low concentrations, but the information is worth the effort," says Dr Enrico Cappellini, a member of the University of York's new PALAEO Group and another of the paper's co-authors, whose work is supported by the European Commission. "Our study suggests a solution to this problem. Given that ten per cent of the Earth's terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-07/wt-gaf070207.php


----------



## TCBF (15 Jul 2007)

eerickso said:
			
		

> Here's a fun question:
> 
> What is the bare minimum amount  of W88 thermonuclear warheads you would need to detonate in a year to release the same amount of heat that the additional amount of CO2 in our atmosphere absorbs in a year?
> 
> W88 has a yield of 475 kilotons  ( 1 kiloton of TNT = 4.184 TJ or 4.184 E 12 Joules)



- Try Mk 17's, or some of those big Russki suckers instead.


----------



## rmacqueen (15 Jul 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> The commercials that bugged me were the "give money to save the polar bears"
> ones run by the WWF.


One of the things that really bugs me about the save the polar bears thing is  the only population that is declining are the ones in Churchill and Baffin island.  The reality is that in the last 30 years the total population has gone from around 5,000 to 25,000.  But, like baby seals, they make cute pictures to launch an emotional campaign without letting the facts get in the way.


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Jul 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> The commercials that bugged me were the "give money to save the polar bears"
> ones run by the WWF.



I like when they say in the commercial, "In the future, your child may only see a polar bear in the zoo."  Umm, considering where the polar bears live, compared to where most people live and the result is that most children _will_ only see a polar bear in the zoo.


----------



## GAP (15 Jul 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I like when they say in the commercial, "In the future, your child may only see a polar bear in the zoo."  Umm, considering where the polar bears live, compared to where most people live and the result is that most children _will_ only see a polar bear in the zoo.



and even then.....you don't want to run into one anywhere else.....you generally see them when they have not eaten in months (Aug-Sept - waiting for the ice to form), they are very hungry, you smell like food, rich tasty food, and a threat to-boot.....


----------



## adaminc (15 Jul 2007)

I remember reading that the earth is still in an ice age... hence all the ice everywhere, so yes there will always be a "global warming" because the world will heat up, however the rate at which it would normally heat up has been offset by humans. I however think that all this global warming hoopla is overstated, the earth knows what its doing, it will balance itself out, the worse thing that will happen is there will be catastrophic environmental effects that wipe out humans and the earth will reset itself. (There is an article floating around the net on what earth would be like if all humans vanished, pretty interesting read, in a million years or so the only distuingishable artifacts that would prove we existed would be bronze statues, lol)


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (16 Jul 2007)

Global warming is a proven fact, and we canadians HAVE to do our parts. As for environment, the better it is, the better the life quality. Humans often forget that we are a big part of the ecosystem and we have a major impact on it.

As for myself i'm doing my best, and always have the feeling it's not-near enough...

As for the economy, i dont see who is going to lose his job over this. It's the contrary, it will create jobs that never existed or were marginal.

And as for Alberta's oil sands, yes it gives work for now, but lot of water is getting polluted...as long as our governement make sure it's well handled, i don't trust companies too much over this...

I mean, no one wants to give up our lifestyle and live in a cardboard box, but we can limit the negative impacts...

a green site: www.treehugger.com


----------



## Munxcub (16 Jul 2007)

The earth has been warming and cooling since long before humans were around... I suppose earthquakes and hurricanes are our fault too?


----------



## Flip (17 Jul 2007)

> Global warming is a proven fact, and we canadians HAVE to do our parts. As for environment, the better it is, the better the life quality. Humans often forget that we are a big part of the ecosystem and we have a major impact on it.



Sigs,

Have you read this thread at all?



> Global warming is a proven fact,



Here is where you lose me.
It cannot be proven because it cannot be reproduced.
We cannot find another example to compare.
Global warming as it is described in the media - is a body of scientific opinion.

The debate that centres on this body of opinion has been influenced by
outside non-scientific forces.

You would like to believe the media would NEVER mislead you, right? >

The other issue that springs from your argument is that this "Global Warming" 
WILL take our collective eye off the ball with respect to real and proven
environmental issues.

Deforestation in Indonesia to make room for fuel crops comes to mind.

Just because a technology is light on the CO2 we assume that it is "clean".
This is a risky path indeed.

 I think you need to read back through this thread.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2007)

> Global warming is a proven fact





> *dogma*
> *In general, a belief held unquestioningly and with undefended certainty*. In the Christian Church, a belief communicated by divine revelation, and defined by the Church. *Dogmatism is one possible reaction to skepticism: it selects some set of propositions and insists, apparently arbitrarily, that they be not doubted.*


  http://www.answers.com/topic/dogma  (Philosopy Dictionary)




> *heresy* (hĕr'ĭ-sē)
> n., pl. -sies.
> 
> An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
> ...



http://www.answers.com/heresy

More certainty from the lay clergy.  No need for further thought.  Albert and David have decreed.


----------



## Thirstyson (17 Jul 2007)

An article making the rounds at the physics department here at RMC on a fun way (for physicists at least) to solve the problem:

http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9253976


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2007)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> An article making the rounds at the physics department here at RMC on a fun way (for physicists at least) to solve the problem:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9253976



As long as he knows where the Off-Switch is   ;D

And by the way - if he removes CO2 won't he be removing O2 with the C?  Don't we need that stuff?


----------



## Thirstyson (17 Jul 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As long as he knows where the Off-Switch is   ;D
> 
> And by the way - if he removes CO2 won't he be removing O2 with the C?  Don't we need that stuff?



Yes, but all current measurements show significant rises in CO2 this past half century, while O2 levels are rather steady. I don't think they plan on reducing CO2 levels to where plants are suffocated and can't make us more O2 

Not that I'm advocating any solution to this problem, but the mad scientist in me thinks this would be fun.


----------



## canadianblue (17 Jul 2007)

> Here is where you lose me.
> It cannot be proven because it cannot be reproduced.
> We cannot find another example to compare.
> Global warming as it is described in the media - is a body of scientific opinion.



All the more reason to be more sustainable. As for being "scientific opinion", so is gravity. 



> The debate that centres on this body of opinion has been influenced by
> outside non-scientific forces.



Yeah, with the exception of a majority of scientists, the writers of National Geographic, Science, NAS, etc. 



> The other issue that springs from your argument is that this "Global Warming"
> WILL take our collective eye off the ball with respect to real and proven
> environmental issues.



Becoming less dependant on foreign oil. As well as getting rid of as many environmental regulations as possible. 



> I think you need to read back through this thread.



Sorry, get my information from people with expertise, not L Ron Hubbard the second [Chricton], and a few scientists who have recieved questionable donations.

I'm out...


----------



## SiG_22_Qc (18 Jul 2007)

Okay so there's no real concensus over causality as it's solar activity or human activity or whatever. If there's none why the hell are they annoying us everyday with this?

Is it like, let's not talk about the real important issue, let's talk about global warming..?

Are we getting mislead by lobbies? In this case i would suspect nuclear power lobby...and maybe toyota.

As for the media credibility,  it's going somewhere near 0 since september 11, the iraq war etc...


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2007)

SiG_22_Qc said:
			
		

> Okay so there's no real concensus over causality as it's solar activity or human activity or whatever. If there's none why the hell are they annoying us everyday with this?
> 
> Is it like, let's not talk about the real important issue, let's talk about global warming..?
> 
> ...


sig_22_qc.  I understand what you're saying, but here's something to chew on, or at least to ask yourself: why is "Global Warming" the "Cause du jour?"
Ask "why go on and on about it?"  For some, they believe it.  Simple as that.  Others take it personally, they are taking ownership in this "dogma".  Look at Al Gore.  What could motivate him, for when he was VP of the USA, he did the square root of bugger all about Global Warming!  What possible benefit could he get from becoming the champion of "Global Warming, Inc?"  Does Washington ring a bell?  He'll be the "cool guy" come 2008, and I suspect that he could very well pull past obama and hilary to take the Dems to the polls vs GW Bush's successor in the Republican parties.
What kills some (not all) is the total brainwashing and "suddeness" with which the usual suspects (eg: hollywood stars) have jumped onto this bandwagon.  Much as with the blood diamond thing, they are a day late and a dollar short.  They ignore REAL t hreats to our environment, such as the heavy metals that are being spewed out and dumped across the planet.  Deforestation.  St John Harbour.  The list goes on, but all we hear about it "global warming".


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> Are we getting mislead by lobbies? In this case i would suspect nuclear power lobby...and maybe toyota.



I blame Bill Nye the Science Guy, that mutha f$#%a has been trying to screw us over since we were at an early age!!!


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> What kills some (not all) is the total brainwashing and "suddeness" with which the usual suspects (eg: hollywood stars) have jumped onto this bandwagon.  Much as with the blood diamond thing, they are a day late and a dollar short.



Scientists have been talking about it for years. As for celebrities jumping on the bandwagon, I'd agree with you that some are hypocritical and Live Earth was idiotic. 



> They ignore REAL t hreats to our environment, such as the heavy metals that are being spewed out and dumped across the planet.  Deforestation.  St John Harbour.  The list goes on, but all we hear about it "global warming".



But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?


scientists are not universal in saying that global warming is a threat.  I ask you, nay, I challenge you, to go for any aerobic activity in Toronto on a hot summer's day.  Then cool off in the water at the beach.  After that, I would recommend taking a nice stroll along the Humber river, and if you get thirsty, have a drink.  Do that today.  Right now.  Not next week, next year or even next decade.  This is my message.

edit: "cool off in the beach" amended to read "cool off in the water at the beach".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is a real threat, shouldn't we take it seriously?



How about - 'But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is *NOT* a real threat, shouldn't we take *THEM * seriously?

Just the other side of the coin. It's all a matter of who you wish to believe (trust). Just because someone is behind the popular opinion, doesn't mean he's right. There's likely plenty of 'scientists' on the GW bandwagon, only because it means an increase in their grants and professional stature. I long ago stopped taking the 'vocal minority' at their word.


----------



## canadianblue (18 Jul 2007)

> scientists are not universal in saying that global warming is a threat.



People made the same argument with the link between smoking and lung cancer, and even 9/11. 

So far the vast majority of credible scientific organization have said it is a threat, and we should treat it as such.



> How about - 'But if scientists who specialize in this area claim that global warming is NOT a real threat, shouldn't we take THEM seriously?



Yes, however we should question whether or not they are simply there to plant doubt in order to bring about inaction. 



> Just the other side of the coin. It's all a matter of who you wish to believe (trust). Just because someone is behind the popular opinion, doesn't mean he's right.



Who do you believe is more credible on issues with regards to the environment, the NAS or Exxon Mobil?



> I long ago stopped taking the 'vocal minority' at their word.



The problem being that inaction due to doubt could possibly lead to major problems down the road. Wouldn't it be better to start investing in sustainable energy, and trying to become less dependant on non-renewable resources? I'd say that the way we are currently living in unsustainable, so I'd say we should move in a different direction so that we are more environmentally friendly and sustainable.


----------



## Yrys (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> So far the vast majority of credible scientific organization have said it is a threat, and we should treat it as such.



He's right on that one ... 

We should at least take seriously that gazoline ain't a renewal ressource, and threat it like it, i.e.
it's a capital (ecomicaly speaking) that earth has lend us that we are spending like there is no tomorrow...


----------



## Scott (18 Jul 2007)

Yrys said:
			
		

> He's right on that one ...



Even a broken clock is right twice a day...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> The problem being that inaction due to doubt could possibly lead to major problems down the road. Wouldn't it be better to start investing in sustainable energy, and trying to become less dependant on non-renewable resources? I'd say that the way we are currently living in unsustainable, so I'd say we should move in a different direction so that we are more environmentally friendly and sustainable.



I have no quarrel with that logic. What detracts from reasoned discussion is quacks like Suzuki and Gore with their 'Carbon Tax' propoganda.


----------



## Yrys (18 Jul 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What detracts from reasoned discussion is quacks like Suzuki and Gore with their 'Carbon Tax' propoganda.



I'm not sure about Gore, as I din't see his movie or read anything he may have write. And I wonder about the fact
that the live earth concerts didn't seem so ecologically concern with themself.

But I have a great respect of David Suzuki, even if I never watch his show. He seem like a great human beeing, 
who raise his daughter (don't know if he had other kids) into beeing a good one.

Does advocating for a carbon tax suffize to make someone a quack ? I wonder how it could be correctly implement,
who would realistically  say "Yeah, I produce X tons of carbons" but still...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2007)

I note that the discussion has moved from:

Scientists agreeing on global warming to;
a consensus of scientists agreeing on global warming to;
credible scientists agreeing on global warming to;
a majority of credible scientists agreeing on global warming

It appears to me that the body of experts is diminishing and that there is now a bar that has been set to determine who is an expert has the Truth.

Soon we will be down to those imbued with the Truth and the faithful.

Attached is a record of temperature change as recorded in Canadian Ice for the last 150,000 years (none of your foreign Danish or Russian stuff here) as supplied by the Department of Natural Resources online at 
http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/posters/nu/nu_02_e.php

What it shows is that minus a bit of background noise amounting to a variation of +/- 1-2C the signal for the period from 150,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago was indicating a temperature steadily FALLING from 3C warmer than today to 11C colder than today.   The signal trend is generally supposed to be the result of solar forcing resulting from us wobbling around the solar system.  The noise is the result of nasty things happening on an irregular schedule that make life miserable/interesting.  Trying to cure those intermittent impulses is always a challenge.  Ever taken your car in to get a problem fixed on to have the mechanic report he can't find anything but it is running fine now?

About 12,000 years ago something really miserable/interesting happened.  The event itself has been known for a while.  It was when all the Mammoths died out.  We've been beating ourselves up for years for being bad boys and girls because we either slaughtered them all, destroyed all their food or else submitted them to some sort of disease.  But the problem was there were always these strange creatures that looked as if they were perfectly healthy, with food in the bellies and hanging from their mouths at the time they were flash frozen in ice-cubes.

It turns out that it may not have been us at all.  It may have been this:



> A team of American scholars is theorizing that about 12,900 years ago a powerful comet (a large ball of ice) -- measuring an estimated five kilometres in diameter and packing a punch comparable to 10 million mega-tonnes of TNT (Hiroshima was 15 kilotonnes) -- exploded above the earth or crashed down just north of the Great Lakes region....
> 
> No crater was found, but Douglas Kennett, an archaeologist at the University of Oregon and member of this multidisciplinary team, says the huge ice sheet covering the Great Lakes region at the time was likely thick enough to have absorbed the blow. It would not, however, have stopped the flooding and continent-wide wildfires that the team believes occurred after impact. Put simply, "this was not a good day in North America," says Kennett.



http://www.macleans.ca/science/environment/article.jsp?content=20070618_106211_106211

The perfect crime:  throw a ball of ice at a sheet of ice at high speed and generate steam and hot water.  No big holes to leave clues, only a bit of dust that we can finally detect all over the globe.

Steam generates clouds, blocks the sun and the air temperature immediately takes a nose dive.  The water on the other hand heats up and over time it overcomes the solar cooling and heats the whole planet up by 14C in a matter of years.  This generates a nice cosy planet that allowed us to recover from the shock and create civilization. 

The Ice Ball hit us 10,900 BC.  
Two thousand years after the event we were building monuments in Turkey at a place called Gobekli Tepe.
The oldest level at Gobekli Tepe is dated to 9,100 BC

Some really nice drystone masonry and brilliantly sculpted animals can be seen if you follow this Google link to Gobekli Tepe images.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Gobekli+Tepe&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7SUNA&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi 

Meanwhile the earth continued wobbling on its merry way and went back to its previously scheduled cooling trend, cooling from a lovely and warm 3C warmer than currently to 2C cooler than currently.

Since James Watt stole the credit for inventing the Steam Engine and heralding in the Industrial Revolution (an early model for Thomas Edison), the temperature signal has bumbled along at about 1C cooler than it is today  with a couple of spikes during WWI and just after WW2.  But neither of those spikes show up as being anything more than the background noise typical of the last 150,000 years.

Not time to panic yet.

Cheers,


----------



## RangerRay (18 Jul 2007)

I seem to recall reading somewhere (I can't remember where) that the scientists that say global warming is caused by humans tend to be biologists, and those that say it's caused by sun spots and cyclical change tend to be climatologists.

On a subject of _climate_, I tend to believe _climatologists_.  The scientists featured on _The Great Global Warming Swindle_ were mostly climatologists and meteorologists.

As for Dr. Suzuki, while I was in uni taking forestry and biology course, my professors tended to sneer at his opinions on most matters.  He is a geneticist, not a climatologist.  The only reason he has an "credibility" with the masses, outside his area of study, is because he's a celebrity with his TV show.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Jul 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The only reason he has an "credibility" with the masses, outside his area of study, is because he's a celebrity with his TV show.


[sarcasm]You mean to tell me that people believe him only because he's a celebrity?[/sarcasm]
What's next: News networks having Paris Hilton updates from jail 24/7?  Slo-mo helicopter cams of former football stars turned murderers in LA?  Sheesh, next you're going to tell me that the Earth orbits the sun!


----------



## Thirstyson (19 Jul 2007)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I seem to recall reading somewhere (I can't remember where) that the scientists that say global warming is caused by humans tend to be biologists, and those that say it's caused by sun spots and cyclical change tend to be climatologists.
> 
> On a subject of _climate_, I tend to believe _climatologists_.  The scientists featured on _The Great Global Warming Swindle_ were mostly climatologists and meteorologists.
> 
> As for Dr. Suzuki, while I was in uni taking forestry and biology course, my professors tended to sneer at his opinions on most matters.  He is a geneticist, not a climatologist.  The only reason he has an "credibility" with the masses, outside his area of study, is because he's a celebrity with his TV show.



That's plain wrong. The vast majority of atmospheric scientists and climatologists agree that we are contributing heavily to global warming. Why not dig around and find your source. From the presentations by atmospheric scientists I've seen, (scientists that aren't even neccessarily environmentalists) they just end up getting depressed when showing the results of their measurements and the implications.

The people behind this report aren't biologists btw. http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/13463/1066/


----------



## observor 69 (19 Jul 2007)

And I repeat the most sensible thing on this topic I have read so far:

http://tinyurl.com/yoyt9g


Climate change a 'questionable truth'
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

January 27, 2007 at 1:11 AM EDT

A n Inconvenient Truth, the hugely influential documentary starring Al Gore, is a shoo-in for an Oscar. Its riveting depictions of violent storms, collapsing ice mountains and parched deserts have scared millions of people into believing that the world faces a catastrophic fate unless we make dramatic changes to our way of life, starting now.

Climate change has made its way onto the agenda of every developed nation, even the United States, where some of the nation's biggest businesses, including energy companies, are pressing the government to take action. It even figured in George W. Bush's State of the Union speech this week.

And next week the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will unleash another storm of headlines when it releases its latest consensus of scientific findings, stressing even more emphatically that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise.

Is the sky really falling? How fast and how hard? And if the vast majority of scientists agree, then why don't governments act? After all, nobody wants the world to melt.

More at link


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

>The vast majority of atmospheric scientists and climatologists agree that we are contributing heavily to global warming.

And they might very well be wrong.  The fact that most of the very little evidence we have points in one direction doesn't make the hypothesis strong.  A large fraction of a small number is still a small number.


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

> And they might very well be wrong.  The fact that most of the very little evidence we have points in one direction doesn't make the hypothesis strong.  A large fraction of a small number is still a small number.



But shouldn't we take action, because if they are correct waiting 25 years could prove to be too late.


----------



## canadianblue (20 Jul 2007)

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html



> A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.


----------



## vonGarvin (20 Jul 2007)

> But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to *recent* warming.


Ask yourself: what do they mean by "recent".  Also note that they "believe", not "know" or "hypothosise".  Be more critical when you read this stuff.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2007)

>But shouldn't we take action, because if they are correct waiting 25 years could prove to be too late.

If they're wrong and we blow massive resources solving a non-problem, we will be truly fucked if a real and massive problem comes along, not to mention the diversion of time and treasure from the myriad other serious problems facing people.


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

> If they're wrong and we blow massive resources solving a non-problem, we will be truly ****ed if a real and massive problem comes along, not to mention the diversion of time and treasure from the myriad other serious problems facing people.



But isn't becoming more sustainable, reducing dependance on non-renewable resources, and becoming more environmentally friendly a benefit for society.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> But isn't becoming more sustainable, reducing dependance on non-renewable resources, and becoming more environmentally friendly a benefit for society.



It may be, depending on the social and economic costs of each particular action taken to address each identified and quantifiable problem.  Absent identified specific problems that can be quantified then it is not possible to determine a solution and the costs and benefits associated with those solutions. And not all costs and benefits have to be quantified in dollars and cents but the do have to be quantified before solutions can be compared.

Doing nothing is always an option.


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

Doing nothing is an offense to the progress of humanity though. If we have been capable of doing so much in this past century alone, is it not within the realm of possibility that with the right effort we could change the way we move around, heat our homes, get electricity, use resources and do business.


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> Doing nothing is an offense to the progress of humanity though. If we have been capable of doing so much in this past century alone, is it not within the realm of possibility that with the right effort we could change the way we move around, heat our homes, get electricity, use resources and do business.



Teehee,

How?

dileas

tess


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

I'm not a scientist so it's not in my area of expertise. However I've read alot of articles in National Geographic, Time, and Popular Science on the subject. If I can I'll find a source, however I think one needs a subscription for either.


----------



## Yrys (21 Jul 2007)

a few laywoman guesses:

_the way we move around_ :electric or hydrogene car. And a Mc Do owner is using
used oil fry topower his car . He's starting by gaz to heat it, then to oil for running then 
back to gaz to clear the motor before stopping. More public transportation, including more trains
in beetween cities, more bycicle and alternative way of tranport.

_heat our homes_ : better way to construct our homes that are not in use due to
the constructors not beeing aware of or not caring of those ways. Those ways include,
but are not restricted to : orientaton of the house toward the sun, size of windows depending
 of the sun and surronding, materials use for the house, etc. Solar heating of it. Having a 
clock for the heating of the water tank.

That group construct a building which is more energy efficient to house their activities

http://www.equiterre.org/en/index.php 

_get electricity_ : solar and wind one come to mind

_use resources_ : less packaging, les plastics bag, etc

and _do business_ : put the price of non-renewable ressources at a level that will reflect more tht it's not renewable ...

etc.

Add : _housing_: http://news.architecture.sk/2007_07_01_archive.php
                      and of course changing the light bulbs which technique is 100 years old to the new ones.
                      Unplugging electric appliances when not in use (as microwave)
             

        _ use ressources_ : buying more food that were make/grow nearer home, with more ecological means, buying less meat
       
        _do business_ : buying more fare trade products ( http://www.equiterre.org/en/equitable/index.php ) which mean
                                    more healthy life for the producers in others countries.


----------



## gnplummer421 (21 Jul 2007)

Speaking of alternative energy.

How about the Aquabouy. A company called Finavera Renewables is building a device that captures energy from waves in the Ocean/Sea/Lakes. Pretty amazing concept. The only thing to worry about is the impact on marine life. I might have to invest in that one..

Personally I would love to be able to go completely off the grid and have Hydro 1 pay ME for electricity  ;D

Gnplummer421


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2007)

And industry is constantly looking at all those options Yrys, and evaluating whether or not they make sense, in particular whether or not the costs of production can be trimmed.  Any kind of waste, be it energy or unburnt fuel or unused raw material or unnecessary processing aids (like water) is an opportunity to make more money by reducing costs.  

Try this one on for size:  

We want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Accordingly we decide to divert corn from feeding people to inefficiently fueling cars and Richard Bransom's aircraft.

At this point we are still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere from the engines at exactly the same rate as we were before but now we are starving the third world of corn, depriving the livestock of feed and pushing up the price of producing food for everybody else.

On the other hand, as others have pointed out, plants need Carbon (C) to grow and we need Oxygen (O2) to breathe.

If we want to feed more people then we need to put more Carbon into the functioning Carbon Cycle that allows plants to grow and regenerate Oxygen from the waste we exhale.  To grow more plants and make the planet greener we need to top up the Carbon Cycle by adding more carbon.

It is similar to the need to add money to the economy as the economy grows with more people, more people needing more things and more things costing more. Every transaction has a buyer and a seller.  You need money in circulation to facilitate all the transactions in the economy.  You need carbon circulating to make possible more plants and more animals to feed more people.  If you don't add more carbon in sync with increasing population then the ecology will collapse just as an economy will collapse if there are too many goods and too little money.

I don't even pretend to know what the right balance is, either in economy or ecology.   I do believe that our planet, and we as a species, have survived events a lot more calamitous than anything we can imagine inflicting on it.    In the meantime we will continue to bumble along like the Dow-Jones and the TSE - the sum total of millions of individuals making rational decisions, each according to their own criteria - up days and down days, winners and losers, always changing but generally adapting and advancing.  I have faith in us.  I don't see the need for, nor do I trust, a superbureaucracy trying to make a plan for all the rest of us to adhere to.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy said:
			
		

> But isn't becoming more sustainable, reducing dependance on non-renewable resources, and becoming more environmentally friendly a benefit for society.



That's only in the idiom of _this_ society. The Vikings reacted to the last bout of Global Warming by expanding their population and pillaging their way across Europe, into Russia and sailing west to "Tilley" (Iceland), Greenland (which really was green at the time) and "Vineland" (Modern Newfoundland and Labrador). The next "little Ice Age" will elicit a different response , and five hundred years from now some future human civilization may have yet another way of dealing with the renewed warming.

Even in the contemporary world, the Chinese and Indians are satisfying a very different set of priorities, so there are no "universal" answers, just a range of responses.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Jul 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Accordingly we decide to divert corn from feeding people to inefficiently fueling cars and Richard Bransom's aircraft.



And this is the crux of the problem with the "just in case" argument: a lower standard of living to us might mean riding our bikes to work rather than driving, but at the same time result in something far more dire for those with fewer choices or alternatives ... it's been brought up before, but the "just in case" banning of DDT is the sole reason why millions continue to die of Malaria to this day.


----------



## Flip (21 Jul 2007)

Sigs Guy,
The simple reason for what was accomplished in the last hundred years or so 
was the cheap and abundant energy provided by fossil fuels.

Take away the fuel = Take away the progress.

Yrys,
Sure - conserve - never the wrong answer.
But we can't conserve our way to zero.



> Even in the contemporary world, the Chinese and Indians are satisfying a very different set of priorities, so there are no "universal" answers, just a range of responses.



We can take a vow of poverty for the sake of the planet.
Then what? The Chinese and Indians will take our place - and then some.
In the developed world we have pollution controls.
In the developing world - not so much.

If we could find a replacement with the same energy density 
everything would be fine.  Cold fusion was a beautiful dream.

Kirkhill points out something though..............
Greenhouse owners know that CO2 concentrations can be increased to
greatly increase production.  A little CO2 goes a long way in making
greenhouse crops grow faster and healthier.

Makes me think........Hmmmm


----------



## canadianblue (21 Jul 2007)

> The simple reason for what was accomplished in the last hundred years or so
> was the cheap and abundant energy provided by fossil fuels.
> 
> Take away the fuel = Take away the progress.



What happens if we can no longer find that fuel, and if it is mainly in places which are "troubled spots" in the world? 

As well if a society is only dependant on a non-renewable resource isn't it also possible that if that resource runs out, that progress will no longer come about.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2007)

>But isn't becoming more sustainable, reducing dependance on non-renewable resources, and becoming more environmentally friendly a benefit for society.

Yes, but not at any cost.


----------



## Flip (21 Jul 2007)

> What happens if we can no longer find that fuel, and if it is mainly in places which are "troubled spots" in the world?



Conservation is a good thing! I agree.  But let's not shut off the economy while we find
a new source of energy.  BTW - I live in Alberta.  Is "Alberta a troubled spot"?



> As well if a society is only dependant on a non-renewable resource isn't it also possible that if that resource runs out, that progress will no longer come about.



Yes, exactly right, civilizations rise and fall on their resources.
Why pull the plug on this one?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2007)

The answers to many of the questions about how viable "renewable" resources are (as well as many discussions about non renewables) is in the "A Scary strategic problem-No oil" thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017.0.html

A quick summary for those of you who don't want to jump into 14 pages of information:

Renewable resources are niche products, being intermittent and having low energy density.

Modern civilization needs power that is reliable 24/7, and available on demand.

Thermal power generation (via burning hydrocarbons or nuclear fission) is the _only_ viable solution with today's technology.

Hydrocarbons, because they are liquid or solid at sensible temperatures and have high energy density, are the only viable form of portable energy with present or projected technologies.

Much energy goes to thermodynamic losses. The laws of physics are very clear, and constantly enforced.

Some products and technologies are on the horizon, but the installed capital base will take decades to be replaced

Read on


----------



## GAP (22 Jul 2007)

From Wales, a box to make biofuel from car fumes
Michael Szabo, Reuters 
Article Link

QUEENSFERRY (Reuters) - The world's richest corporations and finest minds spend billions trying to solve the problem of carbon emissions, but three fishing buddies in North Wales believe they have cracked it. 

They have developed a box which they say can be fixed underneath a car in place of the exhaust to trap the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming -- including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide -- and emit mostly water vapor. 

The captured gases can be processed to create a biofuel using genetically modified algae. 

Dubbed "Greenbox," the technology developed by organic chemist Derek Palmer and engineers Ian Houston and John Jones could, they say, be used for cars, buses, lorries and eventually buildings and heavy industry, including power plants. 

"We've managed to develop a way to successfully capture a majority of the emissions from the dirtiest motor we could find," Palmer, who has consulted for organizations including the World Health Organisation and GlaxoSmithKline, told Reuters. 

The three, who stumbled across the idea while experimenting with carbon dioxide to help boost algae growth for fish farming, have set up a company called Maes Anturio Limited, which translates from Welsh as Field Adventure. 

With the backing of their local member of parliament they are now seeking extra risk capital either from government or industry: the only emissions they are not sure their box can handle are those from aviation

More on link


----------



## canadianblue (22 Jul 2007)

> Conservation is a good thing! I agree.  But let's not shut off the economy while we find
> a new source of energy.  BTW - I live in Alberta.  Is "Alberta a troubled spot"?



Venezuela, the Middle East, etc. 

The oil isn't going to be around forever. 



> Yes, exactly right, civilizations rise and fall on their resources.
> Why pull the plug on this one?



Because failure to adapt to change usually results in a fall.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2007)

If you take the time to read this and the related thread you will see that there are many alternatives under consideration, ranging from extracting oil from more difficult and expensive sources to developing synthetic hydrocarbons to switching to non hydrocarbon alternatives.

The primary sticking point is economics, for the forseeable future the producers of cheap oil can undercut any of these alternatives. Some of these alternatives are not viable at all; Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) can use fuels that are not normally considered (high-sulfur coal, heavy petroleum residues and biomass), but at a capital cost of $3,593/kW. There are few situations where a viable market could be found for this system.

However, history and economics shows us alternatives are always developed. Tudor England suffered an energy crisis in the 1500's when they reached the "peak forest" point, and there was no longer cheap wood to turn into charcoal. Coal was available at a sensible price. In the mid 1800's, whale oil became scarce and expensive, but civilization rode out the "peak whale" point and switched to petrolium as the most cost effective alternative. What we will switch to after "peak oil" isn't clear at this time (I'm sure Elizabeth I or the Congress of the 1850's would not have been able to tell you the solutions to the "peak forest" or "peak whale" energy crisis either), but it will have to be high density, portable and storable for long periods of time at sensible temperatures in order to be acceptable.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jul 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> Kirkhill points out something though..............
> Greenhouse owners know that CO2 concentrations can be increased to
> greatly increase production.  A little CO2 goes a long way in making
> greenhouse crops grow faster and healthier.
> ...




Just to be clear - I believe it was your information on Greenhouses that originally sparked my following that path Flip.  

56k Dialup......less to follow.

Cheers.


----------



## Kalatzi (23 Jul 2007)

Interesting Video 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&eurl
Doesnt focus on rows - did we or did we not cause climate change
But on columns - what do we do or not do

I thought the logic was sound
Col A


----------



## Flip (24 Jul 2007)

Kalatzi,
Yup saw the video.

It's a specious argument called the "precautionary principal".
-not quite as rational as it purports to be.

3 assumptions exist on his chart of 4 sections.

1, We take significant action that we didn't need to-
is not as benign as suggested - unintended consequences
some of them environmental.

2, We take significant action that we need to- 
assumes our actions will actually have some effect.
Considering China and India - they won't.
We could shut off the taps tommorrow and 
Asia will consume every drop of oil that we don't.

3, We take no significant action and should have-
assumes that life on earth as we know it is over.
This has been overhyped and twisted for a long
long time.  To the point of absurdity, I would say.
This also overlooks potential benefits of climate change.

No - the video doesn't sell me on anything.

Don't get me wrong........
I'm all for precautionary measures that  DO NO HARM .
I would love to use Geothermal heat for my home and business.
More insulation is a good thing.
Better mileage in the car - yay!
I'm a huge fan of new technology. I'm in a technology business.

But let's not pretend those twisty light bulbs will save the planet.
And some ghastly new tax will make polar bears happy. :


----------



## eerickso (26 Jul 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> But let's not pretend those twisty light bulbs will save the planet.



Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jul 2007)

Yeah, but you can





			
				eerickso said:
			
		

> Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?


.............but you can't get people to recycle them so all that mercury vapour ends up in landfills. How signifigant is that? As long as the energy freaks get their way, I guess the rest of the enviromental problems can suck a hind tit eh? Cherry picking greens. Gimme a break.


----------



## Flip (26 Jul 2007)

eerickso! 

Nice to hear from you!



> Sure, 15 Watts for the same amount of light a 60 Watt bulb gives you. No significant development eh?



No, it's not.

That extra 45 watts was busy heating my house when it's -40 outside and 
the Gas company (whom I won't name) have figured out that I didn't mail them
my first born.

Also, the QUALITY of light isn't the same.
You can't cut diamonds under that nasty little thing.

Besides - do the math - cutting my carbon footprint by 15 or 20% 
amounts to sweet Fanny Adams singing the blues in the big picture.

Manadatory birth control would have more impact.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2007)

From the Blogging Tories:

http://www.bloggingtories.ca/btFrameset.php?URL=http://gayandright.blogspot.com/2007/07/does-renewable-energy-harm-planet.html&TITLE=Does%20renewable%20energy%20harm%20the%20planet???



> Thursday, July 26, 2007
> *Does renewable energy harm the planet???*
> 
> Let's be honest - renewable energy have a huge footprint...
> ...


----------



## eerickso (28 Jul 2007)

Sure, I don't like heavy metals. It would be nice to mange this waste. I never put my dead batteries in the landfills. I think doing this make much more sense than driving around a huge truck to pick up a 1000 lbs of plastic bottles.

I care about my wallet like most people. I don't use electrical heating because everywhere except BC, it costs much more. 

So what do you people think about LEDs?


----------



## Flip (28 Jul 2007)

Emerging LED technology is an excellent choice because
the devices will last much much longer.
When disposed of, the metals are sealed in plastic.
In time, they will be extremely efficient.

They, are not however innocent on the manufacturing footprint side.
Mining and processing the exotic materials into working semiconductor
is a huge undertaking.  Gallium is not as common as say tungsten.
Indium is a waste product of other industry and quite rare.
Putting all of this into a product uses materials 
(mostly in gaseous form) that make phosgene look like breathable atmosphere. 

To be fair the amounts of material are quite small.
Needless to say, the environmental controls on such an undertaking need to be strict.
There is THE problem with LEDs .

I'm being a bit alarmist on this simply because I don't trust asian governments
in the regulation regard.

I have a semiconductor fabrication facility less than two miles from my home and
that doesn't don't bother me a bit.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Aug 2007)

Note to Suzuki, Gore, et.al.: global warming is calculation error, not a 'fact' http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878 ...  the new results here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880



> *A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open*
> By Steve McIntyre
> 
> There has been some turmoil yesterday on the leaderboard of the U.S. (Temperature) Open and there is a new leader.
> ...


 (and that's using data collection techniques that we already know are fatally flawed, eg: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1850#more-1850 )


----------



## Strike (9 Aug 2007)

Although I am not all doom and gloom about the situation, I do try and keep my energy consumption limited.  Which is why the big hubbub about putting windmills on Wolfe Island, ON just makes me shake my head.  There's also a big issue in ON right now about certain subdivisions that do not allow clothes lines because they are considered unseemly.  Well, I plan on putting one up at my new house and, if there is some such bylaw and a complaint comes in, I'll go over to the person who made that complaint the next time I do laundry and use their dryer.  Forget the whole thing about energy consumption.  I'm just trying to save a few bucks!


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2007)

and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!


a good summary of the implications of this news . .  

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/


Steve McIntyre  is a great Canadian. . . exposing the scientific errors and fraud done by the Faith Based Scientists "proving"  AGW  - but refusing to releaase their data, their methods or their funding sources.  

Just "trust us"  . . .  we wouldn't lie to you.


----------



## Flip (9 Aug 2007)

> and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!



Can you show me?

This week King David and his foundation started freeking out about the cut flower trade.

Seems 6000 Canadians a year are poisoned by pesticide - and this just has to be the source.

Hey Dr S. - Let's ban all imports from the developing world and see what happens!


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2007)

google is your friend too.

It is in the annual reports of his society . . .

http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

After Suzuki insinuates that scientists who disagree with him are "shilling" for big corporations, Oakley asks him where he gets his funding. Suzuki replies that his foundation takes no money from governments and complains that “corporations have not been interested in funding us." (To hear the audio clip click here.)

Corporations uninterested? Is it possible that the Great Suzuki has failed to attract a single corporate donation to his feel-good campaign to save the earth? Not one?

Actually, the David Suzuki Foundation’s annual report for 2005/2006 lists at least 52 corporate donors including: Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Microsoft, Scotia Capital, Warner Brothers, RBC, Canon and Bank of Montreal.

The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants... which begs the question – is Suzuki now pro-nuclear power?

If I were less generous I might be tempted to accuse Suzuki of hypocrisy for accepting donations from corporations that he must believe contribute significantly to the production of greenhouse gases, but that would miss the point entirely. The real issue is that, contrary to his clear assertion, the David Suzuki Foundation does receive funding from corporations.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (9 Aug 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> and remember . . Suzuki is funded by Big Oil !!
> 
> 
> a good summary of the implications of this news . .
> ...



I think you meant to post this permalink: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Aug 2007)

Strike said:
			
		

> There's also a big issue in ON right now about certain subdivisions that do not allow clothes lines because they are considered unseemly.



One of my biggest WTF's .  All the new subdivions in Guelph make the purchasers sign a 20 year no clothesline pact.   Just friggin' unbelievable.

I love my clothesline.........


----------



## a_majoor (9 Aug 2007)

A fun civic action campaign: start a petition in your city to ensure all houses have clotheslines in order to fight "global warming".

Then watch who comes out to oppose your campaign and the reasons they give for banning clotheslines..........


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (16 Aug 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Note to Suzuki, Gore, et.al.: global warming is calculation error, not a 'fact' http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1878 ...  the new results here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1880
> (and that's using data collection techniques that we already know are fatally flawed, eg: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1850#more-1850 )



Took them a while, but CTV National News picked up on this last night (buried at the end of the newscast, after the space shuttle stuff, but at least it's there) ... from the home page http://www.ctv.ca/ click on Lloyd Robertson's face (CTV News video: left side, about half-way down), the video player pops up and you can skip straight to the story by clicking on "NASA blunder 3:23" (make sure you are on August 15, 2007 newscast, they seem to hold about 5 days in the player).

I'm not holding by breath for the CBC, New York Times and the rest to pick up on this any time soon ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2007)

One potential refinement for IC engines is to revive an idea from the 1920's and 30's: opposed piston engines.

The idea is to create a two stroke diesel engine with two pistons facing each other in the same cylinder. Intake and exhaust ports are covered and uncovered by the movement of the pistons and a very efficient uniflow scavenging effect is created. The engine also dispenses with cylinder heads, valves, spark plugs or glow plugs. The down side is you either need two crank shafts or some long connecting rods and rocker arms to connect one set of pistons to the crankshaft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposed_piston_engine

Despite these potential pitfalls, a very fuel efficient Junkers Jumo engine was deployed in the 1930's, the US Navy exclusively uses this type of diesel engine in submarines (yes, even nuclear submarines have diesel engines stashed aboard for emergency generation and power), and forms of this engine were used in trucks, British tanks (the Chieftain), diesel locomotives and even a triangular form of the engine (Napier "Deltic") in patrol boats where three sets of cylinders shared three crank cases, churning out a total of 3000+ hp, and an experimental version with a turbo compounding system capturing exhaust energy and feeding it back to the final drive reputedly achieved almost 6000 hp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_engine

Some companies are trying to revive this system with engines optimised for light aircraft (see the DAIR 100, for example http://www.dair.co.uk/

The questions are:
1. Can modern production technology ensure these kinds of engines have comprable reliability to conventional engines?

2. Is the increase in fuel efficiency cost effective given the increased costs of the engine?

3. Are manufacturers willing to make changes to the form factors of their product lines (i.e. car engine bays) to fit this type of engine?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2007)

*Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory*

Daily Tech Article link



> Michael Asher (Blog) - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
> 
> IPCC co-chairs for Netherlands and Sierra Leone debate changes to the Report Summary.Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (3 Sep 2007)

Thanks RecceGuy!

Next time someone says something like "what about all the scientists?"
I'll have this for them.........


----------



## Haletown (3 Sep 2007)

and then again, we have the infamous "2500 leading scientists" that the IPCC and all the Warmongers hyperventilate about . . .  2500 names, but only 605 individuals.  No fraud there, just an "oversight"  I'd guess.  Kinda like the NASA climate data that is bogus.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005909.html


Y2Kyoto: How Many Scientists Does It Take To Unscrew All Your Lightbulbs?

Reader "ural" picked up on something in the comments;

    "I just stuck the list [of contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report] into a spreadsheet to see who the 2500+ consensus scientists were ... See what happens when I sort the names... We're down to 605 consensus scientists"


Indeed. It's an exaggeration that's been previous noted. Roger Pielke Sr.;

    The media is in error when it states that, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change –made up of thousands of scientists from around the world — reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels….” (see)

    Are there really “thousands of scientists” who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists.

    [...]

    This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community.

    The use of the term “lead authors” is also misleading as most are co-authors with one lead author per chapter. The contributing authors provide material and comment, but, based on my experience in the 1995 IPCC report process, do not function as true co-authors. Thus the actually number of true lead authors actually corresponds to just the first author on each chapter.


The list still includes the name of leading hurricane expert, Chris Landsea, who publicly withdrew in 2005, citing IPPC misrepresentation of the research ;

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity.


So, ural, that should be 604.
Posted by Kate at April 4, 2007 6:32 AM


----------



## observor 69 (3 Sep 2007)

I was greatly impresseed by the following Margaret Wente G&M column "Climate change a 'questionable truth" January 27, 2007.
This column stands out for me as a reasonable rational middle ground on this issue.

http://tinyurl.com/yoyt9g

The last few paras of the article:

Mark Jaccard is a professor of resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, and also the author of an award-winning book called Sustainable Fossil Fuels. It's not a zippy read like The Weather Makers, but it's way more important, and Prof. Jaccard is in big demand these days among people wrestling with climate policy. 

He argues that the best way to cut down on emissions is to clean up fossil fuels — which, like it or not, will still be our main source of energy for the next few decades. Cleaning up fossil fuels is far more feasible than, say, imagining we can replace them any time soon with wind or solar or biomass or hydrogen. 

How to clean up fossil fuels? Tell the energy industry that it must capture a growing amount of the carbon it emits, by scrubbing it out or dumping it back into the ground. Set the targets and let the industry figure out how to meet them. Start gradually and ramp up. Small changes starting now will reap huge benefits down the road — not in time for the next hurricane season, but in generations to come. 

This is not as sexy as putting solar panels on your roof or riding your bike to work. But it's actually a better solution to the problem. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger is doing this already, by imposing carbon-reduction targets on the automakers. “They're market-oriented regulations,” Prof. Jaccard says. “What he says is, ‘You guys figure out how to get it done.' ” 

By the way, Prof. Jaccard and other climate economists agree we should have started taking this type of action years ago, and they blast both business and governments for not getting off the dime. 

Other experts have different (but not incompatible) takes. “We need to break out the challenges of energy policy and adaptation into many tens of thousands of parts,” Roger Pielke Jr. says. Despite the many uncertainties, we don't need to wait to act, if only because many of the things we should do are worth doing on their own. For example, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world — through substitution, conservation and new technologies — is a no-brainer. 

But what about the alarmists? The ones who argue that the only way to save the planet is to stop driving, stop flying and stop consuming? Prof. Jaccard (who told me that he himself tries to live with a “small material footprint”) says: “Environmental activists are using climate change to wrap around their message about how they want humans to behave differently.” 

In other words, it's not just carbon emissions they object to. It's our whole materialist, growth-oriented, SUV-driving way of life. For this reason, he argues that people like Tim Flannery are actually dangerous. “He gives people the impression that putting solar panels on your roof is actually a solution to the problem. And it's not.”

Here's another thought from Yale's Robert Mendelsohn. “The mistake Al Gore and others are making is to look at the cumulative effects of all the emissions over the next 100 years if we do nothing. And they say that will be really bad. And they may well be right. But the economics of this is that the damage from emissions now is quite small. So what we ought to be doing now is relatively mild things that don't cost very much. You should start slow and get increasingly strict over time.”

Mark Jaccard agrees. In fact, he argues that if we start to do the right things now, we will scarcely notice because adjustment will be gradual. The important thing is to get started. Now. 

So what can a worried citizen do? “Lobby the politicians to put policies in place immediately that put a value on the environment,” he says. “Drive your car to Ottawa if you have to. The most important thing is to get policies in place that are intelligent.” And go ahead and ride your bike to work. At the very least, it will be good for your health.

As for Al Gore, here's one prediction you can bank on: Even though much of what he says is dubious or just plain wrong, he's going to win that Oscar anyway. 

Margaret Wente is a columnist for The Globe and Mail.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (8 Sep 2007)

Heres something of interest to those who think global warming isn't having any ill effects.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20645362/



> *Most polar bears could die out by 2050*
> 
> WASHINGTON - Two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — and the entire population gone from Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday.
> 
> ...


----------



## DBA (8 Sep 2007)

Are the seals abandoning the planet in spaceships or something? Polar bears hunt on iceflows because that's where seals hang out, if the seals start hanging out someplace else the polar bears will go looking for them. In fact I see the opposite effect to disappearing iceflows - seals will be easier to catch all year making the polar bear population increase. When the Vinkings gave Greenland it's name because it was green it's a good bet the iceflows were also much reduced and both the polar bears and seals didn't go extinct.


----------



## Flip (8 Sep 2007)

I think the gist of this thread has been cause v. effect.

Not so much about "if" the climate is changing but why.
If one were to read back through, It's pretty clear
that change occuring and that it has been conceded.

Is man causing the problem? Is it a problem? 
Or is change the only constant?

I, for one think we need to focus back on good old fashioned
pollution. Not just here, but in Asia where pollution is growing 
faster than the economies are that are producing it.

Along with the E.coli loaded toys and Lead covered food. ;D


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2007)

as of June 2007, Canadian researchers have a different opinion.

http://www.fws.gov/international/animals/polarbears/Canada%20Presentation.pdf

"Impacts of climate warming are evident in two Canadian subpopulations, and declines in body condition have been documented in a third"

That's  two of 13 subpopulations and Canada has 15,000 polar bears  - 66% of the world's total.

Sounds like the American researchers are "crying wolf" to keep their bear research funding flowing . . . .


----------



## George Wallace (8 Sep 2007)

I have a problem with this article.  How is it that recent studies have documented the Polar Bear population on the rise, not the decline?  Could all of these predictions be more of an indicator that without natural predators or hunters, the polar bear population is in fact the problem?  Too many bears; too few means to feed them.  This is probably also the cause for all the reported incidents of polar bears entering human habitations more frequently.  Perhaps the real problem is that these animals are on a "Protected Species" list and have overpopulated their habitate, thus being subjected to starvation.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (8 Sep 2007)

> "*Projected* changes in future sea ice conditions,* if realized*, will result ...



Of course if those projections are wrong, or their effects are not exactly what we expect, we could also be overrun by a massive over-population of polar bears.

This is exactly my problem with the global cooling global warming climate change believers: repeating (or exaggerating) supposed consequences _does not_ prove the underlying assumptions in any way (and for my part, it actually makes me more wary of the motives of those who repeat them).


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (8 Sep 2007)

Heres a good article on what the Inuit elders have to say about polar bear populations.

http://josephbutson.com/JosephButson/nfblog/?p=104



> *Inuit Elders:Too Many Polar Bears*
> I listened to NPR a couple of days back and a very upset Howard Ruby, photographer and billionaire, bemoaned the effect Climate Change will have on the polar bear population.
> 
> Fast forward to a piece at cbc.ca where the Inuit elders are very concerned about the Nunuavut Environment Minister and Canadian Wildlife Services attempts to conserve a so-called declining polar bear population and are proposing moratorium on hunting.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2007)

Y2Kyoto: Is That A 90-Horse Johnson Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?
check out the chart.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/005307.html

or how to use "Peer Review" to fool the fools.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2007)

Love this cartoon:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Sep 2007)

Polar bears are definately being affected by global warming!  Watch this compelling video to see just how bad it has gotten for them.  
Nice to see some corporate support from the makers of Halls to highlight this critical issue.


----------



## Haletown (13 Sep 2007)

meanwhile, over in Kyoto La-La Land  . .  Steffi gets fisked.  The comments are wonderful.  Wonder what Pablo Rodriguez knew and when. And why Steffi supported his Kyoto compliance bill.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007025.html#comments

Y2Kyoto: Dion's Dog Didn't Hunt

Calgary Sun;

    The paper copy of a power-point presentation assembled for incoming Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn specifically addresses whether Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels during the next four years and when Canada can pull out of the accord.

    One page raises the question, "Whether/when to acknowledge Canada will be very unlikely to meet target?"

    It goes on to state the government "Cannot formally 'de-ratify' (Kyoto) until 2009."

    The document, dated Feb. 3, 2006, was only days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet was sworn in after the Conservatives' election victory. Less than two mo


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2007)

Ancient records help gauge climate change
Updated Mon. Sep. 17 2007 8:04 AM ET The Associated Press
Article Link

EINSIEDELN, Switzerland -- A librarian at this 10th century monastery leads a visitor beneath the vaulted ceilings of the archive past the skulls of two former abbots. He pushes aside medieval ledgers of indulgences and absolutions, pulls out one of 13 bound diaries inscribed from 1671 to 1704 and starts to read about the weather.

"Jan. 11 was so frightfully cold that all of the communion wine froze," says an entry from 1684 by Brother Josef Dietrich, governor and "weatherman" of the once-powerful Einsiedeln Monastery. "Since I've been an ordained priest, the sacrament has never frozen in the chalice."

"But on Jan. 13 it got even worse and one could say it has never been so cold in human memory," he adds.

Diaries of day-to-day weather details from the age before 19th-century standardized thermometers are proving of great value to scientists who study today's climate. Historical accounts were once largely ignored, as they were thought to be fraught with inaccuracy or were simply inaccessible or illegible. But the booming interest in climate change has transformed the study of ancient weather records from what was once a "wallflower science," says Christian Pfister, a climate historian at the University of Bern.

The accounts dispel any lingering doubts that the Earth is heating up more dramatically than ever before, he says. Last winter -- when spring blossoms popped up all over the Austrian Alps, Geneva's official chestnut tree sprouted leaves and flowers, and Swedes were still picking mushrooms well into December -- was Europe's warmest in 500 years, Pfister says. It came after the hottest autumn in a millennium and was followed by one of the balmiest Aprils on record.
More on link


----------



## Strike (17 Sep 2007)

Here's a nice little link on carbon levels throughout history.  Seems we hit the end of an ice age every 80 000 yrs with minor ice ages in between.  This took all of 3 seconds to find so I'm sure there are more out there.  If I had my scanner handy I could show a nice graph from my Environmental Sciences textbook.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale

Also, that period in time (1600's) that the article refers to is known as the little ice age in history books.  The Midieval period 500 yrs prior was very warm in comparison.  Musta been all those darn dragons causing the global warming then.   ;D


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (17 Sep 2007)

"There were these two days in 1684, that were like _really_ cold, dude ..." more *super-scientific* proof that 





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> dispels any lingering doubts that the Earth is heating up more dramatically than ever before,



Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn _Deniers _at the stake?


----------



## GAP (17 Sep 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> "There were these two days in 1684, that were like _really_ cold, dude ..." more *super-scientific* proof that
> Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn _Deniers _at the stake?



How do you think they ended the Mini-IceAge?......by burning Christians, witches, and just about anybody else they
 could lay their hands on

Can we start with NDP, then move on to some more noiser ones?.....wait, we already are heating up, maybe we just take sacks and beat out the flames before they add to much heat to the atmosphere.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2007)

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> "There were these two days in 1684, that were like _really_ cold, dude ..." more *super-scientific* proof that
> Why do I get the feeling that plans are being made to burn _Deniers _at the stake?



Better start stocking up on offsetting carbon credits then - judging from old records it takes an awful lot of kindling to reduce your average witch to ashes.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2007)

I don't know if anyone else has commented on this article yet.  It is a Sept 11th article from David Suzuki about Biofuels - Critizing Them.

If it has already been discussed I apologize.  I am having to do a bit of catch up on this site having been tied up elsewhere for a while.



> Biofuels not necessarily all that green
> 
> By DAVID SUZUKI, WITH FAISAL MOOLA
> 
> ...



http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2007/09/11/4487821-ca.html


In my mind this raises the question of how many other "solutions" David hasn't bothered to crunch the numbers on.  None of this is exactly new.  These arguments were raised as far back as the 1970s: popularly by people like Jerry Pournelle in his book "One Step Farther Out" (IIRC - It could have been One Step Beyond) as well as by many other engineers and peer-reviewed scientists.

Basic laws of physics haven't changed, nor have those of economics.  Richard Bransom's "Biofuel" aircraft will suck up fossil fuels to make biofuels, generate more CO2 as a result, and deny Carbon in the usable and sequesterable form of food to the world's population.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

I think you're safe Kirkhill; I don't recall seeing it on-site prior to your post. I will leave the whip securely on my hip.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2007)

Don't be too hasty in putting that whip away  >


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Don't be too hasty in putting that whip away  >



Whoa there, wrong thread!  >

There have been some other articles about the dangers of conversion to bio fuels in Army.ca (I an a big offender, since it can't be said too many times that it takes 5 units of energy to produce 4 units of energy from ethanol), although seeing David Suzuki coming on side....

Kirkhill, I would lend you "A Step Farther Out" except my copy finally gave up the ghost and split along the spine. You can apparently order "A Step Farther Out" and the sequal "Another Step Farther Out" on Chaos Manor, so I am saving my pennies. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view471.html#Tuesday


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2007)

I knew I could count on you to come up with the right Pournelle reference Arthur.  Mange Tak. 

As to the other - do we have a thread on vinyl?


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2007)

Vinyl's a little too chintzy for this girl. I'll stick with my leather.  8)


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Vinyl's a little too chintzy for this girl. I'll stick with my leather.  8)



But vinyl has a warm sound quality lacking in CD and MP3 recordings.  ;D


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2007)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> But vinyl has a warm sound quality lacking in CD and MP3 recordings.  ;D



Oh yeah, _that's_ where Kirkhill's mind was at all right ...  8)


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2007)

Here's a refreshing approach to how to deal with climate change (as well as other assorted real and potential dangers). 

http://www.meatriarchy.com/?p=690



> *A refreshing approach to Global Warming*
> 
> This article at New Republic called A Manifesto for a New Environmentalism argues that environmentalists are approaching Global Warming in the wrong way and we should take an entirely different approach:
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (20 Sep 2007)

As usual someone over at the sun has heard me thinking again.....

Article Link Here!

Great causes lose out to climate fight
By PAUL BERTON
The scientific community, most governments, the media and much of the public have identified climate change as a potential disaster that requires drastic measures. 

Whether or not Canada's measures are drastic enough remains open to debate, but the government cannot simply focus on climate change to the exclusion of all other environmental concerns. 

If a CBC report this week is correct, Environment Canada is doing just that -- freezing or cutting funding to other environmental programs due to a budget crunch. 

More on Link

OK, ok after the fourth try I got that article link thingy to work.... :-[

Anyway - as columns go, I liked it.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2007)

Just follow the money.......

http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm



> *NASA, James Hansen, and the Politicization of Science*
> Michael Asher (Blog) - September 26, 2007 11:04 AM
> 
> New issues swirl around controversial NASA branch
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2007)

And as time goes by it seems that Hansen was right the first time......Although he is a lot richer than he used to be.

From: http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm -  Glaciers all over the world are expanding.  Some are surging.  An Example



> Look at what's happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State. (Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)
> 
> This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken on
> Mt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feet
> ...




There's a lot more on the site.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2007)

A man was seated next to a little girl on an airplane when the man turned to her and said, 'Let's talk. I've found that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the man, 'What would you like to talk about?'

"Oh, I don't know," said the man. "How about nuclear power?"

"OK," she said. 'That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat grass, the same stuff. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces lumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

The man thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know Shit?"


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2007)

;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2007)

An inconvenient truth:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/10/some-sense-from-agw-believer.html



> *Some Sense from an AGW Believer*
> 
> It's refreshing to read material from an AGW believer who at least makes some sense:
> 
> ...


----------



## Franko (13 Oct 2007)

A perspective on how to deal with global warming. He makes a convincing argument....the last bit after his proposal is a bit of "feel good" mumbo jumbo IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&eurl=

So....ticket "A" or ticket "B"? We only get to play the game once......

Regards


He got some responses...and here are his "Patching holes"....1, 2 & 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGpYI9LcJkA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBy8dEtiCc4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-JtKsG2fVU&mode=related&search=


----------



## Flip (13 Oct 2007)

Found this comment in the National Post

Not bad............. ;D

Comment Link

Parts of it here............

A coup for junk science
Gore's 'truth' nets Nobel Prize
Terence Corcoran, National Post
Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007
Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time, but who knew it had sunk so low it needed a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee?

My favorite part......

Just hours before the Nobel announcement, Gore was busy spinning his way out of a devastating United Kingdom court case that found nine substantial science errors in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth.

The nine errors, listed on Page A19 of this newspaper, are truly major. But Gore's office, in true political form, tried to turn the science disaster into victory, claiming he was "gratified" that the U.K. court had not totally banned distribution of his film in British schools. Instead, it would have to circulate like a package of cigarettes, with a warning label: Children watch this movie at peril of being politically manipulated by Al Gore into thinking what they are watching is true.

Nice finish..........

Given his science gaffes, and his political liabilities, the Nobel may be more of a liability, not just to Gore but to the entire global warming community. The prize has elevated junk science, gross exaggeration and outright misrepresentation to high international stature, the most prestigious award in the world, discrediting all who work honestly to find the facts and do the right thing.

Enjoy................. ;D

Edit to add: Link to the above mentioned News article

U.K. judge rules Gore film 'exaggerated'
Parent challenged the showing of documentary in classrooms
Allison Hanes, National Post, With Files From News Services
Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007
A British High Court judge this week exposed nine inaccuracies in former U.S. vicepresident Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, labelling it "a political film" and calling many of its claims about climate change "alarmist" and "exaggerated."


----------



## sboatright (13 Oct 2007)

Interesting response to Gore's Nobel "Peace" Prize (from Dr William Gray):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2007)

I believe that Al Gore believes passionately in what he believes.  I also believe that Al Gore believes passionately in the world view of his father and his father's close friend and associate, the late Armand Hammer....Google that one and watch what turns up.

In 1982 President Galtieri was facing a domestic political crisis.  Effectively his government was threatened because of unpopular policies.  To stave off the inevitable he reverted to a time honoured tactic.  He found an external threat. In his case the Brits.  Quickly the whole country stepped in line and the government was saved (until the war was lost - unintended consequences).

George Bush has been accused of manufacturing a threat in the form of Iraq to hold on to power.
Ahmadinejad is widely believed to ACTUALLY involved in the same game.  Creating a Great Satan so as to permit him to create the conditions for the return of the Hidden Imam.
Chirac and Schroeder won re-election handily by declaring themselves to be the only sane counter-weights to Cowboy George.

In all cases "critical thinking" went out the window and the masses stampeded into line.

It is my belief the Al wants to create the "External Threat "so as to get everybody to fall in line with his prescriptive policies.  If you make a mob fearful enough then it stops being a group of rational individuals making informed decisions. It becomes instead a mindless lifeform looking for a brain.  Al wants to be the Mob's brain.  Apparently there are enough mindless lifeforms out there willing to let him be their's.

Now whether or not the Nobel committee is composed of mindless lifeforms or, instead, share's Al's World View is for some one else to decide.

Suffice it to say it was instructive to rewatch an old Burt Lancaster movie tonight: "Elmer Gantry".


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2007)

On a lighter note:  I came across this.  It is only tangentially related to Global Warming (except in the economic policy arena).  But I ended up killing myself laughing - Combination Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks and Yes Minister.



> Can we trade carbon credits on non-existent methane emissions?
> One quizzical entrepreneur writes to the UK's former head of environment and rural affairs (now decamped to the Foreign Office) with a unique take on emissions and agricultural subsidies
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5278&rss=ec-main.xml


----------



## Flip (14 Oct 2007)

:rofl:

Kirkhill! 

This effort is vital!

You see........Pigs fart.

 :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2007)

Another item you won't see in the MSM:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/11/greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-time.html



> 22 November 2007
> *The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time*
> 
> The "it's all about oil" crowd constantly remind us that where profit is to be made ... trust can't be had. What they don't tell us, is that the green industry, especially the AGW industry ... has become a multi-billion dollar tax hore ... dwarfing just about any other government funded "scientific" initiative. Essentially, tax payer's dollars have created a gold mine ... for gold digging "greens" and scientists who wish to trade in that Chev Impala for an Escalade.
> ...



You could forward the URL to your local paper, but a blogburst will at least make sure the word gets out.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Nov 2007)

China wants financial support from the wealthy countries ? Kind of defeats the purpose of a country complying with Kyoto. Any climate deal thats exempts India and China is a non-starter. Second I would hope there would be solid scientific proof that there is a man made cause for global warming  before we waltz down the road to economic ruin. No global climate treaty should be a suicide pact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSP33153420071130?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.

Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.

He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.

That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.

"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.

"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."

China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.

"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."

Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.

He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.

Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.

"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.

"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."

China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.

When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility

China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.

On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2007)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=TopStories

On the right-hand side, under videos, click on the link for Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist.

Global Warming indeed- in his opinion, we are headed for a frosty 30 thirty years as the sun goes into a cool cycle.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2007)

> "Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.



It appears that the Chinese believe that Doctrine follows Technology as well ...... ;D  but I digress.

As has been noted before by many others - most recently in the Jawarowski article cited by CJ article and Thucydides - this has ALWAYS been about wealth redistribution - socialism on a global scale.




> ... there are hidden motives behind the global warming
> hysteria. Although there is not the space in this paper to discuss these motives fully, they maybe illustrated by the following citations (for full references, see Jaworowski 1999).
> 
> • Maurice Strong, who dropped out of school at age 14, established an esoteric global headquarters for the New Age movement in San Luis Valley, Colorado,
> ...



The prospect of Maurice Strong and the lads in Beijing getting to define "Mortality Controls" is a truly INTERESTING thought.  I think I saw that movie once.

Now we have Nicholas Stern explicitly tying Global Warming and Kyoto to the 0.7% GDP aid target.

"Bali: now the rich must pay: A fair and global effort to tackle climate change needs wealthy states to take the lead in CO2 cuts " - Nicholas Stern in The Guardian  



> ....Finally, rich countries should honour their commitment to 0.7% of GDP in aid by 2015. This would yield increases in flows of $150bn-$200bn per year. The extra costs that developing countries face as a result of climate change are likely to be upwards of $80bn a year, and it is vital that extra resources are available.



WRT Tim Ball - It is interesting that he finally got some mainstream time.  He has been saying the same thing for a long time and has been consistently decried as a "Denier".

Also, it is interesting to look at Jawarowski's graphs of ACTUAL Atmospheric CO2 levels.  He shows two pulses when the CO2 levels were much higher than now.  One, in the 18-teens and 20s shows a result of 440 ppm.  Curiously that is coincidental with the Year without any Summer of 1816 when there were July frost in Canada and the States and famines in Europe. It broadly believed to the eruption of a massive volcano in Indonesia (Mount Tambora).  That might suggest that IF CO2 has any effect if MIGHT be a cooling blanket keeping the sun out - or maybe it was just the particles of ash that blocked the sun.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2007)

>Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries

Just cut your arms production by a commensurate amount, comrades.


----------



## Flip (1 Dec 2007)

> Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries



There I've quoted a quote....

China isn't an industialized country???  Where was this mouse thingy made?
And every other damn thing I see around me.

Gao no longer lives in the China of 1975.  We should all understand that.


----------



## Haletown (1 Dec 2007)

Rex says it all . . 

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/bali_logic.html


No two tier climate change solutions !!


----------



## Haletown (1 Dec 2007)

and of course, since we now have real data that proves there is no correlation between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, the balloon will eventually  burst on The Goreacle/Dr. Fruit Fly/Steffi+Lizzy fear mongering in pursuit of other goals.  The models they built don't work, are based on flawed assumptions and are only good for stampeding the herd over the cliif.

I wonder how all this people who  bought into this ponzi scheme are going to feel about the Environmental Industry when the realize they have been taken to the cleaners ?   Will they still believe and support the Environmentalists ?  Will they look the other way at the million dollar salaries, the private jets, the do as I say not as I do folks who run the big international environmental organizations ? Will they support the do-gooder Hollywood environmentalists who  own five mansions, multiple  jets and a fleet of cars ??  

Perhaps not. 


http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_temperatures_are_uncorrelated_with_carbon_dioxide_trends_this_last_d/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Dec 2007)

Asa I understand it, Tim Ball is not denying that CO2 causes Global Warming- in fact, he seems to welcome it.  His thesis is that the Sun is entering a period of reduced radiance and since the Sun is by far the biggest player in the Global Climate puzzle, it is going to matter alot.

I wonder how the average voter is going to react once/if he/she finds out that they have been seriously frigged over by the Global Warming crowd?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (1 Dec 2007)

Isn't Tim Ball the guy that figures that increased CO2 and warming are correlated, but that CO2 concentration _lags _temp changec?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> and of course, since we now have real data that proves there is no correlation between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, the balloon will eventually  burst on The Goreacle/Dr. Fruit Fly/Steffi+Lizzy fear mongering in pursuit of other goals.  The models they built don't work, are based on flawed assumptions and are only good for stampeding the herd over the cliif.
> 
> I wonder how all this people who  bought into this ponzi scheme are going to feel about the Environmental Industry when the realize they have been taken to the cleaners ?   Will they still believe and support the Environmentalists ?  Will they look the other way at the million dollar salaries, the private jets, the do as I say not as I do folks who run the big international environmental organizations ? Will they support the do-gooder Hollywood environmentalists who  own five mansions, multiple  jets and a fleet of cars ??
> 
> ...



So the next quest for us is to discover what the fear mongers will be pushing, since global climate change will be joining the coming ice age, massive global famines, massive resource depletion, peak oil, etc. in the trash bin of history.

Personally, I would be beating the drum for extinction level asteroid or cometary impact. At least we would get a capable space program from the deal.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2007)

From Celestial Junk:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/12/ecophobe-checklist.html



> *The Ecophobe Checklist*
> 
> When ecophobes argue with you, explaining in condescending tones that the science is settled and that we must do something to save the planet, test them.
> 
> ...



Or is perhaps living in a FOB or out in the field. At least that is temporary!


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2007)

This is how the CBC treated the "Coldest Winter in 15 years"  story:



> Not since the grunge era and Brian Mulroney's days as prime minister has Canada experienced a winter quite as bitter as the one expected to creep in this December, Environment Canada forecasted on Friday.



Not quite sure how to take this.


A: Brian Mulroney (and by extension the Conservatives and Stephen Harper) are harbingers of all that is evil in this world including harsh winters
B: Brian Mulroney and Co. are the cure for Global Warming and should be elected in perpetuity.

Hard to know.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> This is how the CBC treated the "Coldest Winter in 15 years"  story:
> 
> Not quite sure how to take this.
> 
> ...



The third possible subtext is: *things were soooooo good between 'Fibber Muldoon' and and 'Steve' that we all want more and more and more of 'tit Jean and Alphonso Gagliano, et al.*


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Dec 2007)

Isn't making broad brush predictions like "harshest winter since [insert arbitrary date here]" kind of like Heraldo opening Capones vault?  Generally it is a big dud and even if it is accurate then who cares?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Dec 2007)

Or the hurricane forecasts. They were so desperate this year they were even naming a storm off the coast of Nova Scotia a tropical storm. Then they worried openly that maybe no one will believe their forecasts. ;D


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (2 Dec 2007)

Interesting observation (no pun intended) on the subject of storm counts:



> *Tiny Tim Storms*
> By Steve McIntyre
> 
> 
> ...


 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2474

On the link there's much more, including graphs showing the official vs. adjusted (without the storms that had no associated ship or shore report) number of storms over time.


----------



## Sub_Guy (3 Dec 2007)

Divorce bad for the environment, researchers say

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12/03/divorce-environment.html



Something to consider before you run to the lawyer looking for a divorce!   You know you can pretty much link everything and anything to this global warming issue...  There's never a cat around when I need something to kick.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Dec 2007)

From the a/m article:



> That costs $6.9 billion US in extra utility costs per year, Liu said, plus an added $3.6 billion for water, in addition to other costs such as land use.



I have never understood the relevance of stats like this.  Since people pay for water and utilities, how does it matter if there are lots used?  Doesn't that just translate into more money into the economy?  I reiterate my almost total lack of knowledge on things financial and economic.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Divorce bad for the environment, researchers say
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/12/03/divorce-environment.html
> 
> ...



Quick.  Next butterfly you see grab it and stop it fluttering.  A sure cure for global warming (or cooling).  :


----------



## Flip (3 Dec 2007)

> Quick.  Next butterfly you see grab it and stop it fluttering.  A sure cure for global warming (or cooling).



OOps!  You made sense!  When do you see a butterfly?......When it's warm.......coincedence?   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Dec 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> OOps!  You made sense!  When do you see a butterfly?......When it's warm.......coincedence?   ;D



Dammit.  Stop me when you see that happening again.  It damages my reputation.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2007)

Perhaps the most impressive analysis of the numbers yet:

http://jojourn.blogspot.com/2007/12/help-please.html



> *Help please! Update: Jonathan Kay to the rescue!*
> Evening Update: It appears that Jonathan Kay intends to publish this editorial in tomorrow's Post - Dump Kyoto, Save Lives. (H/T National Newswatch)
> 
> It's a direct rebuttal to Byers' Star piece (see below).
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Dec 2007)

>Since people pay for water and utilities, how does it matter if there are lots used? 

In the case of water, it matters if the amount which is surplus to the requirements of nature is significantly less than demand.  Only cities which have major reservoirs not very far upstream from major bodies of water can avoid significant water use impact.  For example, the watercourses which drain greater Vancouver's reservoirs generally receive as much water as needed for the fish (spawning grounds).  Greater Vancouver has more than enough water (rain), but not enough storage to make it through the drier summer months without rationing.  The further upstream a community and the drier the climate and the greater the number of people, the more it is necessary to treat water as a commons for which people should be accountable (ie. pay).  Fortunately many of the world's largest cities are on coastlines.

The impact of increased sewerage is mainly one of water use.  Increasing the number of households (detached or otherwise) may increase water usage, if the quantity of dishes or clothes per wash is reduced.  The same number of people still take the same number of showers/baths and execute the same number of toilet flushes per day.  Increasing the number of homes with yards definitely increases water usage.

More households require more energy (electricity, fuel oil, natural gas).  But I suspect the real aggravating factor is home size.  People expect to have more space and more privacy (more bedrooms, more bathrooms) than in the recent past.


----------



## Flip (4 Dec 2007)

In Edmonton we have a water strategy no one wants to talk about.

You see the waste treatment plant is upstream from Edmonton about 10Km
The water intake is roughly halfway into Edmonton.

Yup, we drink our own bath water.  We'll never run out.   ;D


----------



## observor 69 (4 Dec 2007)

Couple of good articles from todays' G&M that make sense to me:

That ol' beer-fridge paradox,  By MARGARET WENTE  
   
 http://tinyurl.com/37d4bf

Preaching and preening, Canada-style, By JEFFREY SIMPSON  

http://tinyurl.com/2pub6b

Enjoy!


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Dec 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313844,00.html

More on the beer fridge


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Dec 2007)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,313844,00.html
> 
> More on the beer fridge



Yeah, of course the study is from a Brit.  Those weirdos drink their beer at room temperature.  Ugh!


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2007)

*UP THE POPE!!!* 
And my Grandfather would never have expected to hear that line from one of his in anything but an ironic tone.  But I mean it.
Presumably the Pope knows something about Prophets and Dogma.

Printed in full from the Daily  Mail  via Gateway Pundit.

*The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom*
By SIMON CALDWELL 
Last updated at 14:48pm on 12th December 2007

Attack: Pope Benedict criticised climate-change prophets of doom

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. 

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. 

The German-born Pontiff said that while some concerns may be valid it was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement. 

His remarks will be made in his annual message for World Peace Day on January 1, but they were released as delegates from all over the world convened on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali for UN climate change talks. 

The 80-year-old Pope said the world needed to care for the environment but not to the point where the welfare of animals and plants was given a greater priority than that of mankind. 

"Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow," he said in the message entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace". 

"It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. 

"If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. 

"Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken." 

Efforts to protect the environment should seek "agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances", the Pope said. 

He added that to further the cause of world peace it was sensible for nations to "choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions" in how to cooperate responsibly on conserving the planet. 

The Pope's message is traditionally sent to heads of government and international organisations. 

His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped. 

A broad consensus is developing among the world's scientific community over the evils of climate change. 

But there is also an intransigent body of scientific opinion which continues to insist that industrial emissions are not to blame for the phenomenon. 

Such scientists point out that fluctuations in the earth's temperature are normal and can often be caused by waves of heat generated by the sun. Other critics of environmentalism have compared the movement to a burgeoning industry in its own right. 

In the spring, the Vatican hosted a conference on climate change that was welcomed by environmentalists. 

But senior cardinals close to the Vatican have since expressed doubts about a movement which has been likened by critics to be just as dogmatic in its assumptions as any religion. 

In October, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, caused an outcry when he noted that the atmospheric temperature of Mars had risen by 0.5 degrees celsius. 

"The industrial-military complex up on Mars can't be blamed for that," he said in a criticism of Australian scientists who had claimed that carbon emissions would force temperatures on earth to rise by almost five degrees by 2070 unless drastic solutions were enforced. 



Or, as my Catholic wife put it, if anybody would know when the end of the world is nigh it would be the Pope.  And he apparently hasn't received the memo.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2007)

And apparently UN Secretary General is also of a mind with Prime Minister Harper:

*UN chief says gas cut targets might be too ambitious*

By Alexander Panetta, THE CANADIAN PRESS   

Canada gets boost from UN chief

Article Link


BALI, Indonesia - Canada's bid to water down climate-change targets at a world environmental conference has earned the high-profile backing of the head of the United Nations. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says he agrees that a demand for rich countries to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 might be too ambitious for this week's climate talks to tackle. 

His intervention came as a relief to Canada which, alongside the United States, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, is pitted against the European Union and developing countries on the issue....

More on link


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

Meanwhile, after studying global warming hypocrisy from Al "I only fly in private jets and own a massive house" Gore, the head of the UN, after just telling everyone the world is coming to an end, decides that a music concert is more important than global warming.

"The UN secretary-general today called on world leaders for immediate action on climate change - before flying thousands of miles to the US for a music concert and then leaving in the interval to jet to Europe.

Ban Ki-moon has been slammed for planning a round-the-world trip that will generate thousands of tonnes of carbon emissions just days after he leaves the UN meeting in Bali.

The South Korean has organised a post-conference trip, starting on Sunday, that will see him fly to attend the concert in New York, adding more than 4,300 miles to his itinerary. When he leaves the island after the summit Mr Ban will fly to East Timor, and then to Japan where he will briefly stop before catching another flight to the US.


http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20071211/tap-as-gen-bali-climate-conference-5th-l-d3b07b8.html



The flight from Tokyo to New York takes him the wrong way around the world to arrive in time for the reception of a Korean concert-at Carnegie Hall, where he is the guest of honour. The concert is titled Around The World In Eighty Minutes.

The UN is expected to announce plans to offset the emissions generated by all agencies involved in the Bali conference by contributing to various environmentally friendly projects."


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2007)

Well Haletown, at least he is consistent.  He didn't say what action and he apparently doesn't agree with targets that will impede his concert-going.


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

"Well Haletown, at least he is consistent.  "

ya . .  "Do as I say not as I do"  level of consistent.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Dec 2007)

Must be one of those new electric jets.  Surely a member of the United Nations wouldn't be a hypocrite?   ^-^


----------



## Cheshire (12 Dec 2007)

Haletown,

What exactly have you done to help the situation, other than slamming Al and his lifestyle? At least he gets on a soap box and shouts it out loud.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Dec 2007)

Cheshire said:
			
		

> Haletown,
> 
> What exactly have you done to help the situation, other than slamming Al and his lifestyle? At least he gets on a soap box and shouts it out loud.



I think the point is that there _isn't_ a situation.  Human-caused global warming is a bunch of crap, and it is a way to feed the coffers of an entire scientific discipline that would otherwise be disregarded and wedgie scarred.


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

"Haletown,

What exactly have you done to help the situation, other than slamming Al and his lifestyle? At least he gets on a soap box and shouts it out loud."

Well actually quite a lot. I'm so green I'm uber-Irish .   On  the Fed Gov't website where you measure you carbon footprint, my family barely registers

Electrical bill down to <$30/month average - use timers and LED lights - refuse to use mercury polluting CFL's

One car -  over the last five years we have averaged <7000km & 650 litres of gas per year. 

Walk and cycle more than anything else, car is last resort

Send my own money to fund climate investigators who can't get government funding - go help Steve McIntyre pls. He deserves our financial help and an Order of Canada.  http://www.climateaudit.org/

Downsized from a house to a condo that is on district heating - minimalist footprint available to consumers

Have recycled for 30 years . . .   

I could go on and on  and on  . . . .


The problem with Gore et al is they SHOUT - they DON'T DO.   

They scream the sky is fallling, play fast and loose with the truth, present known lies as truths ( the polar bears are all drowning) and make immense personal profits off the panic they create.  They panic the herd and get rich off the vulnerable.  They are hypocrites plain & simple.   They are con artists. 

I also am fortunate to have an undergraduate degree in Geomorph, so I have studied climatology, glaciology etc.  I can still read a science report/study and have read the IPCC reports.  I know fraudulent,  cheap science when I come across it.  Where's the infamous TAR Hockey Stick,  where has the great science it trumpeted gone ? Where  ?  I know when scientists refuse to release their data and methods they are hiding something.   I understand statistics and know what the IPCC is doing is just bogus. 

I have lived and worked long enough to know the pernicious impact of politics on science and engineering.  Money & budgets can make people do and say the craziest things.

I build economic business models for a living so I know how any model can be tweaked to produce "results".  I know how to use and integrate PR into a story  - been there done/do that.

I am frankly very concerned for the ordinary environmental movement - not the international corporate one that is backing Kyoto/IPCC.  They all jumped on the CO2 caused global warming bandwagon thinking it was the killer app they had been seeking for decades. Each and every one before failed - Club of Rome, Nuclear Winter, Population bomb - each previous fear campaign was overcome by short term facts.

AGW isn't their killer app, it is going to be their killer Koolaid. 

And when ordinary people realize they have been played for fools, taken to the cleaners, the backlash is going to be dramatic.  Once the environmental movement has its credibility lost when the next cooling period kicks in ( right now ) it will take a long time to get it back.  And real environmental problems  - like the ongoing massive pollution by heavy metals and organic compounds in the unregulated badlands of China and the third world will just get worse.

Real environmental problems, not proxy campaigns that are more to do with global politics and trade,  are what we should be focusing on.

and for the record humans do have an impact on climate - we are a part of the system, but Co2 does not "cause" global warming.

out of curiosity, how green are you ?


----------



## GAP (12 Dec 2007)

Ah....the race memory.  :

It is going to be interesting to listen to the "Global Warmers" come next year. This year, for the first time in 15 years, Canada and the US are getting a "normal" winter.

_was that an "ooops" I heard?_


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2007)

Good on ya Haletown.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> and for the record humans do have an impact on climate - we are a part of the system, but Co2 does not "cause" global warming.



Just trying to reconcile this with the first part of your thread: evidently you must have proof that human activity is necessarily "bad" for "the environment," or are you just assuming that any kind of deviation from an arbitrarily chosen "normal" (i.e., non-anthropogenic) change is necessarily bad?


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

"evidently you must have proof that human activity is necessarily "bad" for "the environment,"

nope.   Good & bad are just adjectives, but we are part of the planetary system and we do impact the weather and climate - just not much and not just by Co2 production -  can you say land use ?  Just saying for the record so the Denial label can't be pinned on my six.  But I am certainly not a WARMonger. 

My motivation is more like I'm just cheap so more like  "don't waste anything" + "I don't need "stuff" to be happy".  Got it from my parents I guess - they survived the Depression and we grew up turning off lights and getting by on little.

Don't have a lot of time for consumerism, but at the same time I have no desire to live a medieval life style without fossil fuels and 250hp V6's,  central heating, AirCon and modern jet travel.

first Party that drops my income taxes by 50% but institutes carbon taxes to make up the difference might get my vote  . . .  it would be stupid but I'd be richer & smile all the way to the bank. 

Of course, it really depends on their Defense Policy  

So the Greens will never see my ballot marked for them.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Dec 2007)

News from the UN Climate Conference where only the coolaid drinking greenies were allowed has decided that the nations of the world must pony up $86b of which they want the US to pay $40b which will be managed by the UN of course. Proof that this global warming idiocy is really income redistribution on a grand scale.


----------



## Reccesoldier (12 Dec 2007)

Fire up the crow-b-que...  Were in for a feast!!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html



> The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (12 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> "evidently you must have proof that human activity is necessarily "bad" for "the environment,"
> 
> nope.   Good & bad are just adjectives, but we are part of the planetary system and we do impact the weather and climate - just not much and not just by Co2 production -  can you say land use ?  Just saying for the record so the Denial label can't be pinned on my six.  But I am certainly not a WARMonger.



Well, you said your "green" lifestyle was somehow helping the "situation," which begs the question: what are the "Real environmental problems" of which you speak?  Land use is _bad_?


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

"what are the "Real environmental problems" of which you speak?  Land use is bad?

I mentioned a couple of items that are bad . . .  mercury being placed into  the environment in massive quantities by  China is bad.  Lots of the organic compounds that are byproducts of unregulated industries are bad.  Industrial residues, things that kill people,  make them really sick are not good. There are loads of other "bad"  things we should shouldn't do, but spending the entire enviro budget budget on the will 'o the wisp global warming issue just means the real problems get ignored.  The Greenies have high jacked the political agenda, but now the agenda can't be changed.  Their killer app is turning out to toxic koolaid.

Land use is just that -  land use.  Humans do it, so do beavers & termites.  It  has a far greater impact (not good or bad) on our climate than C02.  The transnational environmental industry focused on CO2 and promoted it as their killer app because they could sell it as "Bad humans, using oil, killing mother Gaia".

It was a perfect marketing campaign setup.  They have used it to raise billions, traumatize a generation and they are attempting to impose their internationalist  agenda on the world. 

They are more desperate than ever because they are running out of time.  The 30+year warm cycle they piggy backed on is over.  We are entering a cooling phase so they need to get political things locked in before the mass media finds out they were taken for a ride and turns on the AGW mob.

Science fraud, run out of a corrupt UN, organized by bands of scientists and civil servants who will benefit from Big Government Solving Problems - jobs for life !!

And pls don't paint me as a greeny or interpret what I do as greeny sympathetic. For the most part I despise the sacrosanct greeny-weenies.   That stuff is just an unintended byproduct of me being  tight with my money 

Cheers  . . . .  let's all enjoy a nice cold winter for a change


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2007)

Hey John, you and I are usually on the same wavelength.  Quit trying to pick a fight.   ;D

I admire Haletown for "doing something" rather than yelping.  And the fact that he is doing it for reasons other than fear is also all to the good.  He may not be doing much good but neither is he doing much harm.

Cheers to you both.


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2007)

Folks let me say it again . .  what I do is because I hate wasting stuff, can't stand traffic jams and I'm tight with the money that the government leaves me after I work so hard.  For the most part I despise the Greenies, think David "Dr. Fruit fly" Suzuki is a skank and am amazed that such a dumb loser as Gore can make so much money of this ponzi scheme.

Now if you want someone who IS doing something good . . .Steve McIntyre at climate audit is REALLY doing something - exposing the fraud, the crappy "science" and calling spades black.  He's a retired Canadian of great faith and determination who does it for the common good and without a penny of government funding.

If ya wanna see the real pointy end grunt level battle for the truth about "global warming", check out http://www.climateaudit.org/ and if ya can help him, hit his tip jar.  Daily battles of comments and the to & fro of ideas.  

I have an idea percolating to get him nominated for an Order of Canada so if you know the politics of that procedure pls let me know how to engage


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2007)

The difference between Canada (and Australia's) position and how it is reported by the MSM.

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000918.html



> *Bali conference partisan and ideological?*
> 
> The media narrative of the Bali climate conference has been the "obstructionism" and "sabotage" of the talks by Canada's government (note to Stephane Dion: outside of our borders, the "Harper/Conservative government" becomes your government too. Canadians have given the Conservative Party, not you, a mandate to speak for us on the world stage.)
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2007)

An interesting explanation of the "consensus" phenomina. (Other terms are "Groupthink" and the "Bandwagon effect"). One conclusion I reached is that most prople need to grow a spine rather than get rolled over, and every group needs a very opinionated and stubborn member to keep things on track (no worries here on Army.ca, we've got plenty of these people to spare  ):

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail496.html#trade



> *Subject: Is Global Warming an "informational cascade" - *
> 
> Jerry,
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

it has always been about socialism, wrapped up in talk about "justice"


interesting perspective . . . 

Climate Activism is about Socialism, Not Science

The first is from Ronald Bailey, at Reason, in a dispatch from Bali:

    Without going into the details, the Greenhouse Development Rights Framework (GDR) proposal foresees levying the equivalent of a climate "consumption luxury tax" on every person who earns over a "development threshold" of $9,000 per year. The idea is that rich people got rich in part by dumping carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuels into the atmosphere, leaving less space for poor people to dump their emissions. In one scenario, Americans would pay the equivalent of a $780 per person luxury tax annually, which amounts to sending $212 billion per year in climate reparations to poor countries to aid their development and help them adapt to climate change. In this scenario, the total climate reparations that the rich must transfer annually is over $600 billion. This contrasts with a new report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program that only demands $86 billion per year to avoid "adaptation apartheid."

The second link comes via Tom Nelson, and is from Emma Brindal, "Climate Justice Campaign Coordinator" for Friends of the Earth Australia.

    A common theme was that the “solutions” to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. Another point was that as this current ecomonic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.




http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/climate-activis.html


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2007)

It is amazing how many people seem interested in finding a way to establish some sort of Global Tax.

Carbon Tax, Internet Tax... I know I have seen other proposals that escape me just now.  All, it seems to me, designed to establish a precedent for an international tax collecting authority AKA a government.  The Internationalists, as opposed to the Globalists, are alive and well.


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

it has been reported that Canada's portion of that annual $86 billion is $30 billion.

To put that into perspective for voters . . that would be about 68 cents per litre of gas.  

That will go over well I believe.  Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded that they are subsidizing 3rd world corrupt dictatorships.


----------



## Reccesoldier (13 Dec 2007)

I am so glad that our current government is not complying with the UN lemmings.  Let them all rush over the cliff, we can watch from our front porch while drinking beer cooled in our GHG holocaust beer fridges.


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

"GHG holocaust beer fridges."

 Speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew.  My keyboard needs cleaning  


May I use that line ?? It's excellent


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> it has been reported that Canada's portion of that annual $86 billion is $30 billion.
> 
> To put that into perspective for voters . . that would be about 68 cents per litre of gas.
> 
> That will go over well I believe.  Every time people fill up their tank they'll be reminded that they are subsidizing 3rd world corrupt dictatorships.



Can you remember where you saw that?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> A common theme was that the “solutions” to climate change that are being posed by many governments, such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and biofuels are false and are not rooted in justice. Another point was that as this current ecomonic system got us here in the first place, a climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.
> http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/12/climate-activis.html



No, these solutions are rooted in science. Subjective or selective interpretation of data is more difficult (although not impossible) when open science based solutions are available, hence it is more difficult for the alamists to constantly move the goalposts to support their extortion schemes.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Dec 2007)

The US portion is supposed to be $40b as I said yesterday and I doubt that Canada would be asked to kick in 30b. The problem I have is that the real polluters are India and China both with growing economies and they get a total pass.


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

can't recall where I read the $30 billion . .   there has been  a lot of press releases from the Enviro Industry at their little gab fest in Bali so there has been lots to digest. 

I'll see if I can track it down

The tax per litre is my calculation based on Stats Can figures for 2005 that Canada consumed 45, 000, 000, 000 litres of fuel


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Dec 2007)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> No, these solutions are rooted in science. Subjective or selective interpretation of data is more difficult (although not impossible) when open science based solutions are available, hence it is more difficult for the alamists to constantly move the goalposts to support their extortion schemes.



Rooted in science ? The relgion of climate change is not based on science but rather in emotion. Man is insignificant compared to nature. Take the Alaska oil spill for example, the area that was affected is now clean despite the efforts of man to cleanse the area. Undersea Oil seeps up from inside the earth and the power of seawater absolutely destroys the oil. The fact is scientists can barely predict weather a week in advance and so how can they predict 30 years from now ? They have claimed that the poles will melt and yet a recent scientific paper states that the Antarctic has not lost any of its mass.


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

Gore in Bali today 

""I am going to speak an inconvenient truth," Gore told an audience of several hundred, playing on the name of his Oscar-winning documentary.

And in low tones he added: "My own country the United States is principally responsible for obstructing progress in Bali," spurring rapturous applause and cheers."

They do know that Gore was VP and Clinton was the Prez when the US refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocal ?  That the US Senate had a bi-partisan, unanimous vote of rejection ??

Sorry Al, just another Inconvenient Truth.

Does anyone else get the feeling Gore wants to be the first President of Planet Earth ??


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2007)

Just another example that proves that Anti-Americanism sells, even if from a former Principal American.  Makes me sick...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Does anyone else get the feeling Gore wants to be the first President of Planet Earth ??



I think Gore wants to be this guy, (for more than one reason)


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2007)

Rooted in JUSTICE.... No Justice, No Peace.... Social Justice

The Socialist International

And what is their agenda?

This is one organization, leaders of nations, labour unions and NGOs, that I doubt will ever be inviting Stephen Harper to attend their meetings (annual councils and tri/quadrennial plenary sessions).

What, exactly,  qualifies as a Trust (as in a Monopoly or Cartel)?  Can you have a governance Cartel?


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

Ahhh the SI.

Wants everyone around the  world to have an equal share of energy and for successful nations to share (can you say subsidize) their wealth and pay developing nations for their excesses.

The story plays well with the soft & fuzzy headed ilk, after all "equality" as a label implies a noble cause.

Funny all those liberals and dippers who support this idea don't think we consume far more than our fair share of the world's Healthcare resources and should do with much less so the third world can have more.  When it comes down to things the use and like, equality goes out the morality window.

And can anyone explain why a "developing" nation like China has a Space Program and is planning a moonshot and how India can afford a fleet of Nuclear subs ?  

ohhhh to be a developing nation


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Funny all those liberals and dippers who support this idea don't think we consume far more than our fair share of the world's Healthcare resources and should do with much less so the third world can have more.  When it comes down to things the use and like, equality goes out the morality window.



Aye, when it comes to that, the standard cry whatever the "foreign" cause is for doctors and daycare at home instead of aid overseas.  Or better yet retirement plans.  But not a selfish bone in their bodies them.  They are willing to give to their neighbour's last dollar.


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2007)

socialiasm . . what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> socialiasm . . what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too



A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. 
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2007)

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

Well that explains Steffi . . .  :blotto:


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Dec 2007)

"One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad." 
--  Dennis Prager


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2007)

good summary from the NY times comments 

1970s Leftist: The earth’s temperature is dropping and we’re all going to freeze to death!
1970s Sucker: Oh my God! Well, what should we do?
1970s Leftist: Don’t worry! More regulation, more taxation, and more government will take care of it!
1970s Sucker: OK! Let’s do it!

(fast forward 10 years)

1980s Sucker: Hey, whatever happened to that global cooling thing?
1980s Leftist: Nevermind that now! Don’t you know that there’s a global famine coming that’s going to kill a billion people?!?
1980s Sucker: What?!? Oh my God! Well, what should we do?
1980s Leftist: Don’t worry! More regulation, more taxation, and more government will take care of it!
1980s Sucker: OK! Let’s do it!

(fast forward 10 years)

1990s Sucker: Hey, whatever happened to that global famine thing?
1990s Leftist: Nevermind that now! Don’t you know that there’s a hole in the ozone layer that’s going to give you cancer and burn your face off?!?
1990s Sucker: What?!? Oh my God! Well, what should we do?
1990s Leftist: Don’t worry! More regulation, more taxation, and more government will take care of it!
1990s Sucker: OK! Let’s do it!

(fast forward 10 years)

Present-Day Sucker: Hey, whatever happened to that ozone hole thing?
Present-Day Leftist: Nevermind that now! Don’t you know that the earth is heating up and we’re all going to drown with the polar bears?!?
Present-Day Sucker: Wait a minute. A little while ago, you said that the earth was gonna freeze. What gives?
Present-Day Sucker: How DARE you question me? I bet you don’t believe the Holocaust happened either, do you, you racist Nazi zealot?!?!?
Present-Day Sucker: No, I just….
Present-Day Sucker: SILENCE! The great and terrible Gore has spoken!

We really are a pathetic, frightened little species.


----------



## Reccesoldier (14 Dec 2007)

Haletown, do you have a link for that?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2007)

Meanwhile the Daily Green  reports:



> .... a record-setting pace of re-freezing in November, according to the NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record.



They're a bit perturbed about the open water this summer (apparently it was the first time "ever" that the Northwest Passage was open - who knew - I wonder how the St Roch made it across?) but by all accounts the Arctic is making up for lost time.

Courtesy of Kokonut Pundit


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2007)

"Haletown, do you have a link for that?"


here     http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/bali-high-but-beware-the-hangover/?hp

comment 17


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2007)

This is an old one but I just found it today.  The source is particularly interesting to me. My perception of that publication is that it is no friend to conservatives.

From Der Spiegel via Rightinaleftworld and RealClearPolitics


*GLOBAL WARMING Not the End of the World as We Know It*
By Olaf Stampf

How bad is climate change really? Are catastrophic floods and terrible droughts headed our way? Despite widespread fears of a greenhouse hell, the latest computer simulations are delivering far less dramatic predictions about tomorrow's climate.


Svante Arrhenius, the father of the greenhouse effect, would be called a heretic today. Far from issuing the sort of dire predictions about climate change which are common nowadays, the Swedish physicist dared to predict a paradise on earth for humans when he announced, in April 1896, that temperatures were rising -- and that it would be a blessing for all.

Arrhenius, who later won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, calculated that the release of carbon dioxide -- or carbonic acid as it was then known -- through burning coal, oil and natural gas would lead to a significant rise in temperatures worldwide. But, he argued, "by the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates," potentially making poor harvests and famine a thing of the past.

Arrhenius was merely expressing a view that was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the day: warm times are good times; cold times are bad.

During the so-called Medieval Warm Period between about 900 and 1300 A.D., for example, the Vikings raised livestock on Greenland and sailed to North America. New cities were built all across Europe, and the continent's population grew from 30 million to 80 million.

The consequences of the colder temperatures that plunged civilization into the so-called Little Ice Age for several centuries after 1300 were devastating. Summers were rainy, winters cold, and in many places temperatures were too low for grain crops to mature. Famines and epidemics raged, and average life expectancy dropped by 10 years. In Germany, thousands of villages were abandoned and entire stretches of land depopulated.

The shock produced by the cold was as deep-seated it was long-lasting. When temperatures plunged unexpectedly once again in the 1960s, many meteorologists were quick to warn people about the coming of a new ice age -- supposedly triggered by man-made air pollution. Hardly anyone at the time believed a warming trend could pose a threat.

It was not until the rise of the environmental movement in the 1980s that everything suddenly changed. From then on it was almost a foregone conclusion that global warming could only be perceived as a disaster for the earth's climate. Environmentalists, adopting a strategy typical of the Catholic Church, have been warning us about the horrors of greenhouse gas hell ever since -- painting it as a punishment for the sin of meddling with creation. What was conveniently ignored, however, is that humanity has been reshaping the planet for a very long time, first by clearing forests and plowing fields, and later by building roads, cities and factories.....

More on the Der Spiegel link.


----------



## Haletown (15 Dec 2007)

this guy

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

often writes on how stupid/biased it is to claim any and all climate change is a bad thing.

Good site for daily ckecking and I commend him for his video series.  

He is the same dude that runs the Coyote Blog


----------



## edgar (15 Dec 2007)

Here is an interesting thought from Orson Scott Card and his book "Empire". One of his characters (one of the heroes so far) says:

"...the Left had the Unabomber, though nobody seems to remember that his logic sounded just like Al Gore preaching about the environment - crazy as a loon, but full of all kinds of internal politically correct logic." 

Well, at least Al doesn't blow people up?


----------



## FascistLibertarian (15 Dec 2007)

But Al makes more CO2 emissions then the Unibomber, so really hes the worse one.


----------



## Swingline1984 (15 Dec 2007)

edgar said:
			
		

> Well, at least Al doesn't blow people up?



Yet.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2007)

Lets here a real scientist discuss climate change:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/245692.php


----------



## Haletown (16 Dec 2007)

what the eco-fascists really want  . . .   it's about them being smarter than us peons and they should be allowed to just be our Lord's & Masters

"Transport policy-makers should start preparing now for a dramatic reduction in motorised travel that will be brought about by carbon rationing, one of the country's leading environmental thinkers told LTT this week.

"Just start reading the runes because what's going to happen is the demand for road, rail and air travel is going to start falling away just as soon as we have rationing," says Mayer Hillman in an interview with the magazine.

Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think ]democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."


http://www.lttonline.co.uk/lttxtraarticle.php?uid=7064


----------



## Haletown (16 Dec 2007)

More inconvenient truths for Der Goreacle

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html


----------



## zipperhead_cop (16 Dec 2007)

Haletown said:
			
		

> "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life,the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."



Nice.  
Once the economy is destroyed by not allowing transportation of goods, we'll all be living on farm communes to survive.  And what could be greener than that?  

Having just spent the last five hours shoveling out mine and my in-laws driveways of about three feet of drifted snow, I continue to hope for global warming.  Now I'm going to make a nice tire fire and burn some fridges.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2007)

Oddly enough, the climate "scientists" who sounded the alarm about the coming Ice Age back in 1975 were far closer to being correct than todays alarmists; Global Cooling is a far more serious threat than warming. the disruption of agriculture due to global cooling may well have caused the collapse of the Bronze age empires, and possibly other civilizational catastrophes.

Since the hottest years on record were in the 1930's, you can see the alarmists could flip things pretty quickly.......................(did we say global warming? We meant cooling.....)


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2007)

Thucydides, I'm suddenly reminded of the boy who cried wolf.... The village believed him the first two times when there was no wolf.  When there was a wolf it seems to me they weren't so quick to react.


----------



## Haletown (18 Dec 2007)

there's some big truths here .  . . its not really about the environment is it ?

Global Warming Trojan Horse

Investors Business Daily has a great article reinforcing the point many of us have been making for a while:  The Marxists and anti-globalization rioters and other left-wing extremists that have seemed awfully quiet of late have not disappeared;  they have repackaged themselves as global warming activists, but their goals are exactly the same.

    The driving force of the environmental movement is not a cleaner planet — or a world that doesn't get too hot, in the case of the global warming issue — but a leftist, egalitarian urge to redistribute wealth. A CO2 tax does this and more, choking economic growth in the U.S. and punishing Americans for being the voracious consumers that we are.

    Eco-activists have been so successful in distracting the public from their real intentions that they're becoming less guarded in discussing their ultimate goal.

    "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources," Emma Brindal, a "climate justice campaign coordinator" for Friends of the Earth Australia, wrote Wednesday on the Climate Action Network's blog.

    In this case, redistribution would be handled by the Multilateral Adaptation Fund, an agency that would use the carbon tax receipts to help countries that are having to deal with climate change.

    Since the "complete list of things caused by global warming" now exceeds 600 (see our "Chilled By The Heat" editorial, Dec. 13), there would be few if any limits on the U.N.'s ability to move riches from countries that have created and earned them to those that have done neither.

    Still think this is all about halting climate change? We would go as far as to say that anyone who does is either naive or a dupe. Both the rhetoric and the behavior of the eco-activists back us up.

Protein Wisdom adds this:

    *The “Greens” are no more interested in clean air and water today than the Soviets were in liberty when they rolled tanks into Prague in 1968. *We dismiss them as “silly” at our own peril.


http://www.climate-skeptic.com/


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2008)

Not Global Warming directly but Global Warming indirectly.

Global Warming led to the Biofuels scam.

Biofuels led to higher food, feed and fertilizer prices and more people not able to find tortillas and chapattis.

Now [urlhttp://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=213343=]this[/url]:



> ......*A new crisis is emerging, a global food catastrophe * that will reach further and be more crippling than anything the world has ever seen. The credit crunch and the reverberations of soaring oil prices around the world will pale in comparison to what is about to transpire, Donald Coxe, global portfolio strategist at BMO Financial Group said at the Empire Club's 14th annual investment outlook in Toronto on Thursday.
> 
> "It's not a matter of if, but when," he warned investors. *"It's going to hit this year hard."*
> 
> ...




The experts can predict a .2C temperature rise by 2050 or whatever but they can't figure out that diverting a limited commodity (productive land) from supplying food to supplying fuel will result in food shortages, price increases and starvation........

Vomitous.

Betcha Branson feels like the proper humanitarian with his Green Fuel jet dreams.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318686,00.html

    Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007

    Thursday, December 27, 2007
    By Steven Milloy

    “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That saying most appropriately sums up the year in climate science for the fanatic global warming crowd.

    As Al Gore, the United Nations, grandstanding politicians and celebrities, taxpayer-dependent climate researchers, socialist-minded Greens, climate profiteers, and other members of the alarmist railroad relentlessly continued their drive for greenhouse gas regulation in 2007, the year’s scientific developments actually pointed in the opposite direction. Here’s the round-up:

    1.* Cracked crystal balls.* Observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), researchers reported.

    The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than actually occurred, despite the availability of more and better quality data and improved modeling efforts since the late-1970s.

    “We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much caution,” the researchers concluded. Read more…

            Related
            Column Archive
            o Top 10 Climate Myth-Busters for 2007
            o A Lightbulb Tea Party?
            o Will Al Gore Make Peace With Reality?
            o The Greenest Hypocrites of 2007
            o It's the Sun, Stupid

            Full-page Junk Science Archive

    2. *The big yellow ball in the sky.* The Sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900, according to a new historical temperature reconstruction showing more variation in pre-industrial temperatures than previously thought.

    The researchers found that “the climate is very sensitive to solar changes and a significant fraction of the global warming that occurred during the last century should be solar induced.” Read more…

    3. *Pre-SUV warming.* Another new temperature reconstruction for the past 2,000 years indicates that globally averaged temperature 1,000 years ago was about 0.3 degrees Celsius warmer than the current temperature. Since that climatic "heat wave" obviously wasn’t caused by coal-fired power plants and SUVs, the current temperature is quite within natural variability, deflating alarmists’ rash conclusions about the warming of the past 50 years. Read more…

    4. *A disciplined climate.* Runaway global warming -- the alarmist fantasy in which a warmer global temperature causes climatic events that, in turn, cause more warming and so-on in a never-ending positive feedback loop -- was cornered by new data from researchers at the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). The new research sheds light on the mechanism by which the atmosphere self-regulates. Read more…

    5. *A gnarly wipeout.* Climate alarmists gleefully surfed a 2005 study that claimed greenhouse gas emissions would slow Atlantic Ocean circulation and cause a mini ice age in Europe. But an international team of researchers reported that the intensity of the Atlantic circulation may vary by as much as a factor of eight in a single year. The decrease in Atlantic circulation claimed in the 2005 study falls well within this variation and so is likely part of a natural yearly trend, according to the new study. Read more…

    6. *A pollution solution.* A new study reported that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called “aerosols”) that make up “brown clouds” may actually contribute to warmer temperatures -- precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists.

    “These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system …,” concluded the researchers. Read more…

    7.* Lazy temperature?* Researchers reported that the rate of man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. Since increasing atmospheric C02 levels allegedly cause global warming, the new study must mean that global temperatures are soaring even faster now than they did during the 1990s, right?

    Wrong. According to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Climatic Data Center, ever-changing global temperatures are in no way keeping pace with ever-increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Read more…

    8. *Don’t plant that tree!* Researchers reported that while tropical forests exert a cooling influence on global climate, forests in northern regions exert a significant warming influence on climate. Based on the researchers’ computer modeling, forests above 20 degrees latitude in the Northern Hemisphere -- that is, north of the line of latitude running through Southern Mexico, Saharan Africa, central India and the southernmost Chinese Island of Hainan -- will warm surface temperatures in those regions by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Read more…

    9. *The Tropical Arctic.* Dutch researchers reported that during a period of intense global warming 55 million years ago -- when the Arctic Ocean was as warm as 73 degrees Fahrenheit -- there was a tremendous release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But which came first, the warming or the greenhouse gases?

    It was the warming, according to the researchers. Read more…

    10. *Much ado about nothing.* In a report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed greenhouse gas regulation to be quite the fool’s errand. In estimating the atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases 90 years from now under both a scenario where no action is taken to reduce manmade emissions and a scenario where maximum regulation is implemented, the estimated difference in average global temperature between the two scenarios is 0.17 degrees Centigrade.

    For reference purposes, the estimated total increase in average global temperature for the 20th century was about 0.50 degrees Celsius.

    That’s what researchers have reported this year. And let’s not forget the spanking a British high judge gave Al Gore’s movie for all its scientific inaccuracies and the thrashing non-alarmist climate scientists gave to alarmist climate scientists in a debate sponsored by the New York debating society Intelligence Squared.

    Al Gore and the alarmist mob claim the debate about the science of global warming is “over.” Given the developments of 2007, it’s easy to see why they would want it that way.

    _Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute._


----------



## Haletown (5 Jan 2008)

The worst part of the food-for-fuel scam is that many farmers have switched form hops to corn because of the subsidies. The result is a hop shortage which means higher prices for beer.

The Law of Unintended Consequences hits home.


----------



## TCBF (6 Jan 2008)

For once I almost agree with Fidel Castro - converting food crops into fuel is a slippery slope.

An exception being, well, sugar cane, which maybe he SHOULD consider...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jan 2008)

Sugar Cane makes Rum!!!


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2008)

Despite the Canadian MSM, there _is_ some clear thinking about the subject by HM Government:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=898



> *On the NREE’s 2050 Report: Why Government Doesn’t Like Carbon Taxes
> *
> Getting to 2050 reportThe National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy has released its report on how Canada should lower its greenhouse gases. Entitled Getting to 2050, it’s available in HTML format here, and in PDF format here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jan 2008)

The concern is apparently CO2.

To prevent CO2 the desire is to tax C in order to reduce the production of C.

The C at issue is the C in fuels.

To reduce the production of C as CO2  therefore we need to reduce the consumption of C as fuels.

This is not a new requirement.  The government has been trying to get us to reduce for decades. To that end they imposed a sin tax on fuel... a Fuel Tax.

Ipso facto we already have Carbon Taxes.  They are called Fuel Taxes.

Political Solution:

Change the name of the The Fuel Tax to The Carbon Tax.

Rebate the user of the Fuel for every tonne/kg of Carbon converted into something - anything other than CO2 exhausted to atmosphere.   Pump it into the ground or supply it to greenhouses along with the heat, recycle it as dry ice, trees, cupboards.......whatever.  

That will effectively decrease the user's Fuel Tax. Every kilo of Carbon saved will reduce the taxes paid to the Government.  The users get the energy "tax-free".

Meanwhile the Government ends up taking in less taxes......


----------



## Flip (11 Jan 2008)

Kirkhill,

I believe you have it exactly right. We DO pay "carbon tax".
We just need to call it a "carbon tax"

I for one wouldn't mind a tax on stupidly large mega big- a$$ pickups.
It seems every third vehicle in Alberta is a 4 wheeled monster 
looking to devour your kids. It's getting surreal.  Or maybe I need to 
get my meds tweeked.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> Kirkhill,
> 
> I believe you have it exactly right. We DO pay "carbon tax".
> We just need to call it a "carbon tax"
> ...


Those "stupidly large mega bi- a$$ pickups" already cost a fortune to buy, fuel maintain and insure.  Do you REALLY think that a "relatively" small carbon tax would act as a deterrence?  Also, where would the "carbon tax" funds go?  How would that help cut CO2 emissions?


----------



## Flip (11 Jan 2008)

> Those "stupidly large mega bi- a$$ pickups" already cost a fortune to buy, fuel maintain and insure.  Do you REALLY think that a "relatively" small carbon tax would act as a deterrence?  Also, where would the "carbon tax" funds go?  How would that help cut CO2 emissions?



No, of course not - I'm just bitching.  ;D
Many of the trucks I'm talking about are company vehicles anyway.
I'm seriously against a "carbon tax", I can remember the NEP and
It's effects on the Alberta economy.

As for CO2 - wouldn't change a thing!


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2008)

I wasn't suggesting that we institute a Carbon Tax to actually do anything.  It won't.  The market has already imposed its own "taxes" many times over since 1973.  There are more cars and trucks the world over now than there were then.... and the demand increases despite gas heading from 1.00 to 2.00 to 3.00 per gallon (US) over the last 5 years.

No, the suggestion was simply to put the issue to bed politically and, at the same time, leave open a window to exploit any appropriate technologies that might actually make a difference and reduce taxes to boot.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2008)

No surprise here; notice they slam the leader of the British Conservative party, rather than arch polluter Al Gore......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=41E3IPVKOJZ15QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/earth/2008/01/13/eagreens113.xml



> *Survey shows eco-warriors are worst polluters*
> 
> Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 13/01/2008
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Feb 2008)

Full article: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175



> The Sun Also Sets
> By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT
> 
> Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2008)

When the "solution" turns around and bites you in the ass:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=2&ei=5088&en=d14752df7318551d&ex=1360213200&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print



> February 8, 2008
> *Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat*
> By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2008)

There is one "upside" to the Biofuel debate.

It provides a "legitimate" method of burning surplus food stocks being produced by subsidized EU/Yankee/.... farmers.  That same surplus was keeping the external international price of foods down and discouraging Third World farmers from growing crops in unsubsidized environments.  With food prices rising, and shipping costs rising it seems likely that those Third World farmers will be better placed to invest - and with a decent price more likely to attract real investors.

Perhaps that it the real rationale behind the green/biofuel fiasco.  It is a way to shift all those subsidized farmers off the dole.  The French and the Spanish were already having to convert millions of litres of subsidized plonk with no market into industrial alcohol just to get rid of their surplus.


----------



## Flip (14 Feb 2008)

> The French and the Spanish were already having to convert millions of litres of subsidized plonk with no market into industrial alcohol just to get rid of their surplus.



Sad really, I like "plonk" I'd love to have mine subsidized.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2008)

Since modifying the luminosity of the sun is beyond our abilities for the foreseeable future, here is an alternative technological solution. Since these materials can be tailored to absorb specific molecules, this has potential for real pollution control as well:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/tech-carbon-capture.html



> *New materials can selectively capture CO2, scientists say*
> Last Updated: Friday, February 15, 2008 | 12:48 PM ET
> CBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Feb 2008)

From this article: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm



> Blog: Science
> Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
> Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2008)

As if you don't already know this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with control:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/here_come_the_green_carjackers.html



> February 29, 2008
> *Here Come the Green Car-Jackers*
> By Marc Sheppard
> 
> ...



The *real* problem may be far more serious:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#Friday



> And on Global Warming, there is more ice in the Arctic this year than last, and Siberia, China, and northern Canada are covered in snow. Look out for Global Cooling.
> 
> Ice Ages are far more to be feared than warming. And I remind you, in the last Real Ice Age, Southern England and Belgium went from deciduous trees to a hundred feet of ice in about 100 years, according to lake sediments. That is a very rapid cooling indeed. And the ice reaches miles in depth in some places.
> 
> Warming gives longer growing seasons and better crops. Cooling does the opposite.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2008)

A Real scientist speaks out:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange/print



> *'Enjoy life while you can'*
> 
> Climate science maverick James Lovelock believes catastrophe is inevitable, carbon offsetting is a joke and ethical living a scam. So what would he do? By Decca Aitkenhead
> 
> ...


----------



## wannabe SF member (3 Mar 2008)

Hell, as much as i agree with him, i REALLY hope he's wrong!!


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2008)

see the graphs at the original site - entry for March 4th  (he's a Aussie)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Global cooling predictions

An email to Marc Morano from Don Easterbrook below. Easterbrook is an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University. His bio is here. His email is dbunny@titan.cc.wwu.edu

What prompted me to send you some additional material was Revkin's NY Times article in which he

(1) quotes a bunch of CO2 dogmatists as saying the cooling is just a minor blip and we'll be back headed for toast very soon, and

(2) although he quotes you, he doesn't quote any scientists who have good data that what we're seeing is not just weather, but rather a fully expected change to a global cooling mode. So I sent you a bunch of data that I thought might be useful in responding to the global cooling deniers, namely:



1. We've been on a predicted cooling trend since 2002 (see above curve). The average of the four main temperature measuring methods is slightly cooler since 2002 (except for a brief el Nino interuption) and record breaking cooling this winter. The argument that this is too short a time period to be meanful would be valid were it not for the fact that this cooling exactly fits the pattern of timing of warm/cool cycles over the past 400 years and was predicted (see publications I sent earlier).

2. We are entering a solar cycle of much reduced sun spots, very similar to that which accompanied the change from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, which virtually all scientists agree was caused by solar variation. Thus, we seem to be headed for cooler temperatures as a result of reduced solar irradiance.

3. Sea surface temperatures in the NE Pacific mirror the atmospheric observations of cooling since 2002.

4. Some glaciers are slowing their rate of retreat in response to the past 6 years of cooling. (They aren't readvancing yet because it takes awhile for a turnaround.

So what is the significance of the present globally icy winter and slight cooling for the past 6 years? By itself, it's weather and arguably not statistically important. However, when considered in the light of the past 6-year cooling trend, the continuation of that pattern is important because if we are to believe the IPCC's prediction of a 1o F warming by 2011, that will require warming of almost 1o F in the next three years!

The IPCC recasts its predictions every year to match actual conditions so they appear to stay `on-track.' However, they made finite predictions some years ago and if IPCC is to remain credible, those predictions need to be accountable.

In a nutshell, in 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark.



With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science. Anyway, I wanted to provide you with real data to substantiate the concept that we have entered a period of real global cooling, not just a cold winter.


----------



## helpup (3 Mar 2008)

My 2Cents on this Super thread,  First I believe with what I have read in MSM, on-line and just my own observations that Global Warming is an abused topic with so many agendas built into it that frankly I don't trust it.  I do follow the proponents of our weather is caused mainly from cycles of the Sun.  The why has been answered more then a few times on this thread and other means.  But it boils down to the size of the Sun, its known cycles and how they corelate to changes in Earth's Temp.  Next there is the fact that the Earth has gone through climatic change as far back as we have been able to search.  Outside of major traumatic events such as known meteor strikes this has or should be accepted as the Suns fluctuations being the main culprit.  One thing that I believe and is back up by recorded weather history is there is no way Man caused them ( talking pre industrial revolution here ).  

Now I know people mean well and there is allot of data out there screaming that Man is causing Global Warming,  but now we are starting to hear about nope it is going to cool not get hotter.  Frankly I don't care for either.  This is the Planet Earth in its history there have been the rise of more then one dominate species during differant time periods.  So I am not on the Global warming bandwagon nor am I on the cooling bandwagon.  I am on the Earth is going to change weather we like it or not band wagon.  We just have to see if we are the unlucky ones who are going to be living in a time that there is a major climatic shift and see if we as a species have evolved enough to be able to handle the repercussions.  

Now having said all that.  I do believe in conservationism.  Lower pollution levels are a good thing, not releasing toxic substances in our current amounts and trying to get things back to a more manageable level.  But that is more for the fact that I like clean air, trees, wild life.  I have seen pollution changes with my own eyes not by the temperature that happens but by looking at the smog that happens from large concentration belts.  Our water should remain clean, our forest strong our wild life thriving.  But that does not preclude using those things in a wise manner.  

I could go on more and will with directed questions or statements but I think I have said my peace.  Sorry if this is not backed by facts or references.  Just my opinion based on the "facts" I have seen.


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2008)

It has always been the Sun.  The Sun and its cycles. Yes there are other factors like planetary orbits, including Human factors(we are one of many species who are part of the climate system, impact the climate system, change the climate system - think also beavers and termites !).  This is not news - it was part of my education in 2nd year Geomorphology Program courses taken in the early 70's

The whole Anthropogenic GhG thingy was the Global Environmental Industry finally ( after failing with the Club of Rome, Population Crisis I & II, Depleted Ozone et al scares) seizing upon a public relations campaign that could be sold as legitimate fear.  The final straw was getting the Goreacle, a desperate politician really needing a rehabilitation gig, to be the mouthpiece - he's a really good orator.

The GEI had 20+ years to spin their case as temperatures coinciding with a naturally occurring up-tick in the period 1975ish - 2000ish, but their time is up and the debacle of the scientific community as the Great Fraud is exposed  (yes scientists are motivated by Grant Money)  their credibility in all matters of science will be in shreds.  What started as "Global Warming" had to be morphed into "Climate Change" as the current cooling phase kicked in 6-7 years.  The title "Climate Change"  is as ridiculous as saying "Water Wet".

But the concept that a highly complex, very chaotic system can be driven by microscopic changes in our atmosphere due to slight increases in a minor trace gas, is as ludicrous in its precept as it is bold in its public relations value.


A well reasoned assessment here . .   

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/McClenneyPart_I.pdf    

PART I OF V

WILLIAM F. MCCLENNEY, P.G. R.E.A.

When I first heard it, I believed it. It made sense. I could see it easily and clearly. And that was

a long, long time ago. It seemed counterintuitive that anyone could or would not believe it. It

was that seminal. Homo Sapiens would cause the earth to warm, we now call it the Greenhouse

Gas theory, and it is now a law (at least in California).

But it was just a few years ago as the real hype got going that I had my first cause to question the

legality of what would soon be a law. And it happened in the oddest of ways. That occasioned a

journey that took me from realization to epiphany to more realizations until I finally got it.

I will take you on that journey, if you think you can handle it. But be well advised that due to the

Nine Times Rule there is only an 11.1% chance you will be able to follow me. In an advanced

course in Psychology taken some 30 years ago I learned that the human being is nine times more

susceptible to rumor than it is to fact. That simple rule explains a dramatic amount of human

behavior. To prove this rule all one needs to do is accurately answer this simple question: Which

religion is the correct one?

That’s what I thought.

So if you want to take the journey I did, brace yourself well. My religion is geology, and this

journey is the ultimate heresy. If you make it all the way to the end, and understand it all, you

will be amongst a very rare breed, those that made the cut on the Nine Times Rule. And you will

know how this fundamental rule has been revised, may possibly be revised again downwards,

and why. Because this journey I took, and that you may take, started out about climate change

and ended up somewhere else entirely. It ended up as part of the theory of everything.

THE FIRST HERESY

I had been hearing it for some time without it really registering. The new ruckus about global

warming. I was already a believer in this latest of all man’s religions. I had the faith. But

something started to niggle at the back of my geologic mind. The Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting sea levels might rise something like 40-60 centimeters

(about 2 feet) by the end of this century. Al Gore upped that by an order of magnitude to 20 feet,

not bad for an exaggeration. And that was what started me on this journey. How could both

these august sources be so far off? Al is probably off by a factor of 5, and the IPCC by a factor

of 50. Because that niggling in the back of my brain was protesting loudly enough to make it to

my consciousness.


----------



## Yrys (4 Mar 2008)

I'm not sure if it shoudn't go to a separate thread, to keep posts on the track of the thread...

Sierra Club throws a sucker punch



> If you are the Sierra Club, what would you call a senator who:
> a) voted against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
> b) introduced legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and
> c) co-wrote a 3.5 million-acre statewide wilderness bill?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2008)

Since they are preaching an ideology, facts don't need to be considered. Look below:

http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/03/04/breadlosers/



> *Breadlosers*
> 
> I have to give credit to the Left for finally finding a way to market their ideology besides simply spending more or involving more government in our lives through this new junk science called global cooling nee climate change nee global warming. In the process, they have found a way of recapturing their deceptive tactics of the mid-20th century of framing their cause in a way that no one disagrees with on the surface, but hides lethal devils in the details; no one is against improving the environment, or social justice, or human rights, after all!
> 
> ...


----------



## Strike (5 Mar 2008)

That last highlighted statement is especially ironic, since the only benifit of ethanol is to releive the strain on the need for non-renewable resources.  They actually release more carbon in the atmosphere than traditional fuels.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (5 Mar 2008)




----------



## larry Strong (5 Mar 2008)

Found this in the Red Deer Advocate

http://www.albertalocalnews.com/reddeeradvocate/opinion/Why_the_eco-doomsters_are_wrong.html

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the Copyright Act.(RSC)



> Why the eco-doomsters are wrong
> By David Seymour - Advocate news services - March 04, 2008    |    |      |    |
> 
> This spring marks 10 years since the death of Julian Simon, the provocative thinker and a professor of business administration at the University of Maryland and a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, who refuted the notion that society would collapse as finite resources run out.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Mar 2008)

There is way to much money to be made selling and buying carbon credits, the people who will profit from this will keep the fear and myths alive, no matter how many people suffer because of it.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2008)

Carbon Credits can be a lucrative business for sleazy people (such as me!).  I should apply for 1000 credits, and then sell them to some big company for $$$$$


(of course, the only thing that happens is that money changes hands: nothing productive is done)


----------



## Haletown (6 Mar 2008)

What's really happening in the great Global Warming Bait & Switch ponzi scheme

 “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 and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

And from Maurice Strong - Mr. Kyoto himself

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP


http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/global-warming-scam-of-the-century/


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2008)

Coincidence, or.........?

http://www.mikebrockonline.com/blog/2008/03/the-sun-has-nothing-to-do-with.html



> *"The Sun Has Nothing to Do With Global Warming"*
> By
> Mike Brock
> on March 7, 2008 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)
> ...


----------



## JBG (8 Mar 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050728.wwarming0728/BNStory/International/
> 
> "Global greenhouse gas emissions would have increased 41 per cent from 1990 to 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. Downer said. With the accord, they are expected to go up by 40 per cent if all countries meet their targets, he claimed."
> 
> Billions spent in Canada alone to reduce the overall world increase *by 1%*?


It sounds like a waste and it is a waste. Climate moves in varying length cycles of varying intensities. Since we're coming out of an Ice Age the overall direction should be warming but with many irregular cooling intervals along the way. We're nowhere near the levels reached during the Medieval Optimum, the "Viking" period. The whole effort is to make work for statist beaurocrats with nothing better to do. 


			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> P.S.  The rest of the article deals with a new agreement being pushed by the EVIL United States to bring India and China into the effort.   ;D


This is just one of the many areas that the West is expected to be self-abnegating, huggy-huggy and acting in a "one-world" manner where no similar conduct is expected of the world's dictatorships such as China.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2008)

Although this is a post about the CWB, the idea that the government can mandate and manipulate the market is behind the shift to ethanol despite the rather abundant evidence that making ethanol is a net energy consumer and subsidies are wreaking havoc with the global food market.  When we see the self defeating policies of the CWB in action, we can forecast what will happen as the switch to subsidized ethanol takes place. Another fine example of regulatory failure:

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2008/03/think-beer.html



> *Think Beer.*
> Really, who can accuse the CWB of being sexy, and who cares about farmers. I mean really, they grow food, we eat it. Simple.
> 
> What if the barley growers switch to wheat, or corn because they can get better prices? Who cares?
> ...


----------



## Haletown (10 Mar 2008)

good summary  . . . 


When True Believers begin to harbor doubts, they don't immediately give up the faith. It's too scary; too much pride and money has been invested; too many jobs and reputations are on the line; and they need to find a new reason to live. So they always try to add on new wrinkles and qualifications to their crumbling story.

Today that's happening with the global warming cult.

"Human-caused global warming" has now officially been re-named "climate change" to explain the inconvenient truth that the winter of 2007-8 was the coldest in a century, in spite of all those tons of "greenhouse gas" being spewed into the air from all the new factories in China and India. Worldwide temps dropped 0.6 of a degree C in one year.   That may not sound like a lot, but it's more than all the ballyhooed warming in the preceding century. 

If you want to see cult therapy at work, read John Tierney in The New York Times. Tierney is a skeptic who now conducts recovery therapy for the faithful on his Tierney Lab page. It looks like someone at the NYT has finally caught on to the hoax but won't admit it. So they hired Tierney to break it to the True Believers as gently as possible. Watch how the readers' blogs are resisting his gentle skepticism; it scares them. They are just Obama suckers who would have fallen for Bill Clinton, when he still had his magic mojo.

In the 1960s social psychologists studied a doomsday cult which made the big mistake of predicting the day of Armageddon.  When that day came and went without crisping the world, the cult leaders didn't admit they were wrong. Instead, they discovered reasons why doomsday had been postponed. It was a triumph of faith over facts. That's how stock market bubbles and busts work. It's how the jihadi Armageddon cult of Tehran will crumble, if we're all very lucky. "

rtr @       http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_epicycles_of_global_warmin.html


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> ...When True Believers begin to harbor doubts, they don't immediately give up the faith. It's too scary; too much pride and money has been invested; too many jobs and reputations are on the line; and they need to find a new reason to live. So they always try to add on new wrinkles and qualifications to their crumbling story. ...



- Like Gun Control?

 ;D


----------



## Haletown (10 Mar 2008)

a nudder good one . . someone has a sense of humor.

"Effects of Global Warming Worse Than Feared

FALSE HOPE, NY – The effects of global warming are far worse than originally feared, according to a new report released Monday by the University of False Hope. Dr. Phil Raup conducted the research that showed, among other things, that the low temperatures for each day occur an hour later today than they did even as recently as last week.

“Low temperatures in the morning now occur, on average, an entire hour later in the day,” Raup explained. “This means that the day stays warmer for a longer period of time, thus putting our entire polar bear population at risk of falling through melting ice.”

Unlike other climate problems, this one can be unambiguously attributed to President Bush, Raup said. “This is a direct result of President Bush’s policies. If he hadn’t signed certain bills into effect, this aspect of Global Warming would have been delayed for at least three weeks.”

Raup says his research indicates that Global Warming caused a shift in the spacetime continuum early Sunday morning. In essence, an entire hour was deleted from existence. “The only explanation we found that is consistent with all research is that the extreme heat energy created by Global Warming caused a miniature black hole to appear, just for a moment. This black hole was powerful enough to suck time itself into its vortex.”

Raup credits ALGORE, a cyborg designed March 31, 1948 which later took the initiative in creating the internet, with keeping the black hole from causing more widespread damage. “The entire state of Arizona was spared thanks to ALGORE’s quick actions. Other than that, it was pretty much universal."


----------



## Haletown (13 Mar 2008)

interesting data froma reliable source - the Hadley centre is ++ pro global warming 

This means that by volume , the upper half and much larger portion by volume of our atmosphere has cooled down much more than than lower part.


altitude (meters/feet)          hPa         Trend  (C/decade)
24,000/79,000                       30          -0.84
20,000/65,500                       50          -0.76
16,000/52,500                     100          -0.35
14,000/46,000                     150          -0.12
12,000/40,000                     200         -0.01
9,100/30,000                       300           0.10
6,500/21,500                        500          0.05
3,000/10,000                       700           0.06
1,500/5000                           850           0.08
zero (surface)                      1,000           0.13    (from HadCRU3)

As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes.  This completely contradicts conventional global warming models.


rtr @  http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2008/03/12/co2-global-warming/


----------



## JBG (15 Mar 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> If you want to see cult therapy at work, read John Tierney in The New York Times. Tierney is a skeptic who now conducts recovery therapy for the faithful on his Tierney Lab page. It looks like someone at the NYT has finally caught on to the hoax but won't admit it. So they hired Tierney to break it to the True Believers as gently as possible. Watch how the readers' blogs are resisting his gentle skepticism; it scares them. They are just Obama suckers who would have fallen for Bill Clinton, when he still had his magic mojo.


Link please? I'm very interested in watching how this plays out in the New York Times, which hits my driveway every morning but increasingly goes unread as it's become a boring rag almost as bad as the Toronto Star is reputed to be.


----------



## JBG (15 Mar 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> a nudder good one . . someone has a sense of humor.
> 
> "Effects of Global Warming Worse Than Feared


That is  a good one. I sent it to my political mailing group.


----------



## Haletown (15 Mar 2008)

JBG said:
			
		

> Link please?



Started here . . . 

   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html


----------



## Haletown (15 Mar 2008)

This is a daily must check-in blog by a guy out of the US.  

He updates probably five - ten times a day . . .   Don't know where he finds the time but he does.



  http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/


----------



## JBG (16 Mar 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Started here . . .
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/01/science/01tier.html


Thanks.


----------



## Flip (16 Mar 2008)

I found this in the National Post.

Link

The media snowjob on global warming
Lorne Gunter, National Post  
Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

 Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.
Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism -- and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy -- can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate 

Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.

The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors -- the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, -- not human sources are behind global warming.

The Washington Post's first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group's credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor -- the Heartland Institute -- received money from oil companies and health care corporations.

That's standard fare, and partly fair, so that's not what I am talking about.

The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC's famous report of last year.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: "While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn't win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.

And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.

Hundreds of scientists may have contributed bits and pieces of work to the IPCC's gargantuan report, but just 62 wrote the chapter said to "prove" that man is behind global warming -- not that many more than the 23 from the new NIPCC who the Post so snidely dismiss as inconsequential in number. And just 52 people -- many of them the kind of non-scientists the Post would have us believe have no business passing judgment -- wrote the IPCC's "Summary for Policy-makers." That's the publication that gets all the ink and drives the climate alarmism because it contains the most provocative statements about the certainty of manmade warming.

The bias is that whatever the IPCC and its defenders claim, the Washington Post and most other outlets report without scrutiny. Meanwhile, the motives and sources of all sceptics are instantly suspected and derided.

There's nothing wrong with scrutinizing the motives of people engaged in a dicey debate. The subjectivity arises from scrutinizing only one side and always with a preconceived notion of what you are going to find.

Such bias is typical, though, of the climate debate, and not just among reporters and editors.

Two weeks ago, I wrote a column that was provocatively titled, "Forget global warming:Welcome to the New Ice Age." In it, I explained that, far from being warming activists, some solar scientists see the recent downturn in solar activity as harbinger of a coming Ice Age.

I wondered how come we don't hear about that in equal measure with the claims of an impending meltdown?

I received over 1,800 e-mails, most of them complimentary. A large number, though, were as hysterical and vicious as any I have received on any subject in almost two decades in journalism.

How could I not believe? Was I being dishonest or just stupid? How much had EXXON paid me? Until I could write in favour of the warming theorists, I should "go back into your oil company-funded bubble. You @*!/x-ing hack."

And that was from a climate scientist at a major university.

At last week's Manhattan climate conference, delegate after delegate related stories about how they had been denied tenure, shut out of scientific conferences and rejected by academic journals because no matter how scrupulous their research, their conclusions disagreed with the prevailing orthodoxy of the Climate Change Pharisees. They spoke, too, of colleagues too afraid for their jobs even to turn up at the conference.

I don't believe we are headed for an ice age any more than we're hurtling towards a meltdown. But we are in the midst of overwhelming bias in favour of the meltdown side.

lgunter@shaw.ca

Another piece from Mar 4

More technical in nature - worth the read


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2008)

Celebrating Earth Hour in Ottawa. Follow the link for the pictures:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000977.html



> *Earth Hour*
> 
> Earth Hour was 'celebrated' worldwide on Saturday in order to raise "awareness" of climate change and our wasteful consumption of energy. I was made aware of this event by the huge (approx) 50 ft full colour banner hanging from Ottawa city hall, the countless full colour flyers taped to lamp posts downtown, the wall to wall TV network coverage that has been burning up the microwaves, the buckets of black ink used to print clever 'lights out' themes on the front pages of newspapers produced from dead trees. Ironically, one Earth Hour promoter suggested sitting in the dark and burning candles instead of having the lights on. Alas, burning wax is a much less efficient method of producing light, and a process that produces more CO2, than using fluorescent (or even incandescent bulbs) that have been produced as a result of industrial progress, and market-based innovation. Indeed, the net result of industrialization was to create more efficient processes for achieving the same or better end results for less energy cost and less energy waste.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2008)

Here is the choice laid out in pretty stark terms; does India build a 4 GW powerplant  and provide electricity to millions of people or do we tell them they must suffer in the darkness? (Note in the article, India has a potential shortfall of 160 GW of electricity. Besides jumbo thermal generators like the one described, only hundreds of nuclear generating stations could handle the load with current technology).

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/money-for-indias-ultra-mega-coal-plants-approved/?ex=1208404800&en=fc1b35982cca425a&ei=5070&emc=eta1



> *Money for India’s ‘Ultra Mega’ Coal Plants Approved*
> 
> By Andrew C. Revkin
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (25 Apr 2008)

excessive "Global Warming"  now impacting Military Skills Competition.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4323

Royal Military College (RMC) of Canada’s Sandhurst team members are putting the finishing touches on their training to defend their title at the Sandhurst military skills competition on May 3 at the US Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.

The Sandhurst military skills competition course is designed to test the limits of human endurance and skill, both mental and physical, through a 12-km course made harder with obstacles. The RMC team held two mini-competitions, replicating the Sandhurst competition, as part of their training. One in Kingston in mid-March focused on teamwork, and one in Petawawa in early April focused on specific skills. The competitions included such obstacles as assault boat movement and water crossing *(adapted due to available bodies of water being frozen), *marksmanship, wall, leader reaction course, battle casualty evacuation, and force on force.

RMC has participated in the Sandhurst competition since 1997, and has won three years running – 2005, 2006 and 2007.


----------



## JBG (29 Apr 2008)

Haletown said:
			
		

> excessive "Global Warming"  now impacting Military Skills Competition.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/community/mapleleaf/article_e.asp?id=4323
> 
> ...


I assume that implies year to year variation and not a trend. I am tired of global warming even being assumed as fact, much less blamed on man.


----------



## Haletown (29 Apr 2008)

I think this time the water body was frozen, so ironic given all the panic over AGW.

a link to a great summary of all things AGW panic & fear mongering.

"What's irrational? The Green Movement is irrational. Most of it represents feel-good ideas that are hooey: symbolic hooey that is meant to make people feel virtuous while accomplishing nothing. Witness the lightbulb craze, "organic" vegetables, "recycling" plastic bottles (totally energy-inefficient), or hybrid cars (which do nothing "for the planet" but which are great on gas mileage). It's empty vanity and fashion, and nothing more (for an example, see this foolish agonizing piece by Michael Pollan, who has caught a bad case of the vain and guilt-ridden sanctimony of the "I can make a difference" disorder).

Pure organic pixie dust for the latte liberals."

rtr@ http://tinyurl.com/3or52j


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 May 2008)

Global warming on hiatus, let's call it Apocalypse Postponed. At least temporarily.

New research suggests ocean currents will offset rising temperatures -- cue the hysterics
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN 

German climate scientists have just published a study in the respected science journal Nature suggesting global warming has stopped and will not resume until at least 2015. 

In other words (my words, not theirs) contrary to the received wisdom of Al Gore's simplistic and propagandistic An Inconvenient Truth, global temperatures aren't moving in lockstep with rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the science isn't settled and we don't know everything we need to know. 
Based on new, computer-generated climate models that factor in natural ocean currents, the researchers conclude: "Our results suggest that global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming." 

Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences said if their calculations are correct, the 0.3 degree Celsius global temperature rise predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change over the next decade won't happen. 
"We believe that ocean currents and systems could, in the short term, change global warming patterns, and even mean temperatures," he told National Geographic News. 

Since there has actually been no global warming since 1998, that means there would be an almost two-decade span where concentrations of GHG emissions, most notably carbon dioxide, continued to intensify in the atmosphere, without global temperatures following suit. 
These researchers aren't climate "deniers." They say their findings -- based on cutting-edge computer modelling techniques still in their infancy -- are a refinement of existing climate models. 

They also calculate that after 2015, global warming will resume, as the warming caused by man-made GHG emissions is no longer masked by the cooling effect of ocean currents. They aren't suggesting man-made global warming has permanently stopped. 
And that's all fair enough. But let's not kid the troops. 

Prior to this study, anyone impertinent enough to point out, contrary to the Al Gore Nation, there hasn't been any global warming for a decade was apt to have their head shot off by climate hysterics. 
As astrophysicist and award-winning former BBC science correspondent David Whitehouse -- who made exactly that point in the British magazine New Statesman last Dec. 19 in an essay titled "Has Global Warming Stopped?" observed in the wake of this new research: 

"Not long ago, anyone who looked at the global annual temperature data and disrespectfully pointed out that it might actually be significant that the world hasn't become warmer since 1998, was dismissed as foolish and accused of seeing what they wanted to see ... Then, if they had the effrontery to point out that even the U.K.'s MET (British Meteorological Office) agreed that the annual data between 2001-7 was an impeccable flat line, they were told they were completely wrong as such things were obviously only year-on-year variability (as an unscientific environmental 'activist' damned my speculations in the New Statesman about the same topic, whilst at the same time implying I was lying)". 


Indeed, Whitehouse got hit from all sides, including a brutal follow-up essay in New Statesman by its "environmental correspondent" who wrote: "I'll be blunt. Whitehouse got it wrong -- completely wrong ... readers of my column will know that I give contrarians, or skeptics or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift ... So a mistaken article reached a flawed conclusion. Intentionally, or not, readers were misled, and the good name of the New Statesman has been used all over the Internet by climate contrarians seeking to support their entrenched positions." 

There's only one problem. Whitehouse isn't a denier. 

As he wrote in his original essay, "Certainly the working hypotheses of CO2-induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles, but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far, or that the working hypotheses is a sufficient explanation for what is going on ... we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth's atmosphere's interaction with sunlight ... We know far less than many think we do, or would like you to think we do." 

Indeed.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2008)

The New Statesman:  Voice of the Original Social Engineers - The Fabians.

There is a Truth.  Their Truth.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 May 2008)

Suzuki slams NDP, Tories, backs Dion's carbon tax

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080518/carbontax_liberals_080518/20080518?hub=TopStories

Where's the yawning smiley?  What on Earth is a "carbon tax" going to do?  Forgive me for being naive, but I don't think that taxing pollution is going to stop it...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 May 2008)

If raising the price of oil from $13 dollars a barrel to $130 dollars a barrel in the past decade hasn't produced the "millenium" in terms of CO2 decrease I shudder to think what level of tax Suzuki thinks WOULD be effective.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 May 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If raising the price of oil from $13 dollars a barrel to $130 dollars a barrel in the past decade hasn't produced the "millenium" in terms of CO2 decrease I shudder to think what level of tax Suzuki thinks WOULD be effective.



Now all we need is a North American auto manufacturer to wake the fuck up and make a domestic $5-8K equivalent to the Smart car.  They corner the market on small cars, we get something affordable to drive for an inner-city runabout.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 May 2008)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If raising the price of oil from $13 dollars a barrel to $130 dollars a barrel in the past decade hasn't produced the "millenium" in terms of CO2 decrease I shudder to think what level of tax Suzuki thinks WOULD be effective.



I'd like to see Suzuki choke on a tofu burger.....

My biggest problem with him (and his ilk) is he (they) actually end up being incredibly counterproductive.  I consider myself pretty environmentally friendly and these guys just piss me off because they promote the wasting of huge sums of taxpayer dollars on horribly low ROI expenditures (ethanol subsidies, CO2 sequestration, huge $$$ for public transportation, etc, etc, etc.)

Dear David, you want to be environmentally friendly you jerkoff, how about promoting things we can manage and that we're certain of the science:
1)  National Greenbox Program so compostables don't go into landfill sites.
2)  National initiative to measure, then reduce heavy metals in airborne emissions by 50%.
3)  National initiative to measure, then reduce heavy metals in drinking water to near 0.  
4)  National initiative to invest in our water management systems so that never again will there be a sign at a beach that says "Closed due to e-coli contamination"
5)  National Economic Plan to begin serial production of nuclear plants to i) eliminate our reliance on coal, ii) provide a new energy source to eventually power plug-in automobiles.
6)  National Tax Incentive on R&D and Manufacturing on Plug-In vehicle technology that takes place within Canada.
7)  National initiative to redefine urban planning so that all new development is focused upon creating collective communities where residential, commercial and industrial are all within walking distance of one another, even in snow.  (Of note, that's my biggest problem with the whole Public Transportation debate.  It's a solution to the wrong problem.  The question shouldn't be "How do we move people from where they shouldn't live to where they work using taxpayer infrasture?"  The question should be "How do we modify our cities and towns so that we can maximize the number of citizens thow can walk to their place of employment?"

And that's just to name a few of the things we could if we stopped discussion this Kyoto/AGW horse....pucky.

Bottom Line:  These idiots are so stupid and incompetent, they're unfit to carry my friggin' golf clubs, much less try to influence public policy and taxpayer expenditures.  May they all allergies to chickpeas.


Matthew.


----------



## Flip (19 May 2008)

Blackshirt, nice list you forgot a few things.......

Sulfur emissions,  have scrubbers put on coal power plants in Ontario instead of declaring that they shouldn't exist anyway and that scrubbers wouldn't do anything about GW. 

Mercury, instead of legally mandating a guranteed market for those little spiral bulbs - find something better like LEDs.

We could get rid of market incentives to destroying Indonesian rainforest for the purpose of starting bio-diesel plantations.

We could stop building wind farms that kill birds and destroy the view.

We could get rid of ethanol subsidies that deprive people of food.

Just a few idle thoughts..... I think some have already been mentioned.

This AGW noise has displaced nearly all legitimate environmental coverage in the press and media. You can't get through a single day without someone bringing up the mythic AGW monster.  It's actually been reported that the global downward trend in temperature is consistant with Global Warming theory......!


----------



## a_majoor (19 May 2008)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> 7)  National initiative to redefine urban planning so that all new development is focused upon creating collective communities where residential, commercial and industrial are all within walking distance of one another, even in snow.  (Of note, that's my biggest problem with the whole Public Transportation debate.  It's a solution to the wrong problem.  The question shouldn't be "How do we move people from where they shouldn't live to where they work using taxpayer infrasture?"  The question should be "How do we modify our cities and towns so that we can maximize the number of citizens thow can walk to their place of employment?"



There is no need for a national initiative; most municipalities could start this by simply relaxing their zoning regulations, since they promote highly segregated land use. Don't write the PM and wait decades for this to happen, write your mayor!

BTW, highly regulated and nationally planned mixed use neighbourhoods do exist; most were build under the communist regime of the USSR and the PRC. I would rather see thousands of locally developed neighbourhoods than a thousand planned by some office in Ottawa......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 May 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There is no need for a national initiative; most municipalities could start this by simply relaxing their zoning regulations, since they promote highly segregated land use. Don't write the PM and wait decades for this to happen, write your mayor!
> 
> BTW, highly regulated and nationally planned mixed use neighbourhoods do exist; most were build under the communist regime of the USSR and the PRC. I would rather see thousands of locally developed neighbourhoods than a thousand planned by some office in Ottawa......



I know the municipalities "could" do it.  The problem is the municipalities are generally run by shrubs and haven't had an original idea ever. 

Seriously, I've met about 10 of Ontario's mayors and most of them are knobs....

RE:  Central Planning - I don't mean that Ottawa brings the hand of God down and says "You must do this" as per the communist model.  

Instead they pay to bring together a bunch of great minds and centrally pay for the brainstorming instead of the municipalities paying individually 15,000 times for the exact same brainstorming.  The objective of the study is develop several models of various sizes for urban, suburb and rural development/redevelopment (based on project sizes of 1,000, 2,500, 5,000, 10,000 & 25,000).  The central study including those completed models are then released to the municipalities along with some type of incentive fund.  Let's say $2.5 billion per annum in infrastructure expense reimbursement for any municipal costs associated with a project of more than a 1,000 housing units that meet certain benchmarks.  In short, if the municipalities start planning better, the Feds step up and pick-up some of the costs associated with water, sewer, road, infrastructure.


Matthew.   

P.S.  To Flip - Totally agree.  The mercury one to me is particularly galling as there's so much evidence of that substance being causal in numerous brain and nervous system conditions.  [I'm not sure I've told this story here but a friend of my uncle who is a orthodontist was diagnosed with Alzheimers as his memory and facilities started to decline.  My uncle had been reading some stuff on mercury in amalgum fillings and the impact on nerve transmission.  On his own he pulled all his friend's amalgum fillings and dental work and replaced it with composite caps and I believe tungsten bases.  My uncle's friend has subsequently made a full recovery and is back to old self.]  RE:  LED technology - Totally agree.  Again if it were my call, that would be another federally funded R&D and manufactuing investment I'd make.  On the Indonesian Rain Forest Issue - Again I agree, but that's more of European issue as they're the ones who are importing all the Palm Oil for "environmentally friendly" biodeisel.  I was just trying to target "Canadian" issues as I think the more personal we make it, the more successful we'll be.  One add-on:  I'd ban plastic bags at retail outlets within 2-years.  I've been carrying cloth shopping bags in my car for 2-years.  It's not hard.  And if disposable bags are necessary, then use paper....which then fits into the Green Box program.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2008)

Reality is intruding on the Climate alarmists, and common sense is finally winning out. Any guess as to the next "crisis" requiring massive government intervention (I will place my bet on water, but I'm sure there are a lot of psudo crisis out there)

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/day-music-died.html



> 07 June 2008
> *The Day the Music Died*
> 
> I predict that May and June 2008 will be the "tipping" point in the Global Warming debate ... the tipping point that killed Global Warming. Oh, the hoax will struggle and thrash for some time to come, like some giant lizard that refuses to die, but by and large ... it's dead.
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jun 2008)

Perhaps someone could mention that to Dion?  He seems to be a bit off the mark these days.   ???


----------



## Flip (10 Jun 2008)

Funny you should say that.......
Friday night I had dinner witha former Liberal Candidate and lifetime Liberal.
Even HE acknowledges that Dion is no leader........And then we talked about AGW.
I've read ALOT about it lately.

My favorite blog on the subject is; http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

Usually about a dozen good posts a day.


----------



## JBG (10 Jun 2008)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Perhaps someone could mention that to Dion?  He seems to be a bit off the mark these days.   ???


In the US the Senate, in rejecting this nonesense, focused on the cost, as they ddi in 1997 when they instructed Gore, 95-1, not to present any Kyoto treaty for ratification if it did not bind India and China.The costs, for absolutely no environmental gain, are horrific.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2008)

More reality intrusion 

Who'da thunkit.  The Earth is self-regulating.




> Cirrus Disappearance: Warming Might Thin Heat-trapping Clouds
> 
> ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2007) — The widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.
> 
> ...


*

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071102152636.htm


So when things get too hot, the skies open up and release heat.....


Also 80% of Greenhouse Gas generation is based on snow, rain and clouds and nobody understands that.....

Also the Settled Science is based on an unproven hypothesis that in turn is based on the "(assumption) that more rainfall means more high altitude clouds. That would be your first guess and, since we didn't have any data to suggest otherwise * ..." 


You know what you call a hypothesis based on a guess? A guess.  Jaysus Murphy Wept. :'(


----------



## YZT580 (12 Jun 2008)

And finally, Aspen is opening up for the weekend.  They have over 3 feet on the upper slopes.  Best spring skiing in years.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jun 2008)

And just to make sure we don't run out of snow:



> It is the latest Spokane has seen snow since records started being kept in 1881.
> 
> KHQ.com
> 
> ...



Courtesy of Gateway Pundit


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jun 2008)

And once again, if you look at theweathernetwork.com, Ontario is going to continue to remain 3 or 4 degrees celsuis below average for another two weeks (which continues a trend that's been at least 4-6 months in duration).  

It's amazing to note how painstaking the effort is by the Weather Network (who loves to trumpet the Climate Change mantra because it drives ratings and makes their 'climatologists' more valuable) not to mention the fact.



Matthew.   :


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Jun 2008)

The following article is found online here: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html



> Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
> by John Coleman
> 
> You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.  It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Jun 2008)

Well, I'm on board with global warming now.  Just the other day I was out weeding the pineapple patch when I got clunked on the head by a coconut that fell out of one of my Alberta Palm trees.  Now I'm worried, the coconuts weren't due to ripen for another month.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jun 2008)

Here in Brussels it was 14 degrees yesterday.  We took a straw poll in the Grand Place and 75% said they would vote FOR global warming.  We still have the furnace on.


----------



## Jack O. (16 Jun 2008)

All of these reports, facts, and evidence and proof of the scam has hugely opened my mind (Not to the point of falling out, like some). I can't even imagine the uproar that particular piece would create in my High School. All the teachers are riding the Gore bus, so naturally the kids are, too. I get the deer in the headlights look whenever I say the words "Global Warming" and "Scam" in one sentence. Along with mentioning anything to do with the sun or how it affects the planet's atmosphere. Unbelievable, especially coming from the science teachers etc.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jun 2008)

Why should science teachers be immune?  Very few of them are actually scientists by training.  They only go by the material they read and they are subject to the same mis-information that the MSM puts out.  Just ask this question of them though: "Where does the money trail lead?"  What is happening to the millions of euros/dollars that are being invested in carbon credits etc. and you will find the trail leads back to people like Al Gore, the Power Corp., and a few other very shrewd business people who are increasing their wealth daily.  Simple facts:  there were vinyards in England in the first century.  Potatoes grew in Greenland until the 15th century.  Have you ever asked where it got its name?  It was green, a wonderful place until the cold weather started.  A chinese (or maybe Japanese) admiral navigated the Northwest Passage around the middle of the 15th century.  And incidentally, even though it was warmer, all of central Europe wasn't flooded as the doomsayers are preaching.  Good luck though.  Very few people have the intellectual integrity to actually look things up for themselves.  It is easier to take someone else's word for it: especially if that person has PHD behind his name.


----------



## Flip (17 Jun 2008)

I found this little Gem.....Something about arctic ice having returned to 1980 levels.


http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.76

Not sure of it's veracity but I suspect it's absolutely true.

In


----------



## YZT580 (17 Jun 2008)

must be after all, it is in print with pictures and pictures don't lie.


----------



## Flip (17 Jun 2008)

I found this today too.

An environmental group actually saying there are 5 Things That Are Worse Than Global Warming

If you want to win an argument I think the best tack is to highlight how AGW activism distracts us all from real environmental issues.  I often go further with how AGW activism actually causes harm.  Even a teacher can understand that point. ;D


----------



## JBG (20 Jun 2008)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why should science teachers be immune?


To my son's Grade 5 teacher's (in New York) dredit, she circulated to all students the  *article below * (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career. 

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

* Excerpts below* (link)[/url:



			
				Rose & Lomborg in WSJ said:
			
		

> Will Al Gore Melt?
> 
> By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2008)

Looking at alternative energy, with *real* numbers:

Sustainable Energy– without the hot air

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/sustainable/book/tex/cft.pdf


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Jul 2008)

Here's one you can file under "Boo-friggin' Hoo":

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/080703/world/climate_scorecards_1
Canada ranked 2nd last on World Wildlife Fund G8 Climate Scorecard  
Thu Jul 3, 8:35 AM

By The Associated Press

BERLIN - A new study suggests Canada ranks second to last among G8 countries when it comes to addressing global warming. 

Only the United States scores lower on the Group of Eight Climate Scorecard, released Thursday by the World Wildlife Fund. 

The study also found that none of the eight countries are making improvements large enough to prevent drastic temperature increases. 

The World Wildlife Fund say none of the G8 countries are even half-way to meeting ideal emissions targets. 

It says Britain has done the most to reach emissions targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol, with France and Germany close behind. Following in order are Italy, Japan, Russia, Canada and the United States. 

The scorecards were released ahead of next week's gathering of the Group of Eight on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. 

Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, told reporters in the German capital that G8 leaders should commit to reducing emissions in their countries by 40 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. 

"If we don't achieve that, the world's climate will change in ways that we can't even imagine today," Guenther said. 

The scorecard was compiled by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting company, and commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz SE. 

Joachim Faber, an Allianz board member who helped compile the scorecards, said a global emissions trading market is important to fighting climate change, and that the EU should lead its development. 

"The EU-specific trading system we have at the moment must serve as model system for one that we can found outside the EU, for the world economy," he said. 

The study also analyzed - but did not rank - five of the world's fastest growing economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa.  

"These countries cannot be measured with the same ruler as industrialized countries," the study said.  

Whatta joke.  And in what weird sky planet do those highlighted countries not count as being industiralized?  Seems that every single thing that I buy is from China.  That strikes me as being somewhat industrial.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2008)

Unfortunately, the article doesn't reveal the score which separates "first" from "last", nor what was measured.  (If all the article measures is good intentions expressed in legislation rather than actual reductions, there is nothing useful being measured.)


----------



## JBG (4 Jul 2008)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the article doesn't reveal the score which separates "first" from "last", nor what was measured.  (If all the article measures is good intentions expressed in legislation rather than actual reductions, there is nothing useful being measured.)


The fact that couintries the size and polluting potential of China and India aren't ranked makes the study useless. Why should the US and Canada cut back so as to give those other countries a free pass?


----------



## Flip (4 Jul 2008)

Of course the WWF wouldn't gain anything from hyping this at all would they?  

What's their revenue $500 million?  AGW was the best thing to ever happen to WWF and Greenpeace!!

Personally, my thought is that anyone who pushes AGW propaganda is ANTI- environment because it distracts us from real and tangible issues.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jul 2008)

> Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, told reporters in the German capital that G8 leaders should commit to reducing emissions in their countries by 40 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050.



The only way we're going to achieve those numbers is if the entire population of the Northern Hemisphere moves to Tahiti and lives off coconuts.......................and speaking of nuts.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2008)

Back in the 1970's, scientists predicted that we were slipping into a new Ice Age, and proposed solutions like sprinkling carbon soot on the ice caps to increase the global absorption of solar energy. I think we can all be thankfull that no one actually had the ability to generate "Global cooling" hysteria at that time.

Today, many people are noticing that a reduction in solar activity is leading to another period of global cooling, which has the potential to slide into another "Little Ice Age" should solar activity remain depressed for a prolonged period of time (the last little ice age ran from the @ 1250 AD [the advance of the arctic ice packs] to the mid 19th century).  While reducing (or even increasing) so called GHG will probably have little effect on the global climate, focusing all our resources and efforts on this has a huge potential to divert resources from other activities with greater return, and of course if the IPCC sock puppets guessed wrong, then they have eliminated the ability to correct the situation (the ultimate opportunity cost!).

Politicians who want to set long term "targets" for anything might want to contemplate the fate of nations and empires which used that methodology in the past: four and five[/quote] year plans.


----------



## Matty Lowe (15 Jul 2008)

Global cooling was the reason pollution control devices were added to cars in the early 70's; global warming reminds me of the Y2K marketing program used to scare people into purchasing new computers. Now the strategy is being used to scare people into buying more energy efficient appliances etc.


----------



## JBG (17 Jul 2008)

Matty Lowe said:
			
		

> Global cooling was the reason pollution control devices were added to cars in the early 70's; global warming reminds me of the Y2K marketing program used to scare people into purchasing new computers. Now the strategy is being used to scare people into buying more energy efficient appliances etc.


Great way to force middle class people who barely make ends meet to waste money, isn't it?


----------



## YZT580 (17 Jul 2008)

It is a wonderful way to make a lot of money though.  Just take a look at the companies that Al (I am fully committed to the environment in my Gulfstream 111) Gore has his investments in.  Our very own Power Corp. (fund raiser extraordinaire for the liberal party) has duplicate interests.  Incidentally, during the mini ice age referred to above, CO2 levels were significantly lower than they are now


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2008)

Australia is beginning to have a healthy debate on the subject (i.e. hysterics can't just shout down the skeptics anymore)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24122117-7583,00.html



> *Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason*
> 
> Arthur Herman | August 04, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## faceman (4 Aug 2008)

okay here's a link, apparently 90% of the worlds leading scientists agree that we are the cause of global warming.
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=99FB6D4E-E7F2-99DF-3030E2BDAB849DC5
this isn't crack pot science either, Scientific American is PRIMO science!  Unless you think god put fossils in the ground to test us.....
I'm still shocked about people's speculation on this thread, if you don't know what your talking about it's best not to talk.  That's why citations where created so you could quote people who do know things about it, IE. masters and phd level scientists.  I'm not a big fan of any of the economic measures surrounding this issue like carbon credits, i think the answer is really about long term vision.  As a society we're not going to be able to live on oil for more than 100 years anyways so why not start in moving away from oil based economics...is it really that hard to build windmills, put solar panels on the roof and build electric and hydrogen cars?  Where there's no will, there's not way, unfortunately.  just my two cents


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> ...is it really that hard to build windmills, put solar panels on the roof and build electric and hydrogen cars?  Where there's no will, there's not way, unfortunately.  just my two cents



I won't address you 90% claim, as I don't believe it, having seen figures to the contrary.  I will address the above statement though.  It is not hard to build windmills and they are popping up all over Europe.  Unfortunately, here in Canada, the same people who are complaining about the harm we do to the environment are also the people who complain that they don't want a noisy windmill within 100 m of their homes.  They are the same people who complain about plans to build better roads to alleviate the problems of motorways becoming parking lots full of idling cars during rush hours.  They are the people who do nothing but complain, and have no acceptable solutions.........no even for harnessing all the hot air they spew.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Aug 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> if you don't know what your talking about it's best not to talk.



That applies to you too sport....



> electric and hydrogen cars?



Even the enviro-hugging pinkos dont want to support the only source of energy that will make electric veh. possible. Hydrogen is a dream we need to wake up from.


----------



## JBG (5 Aug 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> okay here's a link, apparently 90% of the worlds leading scientists agree that we are the cause of global warming.
> http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=99FB6D4E-E7F2-99DF-3030E2BDAB849DC5
> this isn't crack pot science either, Scientific American is PRIMO science!  Unless you think god put fossils in the ground to test us.....
> I'm still shocked about people's speculation on this thread, if you don't know what your talking about it's best not to talk.  That's why citations where created so you could quote people who do know things about it, IE. masters and phd level scientists.  I'm not a big fan of any of the economic measures surrounding this issue like carbon credits, i think the answer is really about long term vision.


I think that scientists are biased towards finding a problem, since "non-problems" don't get study funding.



			
				faceman said:
			
		

> As a society we're not going to be able to live on oil for more than 100 years anyways so why not start in moving away from oil based economics...is it really that hard to build windmills, put solar panels on the roof and build electric and hydrogen cars?  Where there's no will, there's not way, unfortunately.  just my two cents


Peak oil has been postphoned repeatedly since 1920. I don't buy it.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Aug 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> okay here's a link, apparently 90% of the worlds leading scientists agree that we are the cause of global warming.
> http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=99FB6D4E-E7F2-99DF-3030E2BDAB849DC5
> this isn't crack pot science either, Scientific American is PRIMO science!  Unless you think god put fossils in the ground to test us.....
> I'm still shocked about people's speculation on this thread, if you don't know what your talking about it's best not to talk.  That's why citations where created so you could quote people who do know things about it, IE. masters and phd level scientists.  I'm not a big fan of any of the economic measures surrounding this issue like carbon credits, i think the answer is really about long term vision.  As a society we're not going to be able to live on oil for more than 100 years anyways so why not start in moving away from oil based economics...is it really that hard to build windmills, put solar panels on the roof and build electric and hydrogen cars?  Where there's no will, there's not way, unfortunately.  just my two cents



1)  It is questionable at best that you heckle the skeptic side of the argument after posting a single link as I can guarantee you the skeptic side in general is much more well-read, and well-researched on the subject that the lemming side of the argument that watched Al Gore's movie and bought in whole heartedly to the "Mankind is Bad" hippy crap message.
2)  When you're talking about science, don't confuse your "long-term vision" issues with the Global Warming debate.  They are two separate and distinct issues that both need to be reviewed and assessed on their own.  The fact the pro-AGW crowd generally characterizes the anti-AGW crowd as non-Environmental shows their ignorance.  In fact most of us on the skeptic side of the Global Warming debate do believe that we are overconsuming, overpopulated and man is living in an unsustainable fashion on this planet.  

Bottom Line:  Your statement very much implies that i) AGW is true because of your link, and ii) That even if it AGW is not true, it should still be promoted as part of a larger effort to change man kind's behaviour.  Bluntly, AGW is a crock.  I'll let you do your own research over the next several years to make your own determinination because sadly this debate too often on the pro-AGW side resembles religion instead of science, and arguing with a zealout is a waste of everyone's time.  And re: Other changes (like reducing dependency on oil due to peak oil, and in general lowering our footprint), that's best left to another thread as in that vein, you'll most certainly find unanimity on the subject between both pro-AGW and anti-AGW  posters.



Matthew.  

P.S.  Just for some context:  I started out several years ago on the pro-AGW side of the debate and eventually read enough that I could no longer sustain the position and I've been reducing, recycling, composting and doing things like carrying re-usable linen grocery bags since long before it became cool & trendy to do so....


----------



## DBA (5 Aug 2008)

faceman said:
			
		

> okay here's a link, apparently 90% of the worlds leading scientists agree that we are the cause of global warming.
> http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=99FB6D4E-E7F2-99DF-3030E2BDAB849DC5
> this isn't crack pot science either, Scientific American is PRIMO science!  Unless you think god put fossils in the ground to test us.....



When I was young Scientific American contained actual science, usually real papers rewritten for a wider audience and it was a valued resource of detailed information for me. These days it's the science equivalent of Popular Mechanics with interesting but shallow articles. You get about the same depth in local newspapers when they cover a topic. The editors have fallen into the same trap as any opinionated loudmouth: just because they are well read on a topic they think they are an authority on it.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2008)

Scientists are people like the rest of us (movies like "Rocky Horror Picture Show" notwithstanding), and can fall into groupthink, respond to positive and negative pressures (i.e. what fields are being funded), or just make mistakes. Read this all the way through and you will see a prediction made on the basis of limited observations. You will also see something refreshing, which is a real debate on the issue.

There is a zinger, but I will leave you to find it!


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Aug 2008)

Good'un, Thuc. I was surprised to find that BB was still alive, until I got to the top of the fourth column.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Aug 2008)

The following article is reproduced under the fair comments section of the Copyright Act.

From The Sunday TimesAugust 3, 2008

Captains’ logs yield climate clues
Records kept by Nelson and Cook are shedding light on climate change
Jonathan Leake 
Britain's great seafaring tradition is to provide a unique insight into modern climate change, thanks to thousands of Royal Navy logbooks that have survived from the 17th century onwards. 

The logbooks kept by every naval ship, ranging from Nelson’s Victory and Cook’s Endeavour down to the humblest frigate, are emerging as one of the world’s best sources for long-term weather data. The discovery has been made by a group of British academics and Met Office scientists who are seeking new ways to plot historic changes in climate. 

“This is a treasure trove,” said Dr Sam Willis, a maritime historian and author who is affiliated with Exeter University’s Centre for Maritime Historical Studies. 

“Ships’ officers recorded air pressure, wind strength, air and sea temperature and other weather conditions. From those records scientists can build a detailed picture of past weather and climate.” 

A preliminary study of 6,000 logbooks has produced results that raise questions about climate change theories. One paper, published by Dr Dennis Wheeler, a Sunderland University geographer, in the journal The Holocene, details a surge in the frequency of summer storms over Britain in the 1680s and 1690s. 

Many scientists believe storms are a consequence of global warming, but these were the coldest decades of the so-called Little Ice Age that hit Europe from about 1600 to 1850. 

Wheeler and his colleagues have since won European Union funding to extend this research to 1750. This shows that during the 1730s, Europe underwent a period of rapid warming similar to that recorded recently – and which must have had natural origins. 

Hints of such changes are already known from British records, but Wheeler has found they affected much of the north Atlantic too, and he has traced some of the underlying weather systems that caused it. His research will be published in the journal Climatic Change. 

The ships’ logs have also shed light on extreme weather events such as hurricanes. It is commonly believed that hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic and track westwards, so scientists were shocked in 2005 when Hurricane Vince instead moved northeast to hit southern Spain and Portugal. 

Many interpreted this as a consequence of climate change; but Wheeler, along with colleagues at the University of Madrid, used old ships’ logs to show that this had also happened in 1842, when a hurricane followed the same trajectory into Andalusia. 

The potential of Royal Navy ships’ logs to offer new insights into historic climate change was spotted by Wheeler after he began researching weather conditions during famous naval battles. Later, as global warming moved up the scientific agenda, he and others realised that the same data could shed light on historic climate change. 

He said: “British archives contain more than 100,000 Royal Navy logbooks from around 1670 to 1850 alone. They are a stunning resource.” 

Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings. However, Wheeler and his colleagues found early Royal Navy officers recorded weather in consistent language. 

“It means we can deduce numerical values for wind strength and direction, temperature and rainfall,” he said. The information will ultimately contribute to the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmos-phere Data Set, a global database maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a US government agency. 

Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions. These records will give us a much clearer picture of what is really happening.” 

The Met Office has also set up a project, part-funded by Defra, the environment ministry, to study 900 logbooks kept by the East India Company on voyages between Europe and the Far East between 1780 and 1840. Its vessels carried thermometers and barometers so the data is of higher quality. 

Faced with logs taken over so many voyages, the researchers have had to be selective. One of the most avid recorders of such data was Nelson himself, whose personal logbook records the air pressure and other readings he took up to several times daily. 

Explorers with a weather eye

Britain’s explorers left vital records of weather around the world 

— Robert FitzRoy was captain of HMS Beagle on two expeditions in the 1820s and 1830s. Charles Darwin was his passenger 

— Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson’s voyages took him to the Arctic, the East and West Indies and the Mediterranean before his death at Trafalgar in 1805 

— Captain James Cook mapped much of Canada and the Pacific in the 1760s and 1770s 

If nothing else, it certainly is thought provoking.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2008)

So who exactly is supposed to save us from "Climate Change"?

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/08/carpooling-good.html



> *Carpooling: Good for the environment, too bad it's illegal*
> 
> In many cases, the goals of environmentalism and capitalism coincide. Take, for instance, the fact that less packaging is a savings for a company. So, too, are those new instructions in hotel rooms: "To save the environment, we only wash those towels that you leave on the floor, letting us know that they're dirty."
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2008)

You realize of course they will draft a new regulation to ensure no other regulations, Acts conflict, of course the new regulation will conflict with the charter. I spent half of the last 9 years guiding proponents through the maze so they can build their project without conflicting to much with all the conflict Acts and regs.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2008)

Warmer climates are not only better for people, apparently:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/070625_penguin.htm



> *Ancient giant penguins liked it hot*
> 
> June 25, 2007
> Courtesy PNAS
> ...



Imagine your tropical vacation interrupted by hordes of aggressive, 5'+ penguins taking over the beach and you might be thankful for today's relatively cool climate......


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Sep 2008)

+3, and frost this morning, early September.  I'm busy looking around the shop for Styrofoam and used oil to burn.


----------



## RangerRay (2 Sep 2008)

+6C this morning here...should be bloody warmer here at this time of year!


----------



## TCBF (8 Sep 2008)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> +3, and frost this morning, early September.  I'm busy looking around the shop for Styrofoam and used oil to burn.



- Seriously?  Styrofoam and used oil?  Whoooaaaa.... Ya don't want the neighbour's kid fixing the flashing around your chimney when your shoveling THAT stuff into the Jotul.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2008)

Keeping nice and toasty in the Nordic nations:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2677486.ece?service=print



> *Gulf Stream here to stay*
> 
> The Gulf Stream, that almost mythical flow of warm seas that makes Norway and a few other Nordic countries liveable, isn't about to disappear any time soon. New research contradicts earlier theories that it might.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBG (19 Oct 2008)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> +6C this morning here...should be bloody warmer here at this time of year!


I am totally dubiuos of any claims of global warming, other than that generated by numerous natural cycles. One snowstorm or cold morning is not the proof, but reams of actual data does. Note that almost all of the alarms on AGW are prognostications.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2008)

Bus companies doing their part for global warming and the environment (heh)

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/ontario-stops-sharing/environment



> *No More Ride Sharing*
> Bus firm wins against Pickup Pal
> 
> An Ontario bus company has convinced the transport board that ride-sharing companies — such as Pickup Pal — operate illegally.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Nov 2008)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Bus companies doing their part for global warming and the environment (heh)
> 
> http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/ontario-stops-sharing/environment



More pearls of wisdom from Moronto, the arsehole of Bantario. It's no wonder retards like McSquinty and 'his blondness' Miller can find work here. : I think we should nuke that sphincter, commonly referred to as the 905 belt, and solve one of Canada's biggest problems.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2008)

Another (real) scientist speaks out:

http://www.towntopics.com/nov1908/other3.php



> *Freeman Dyson Debunks Dire Forecasts on Global Warming and Other Tenets*
> Ellen Gilbert
> 
> Freeman Dyson gets around. Last Wednesday, for example, the 85-year-old “retired” physicist regaled a lunchtime audience at the Nassau Club with his “heretical” ideas about global warming. Just a few hours later he could be found once again sharing his thoughts on global warming, as well as on intelligent design, nuclear warfare, extraterrestrial life, and HAR-1 (a DNA component that distinguishes human beings from other animals) with a standing-room-only crowd at Labyrinth Books.
> ...


----------



## COBRA-6 (22 Nov 2008)

Thucydides have you read "Cool It! The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" by Bjørn Lomborg?

I've seen him speak on the Copenhagen Consensus in Ottawa and read his older but still outstanding book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", anyone interested in the environment and planet should give it a read...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2008)

Dr Chris Essex gave a talk in London last month on the manipulations of the alarmists; his book Taken by storm is also very good.


----------



## COBRA-6 (23 Nov 2008)

I'll add it to the list. 

What's really interesting about Lomborg is that he used to be a member of Greenpeace until he realized they were outright lying WRT statistics used to argue their point... of course now there are numerous articles, websites and blogs all dedicated to discrediting Lomborg, the typical reaction of the alarmists, attack the messenger...


----------



## Flip (23 Nov 2008)

As interesting as Lomborg is, I like to listen to what he says, what about Patrick Moore?
He started Greenpeace! Now he's out. (similar reasons)

Kinda' makes you think there's something political going on, doesn't it?


----------



## Flip (23 Nov 2008)

For the curious......

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/

I found another resource for articles of interest  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Dec 2008)

Global warming humour

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


----------



## old medic (2 Jan 2009)

This has to be my favourite for the week.  It just begs for comments.


Canada's forests, once huge help on greenhouse gases, now contribute to climate change
Canada's vast forests, once huge absorbers of greenhouse gases, now add to problem

By Howard Witt  Tribune correspondent
January 2, 2009 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-canada-trees_wittjan02,0,539661.story



> VANCOUVER — As relentlessly bad as the news about global warming seems to be, with ice at the poles melting faster than scientists had predicted and world temperatures rising higher than expected, there was at least a reservoir of hope stored here in Canada's vast forests.
> 
> The country's 1.2 million square miles of trees have been dubbed the "lungs of the planet" by ecologists because they account for more than 7 percent of Earth's total forest lands. They could always be depended upon to suck in vast quantities of carbon dioxide, naturally cleansing the world of much of the harmful heat-trapping gas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jan 2009)

Those people are supercharged morons.

Before believing that the fraction of a degree or so of temperature increase claimed by the warming alarmists is "drying out the forests", we need to see some annual precipitation and water flow figures to prove that rainfall is down and less water is escaping the watersheds via the streams and rivers.  It would also be useful to compare year-to-year acreage lost to fires.

It is unlikely that pine beetle kill is a recent novelty.  We just don't know how often the cycle repeats, since the recorded history of which we know only goes back a couple of hundred years or less in BC.  Back when the infestations were just starting, there was talk of spraying to kill the beetles.  The environmentalists objected - let nature take its course, was the governing principle - so the countermeasure was never tried.  For all that, the new growth is there - I've walked near my parents' property in the Cariboo, which has no pine in sight for miles in any direction except that which is beetle killed, and there are seedlings aplenty already in addition to the very young trees the beetles don't touch.  There will be recovery, and it will happen in our lifetimes.

Logging can't begin to equal the effects of pine beetle kill.  As usual, nature dwarfs anything of which we are capable.  To claim that this would never have come to pass but for our own miniscule efforts is a competition between arrogance and basic stupidity.

Of course forests contribute to climate change - you pointless, vacuous wankers.


----------



## GDawg (2 Jan 2009)

For the last 50 years we've intervened in the natural and healthy order of the great forests of North America by fighting forest fires. I suspect the pine beetle devastation and the observed reversal of the forests from carbon sink to carbon source are tied to our foolish practices.  This is a text book example of mankind deciding to intervene heavily into the realm of nature without having long term observations, or a complete understanding of how natural systems work.


----------



## Flip (2 Jan 2009)

Brad,   I suspect this kind of article is meant to reinforce the "tipping point" argument in a slightly veiled way.

I don't know that beetles are the result of anything in particular, but if Mom drops her crystal platter on the kitchen floor, it had to be climate change. >


----------



## Flip (2 Jan 2009)

This article contrasts rather sharply with the CBC narrative.



> Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
> 
> Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
> 
> The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.



http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2009)

More real science:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm



> *Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low*
> 09.23.2008
> 
> Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.
> ...


----------



## JBG (3 Jan 2009)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Thucydides have you read "Cool It! The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" by Bjørn Lomborg?
> 
> I've seen him speak on the Copenhagen Consensus in Ottawa and read his older but still outstanding book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", anyone interested in the environment and planet should give it a read...


Al Gore signally refused to debate Lomborg on this issue when he had a chance. Thus, Lomborg is not (to quote a post above, attacking someone who's not there.

The *article below * (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie if not to his political career. 

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

* Excerpts below* (link):



			
				Rose & Lomborg in WSJ said:
			
		

> Will Al Gore Melt?
> 
> By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Of course forests contribute to climate change - you pointless, vacuous wankers.



And with that, I have a new sig line  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2009)

GDawg said:
			
		

> For the last 50 years we've intervened in the natural and healthy order of the great forests of North America by fighting forest fires. I suspect the pine beetle devastation and the observed reversal of the forests from carbon sink to carbon source are tied to our foolish practices.  This is a text book example of mankind deciding to intervene heavily into the realm of nature without having long term observations, or a complete understanding of how natural systems work.





> ....*Maintaining that fire is a “natural disturbance” or merely a “simple technique” is imperceptive in the extreme*  (No slam on you GDawg   )…
> 
> Essentially Stewart was pleading with anthropologists and ecologists to become meticulous historians or at least to understand that the *land is partially a product of its human history*, He warned that *not to consider Indians as a legitimate and important disturbance factor was a dangerous oversight * that would ultimately cloud ecologists’ findings, theories, and concepts…
> 
> ...


Source
Source.

Perhaps one of the reasons we didn't have the massive pine-beetle infestations was that the locals were inefficiently converting mass quantities of carbon to CO2 every year to "sterilize" the place.......and to create better berrying sites, and to knock down the weeds, and to make hunting easier.  In effect they were farming the land on a grand scale by use of fire.  They were modifying their environment.


----------



## Flip (3 Jan 2009)

> In effect they were farming the land on a grand scale by use of fire.  They were modifying their environment.



Perhaps correct - I dunno.  

From what I understand, the problem is not the beetle pre se, but the fungus that the beetle carries.
Much in the same manner as Dutch Elm Disease.  Has the fungus changed?  Has the beetle changed?
Many funguses can be controlled by introducing another biological vector - like another fungus or a bacterium that controls it.  Maybe there is a completely different chemical trigger like ground level Ozone.

All I'm really confident about is that the pine beetle deforestation will lead to AGW conjecture and hysteria in a completely predictable manner - like every other thing that happens.  >


----------



## BernDawg (4 Jan 2009)

Holy crap I'm glad I don't live in Winterpeg any more.  Shilo might even be colder.

Record cold wind chills of -50 C recorded overnight in Saskatchewan
5 hours ago

EDMONTON — A fierce blast of snow and cold was making its way east into Manitoba on Sunday after triggering record low wind chills of -50 C and colder in neighbouring Saskatchewan overnight.

Wind chill warnings were in effect in both provinces throughout the day, prompting warnings from Environment Canada that exposed skin would freeze in less than 10 minutes.

Residents of Saskatoon woke up to the coldest temperatures since 1966, with a wind chill of -45 C, leaving the city shrouded in ice fog.

More on the link...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jDUS6SE58AhlkslJI4ISP3tsb5rg


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jan 2009)

Umm... how does this fit under Military Current Affairs & News?


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2009)

If you live in winterpeg, you would remember it's normal, ..........cold, but normal............but on the other hand, this has to be great for controlling the "spuce bud worm?" (I don't think that's the bug but one like that) that's killing all the trees in BC and Ab.....


edited to add: and also great for the contruction of winter roads....


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> (I don't think that's the bug but one like that) that's killing all the trees in BC and Ab.....



Pine beetle...IIRC


----------



## Blakey (5 Jan 2009)

Wow, good thing I just left Winnipeg 2 hours ago...............................to go back to Shilo  ;D

Tomorrows post leave run should be........"interesting".


----------



## xo31@711ret (5 Jan 2009)

Ahhhh, but 'they't call it 'global warming' anymore...now it's 'climate change'... :


----------



## Marshall (5 Jan 2009)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, but 'they't call it 'global warming' anymore...now it's 'climate change'... :



Yea, the term Global Warming is a misconception because it'll do the extremes of both hot AND cold.  :boring: bluh.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2009)

Al Gore - "Under the bus?"

Huffington Post publishes article debunking Global Warming.



> Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
> 
> You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
> 
> ...




Source

Now that the Climate Change cudgel has achieved its desired end - mobilizing poorly educated university students to effect regime change - it now seems that Obama needs to be cut some slack on that front.

Maybe he can now convince his followers that Cnut  was right after all.



> Canute the politician
> 
> "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey".
> 
> So spoke King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was "So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back". Now Canute was not only a religious man, but also a clever politician. He knew his limitations - even if his courtiers did not - so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn't, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear 'great' in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God's power.



Edit: PS

Cnut's courtiers were concerned about rising waters at the beginnning of the Mediaeval Warm Period that saw one of the longest periods of prosperity and advancement in European history (along with the advance of the Inuit from Alaska to Greenland subsuming the indigenous peoples of the north).


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2009)

Cataract Kid said:
			
		

> Wow, good thing I just left Winnipeg 2 hours ago...............................to go back to Shilo  ;D
> 
> Tomorrows post leave run should be........"interesting".



That's just........sad.....at least in Winnipeg you had buildings, etc....  ;D


----------



## Blakey (5 Jan 2009)

No run today, yippie


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2009)

The link between solar activity and the Earth's climate gets dramatic new proof (as if we really need it). given the dramatic reduction in solar activity in the recent past, we should be thinking ahead indeed....lay more coal on the fire, Jeeves!

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/010400.html#comments



> *The Sound Of Settled Science
> 
> That big burning ball in the sky affects the earth in some way? How can that be?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jan 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> As usual, nature dwarfs anything of which we are capable.  To claim that this would never have come to pass but for our own miniscule efforts is a competition between arrogance and basic stupidity.



And there is the crux of it all - and why I approach "Global Warming", as an Al Gore political issue, with buckets of suspicion.  The planet has been around for 4.5 billion years or so with lifeforms and climatic and geological shifts that defy anything we can really comprehend.   To assume that, suddenly in the last 50 years we've been able to trump the world's ability to deal with flux or that we're capable of really throwing things out of wack smacks of failure to put the human condition into proper perspective....


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> And there is the crux of it all - and why I approach "Global Warming", as an Al Gore political issue, with buckets of suspicion.  The planet has been around for 4.5 billion years or so with lifeforms and climatic and geological shifts that defy anything we can really comprehend.   To assume that, suddenly in the last 50 years we've been able to trump the world's ability to deal with flux or that we're capable of really throwing things out of wack smacks of failure to put the human condition into proper perspective....



......we're just along for the ride.


----------



## old medic (14 Jan 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/13/spain-trains
Spain's high-speed trains win over fed-up flyers
by Giles Tremlett in Madrid
The Guardian, Tuesday 13 January 2009



> Spain's sleek new high-speed trains have stolen hundreds of thousands of passengers from airlines over the last year, slashing carbon emissions and marking a radical change in the way Spaniards travel.
> 
> Passenger numbers on fuel-guzzling domestic flights fell 20% in the year to November as commuters and tourists swapped cramped airline seats for the space and convenience of the train, according to figures released yesterday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2009)

Having dodged slides to get back from BC to Alberta after Christmas a high speed train through the Rockies would be appreciated.

I just saw this in the  Wall Street Journal  



> JANUARY 14, 2009 Chu Softens Views on Coal, Nuclear Power Article
> By STEPHEN POWER
> WASHINGTON -- Physicist Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Department of Energy, softened previously critical comments about coal and nuclear power, and distanced himself from earlier statements that U.S. gas taxes should be higher.
> 
> ...



It appears that once the dog caught the car it must now figure out how to drive it.  (No I am not call Dr. Chu or Obama a dog).

The reality of driving a real economy, versus a theoretical one, is forcing the realistic appraisal of energy.

I have to credit Obama, if he is doing what I think he is doing, by appointing people who have been used to support extreme positions, when those people come round to centrist positions then it is harder for the extremists to sustain their opposition.  

Stay tuned for the Secretary of the Environment to declare that Global Warming is in abeyance indefinitely due to solar inactivity.


----------



## Flip (14 Jan 2009)

Kirkhill

I read this today on Tom Nelson's blog.....



> Dr. John P. Holdren | “De-development” Advocate is the Wrong Choice for White House Science Adviser
> 
> In December 2008, President-elect Barack Obama nominated Dr. John P. Holdren to be White House Science Adviser. The White House Science Adviser heads the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which “serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government,” according to the OSTP web site.
> 
> John Holdren’s 40-year record of outlandish scientific assertions, consistently wrong predictions, and dangerous public policy choices makes him unfit to serve as White House Science Adviser. The Senate should not confirm his nomination.



Mysteriously the links broke some time today........
I also found this.....



> Gateway Pundit: Surprise!... Obama's Climate Czar Is Board Member of Major Carbon Offset Company ...Update: Her Husband Lobbied on Energy Issues
> 
> It was reported yesterday that Barack Obama picked a radical socialist as his climate czar. Carol Browner belongs to organizations that call for "global governance" and demand that rich countries shrink their economies to address climate change. But since her pick, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from these socialist websites.
> 
> ...



I'm afraid I don't share your optimism about the big "O" and his pragmatism.

It might be more, a matter of "putting lipstick on a pig".  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2009)

Flip,  I stand ready to be "disappointed".  No major shift as my bar is set pretty low.

I'm basing my assessment in part on what I perceive as Obama's key to success.  He started off as ACORN's saleman, gravitated to Daley's salesman, shifted to Soros's salesman and now is working on becoming salesman of the Democratic Party.  NOT Moveon.org and Codepink etc but that centrist bunch that supplies the Senators and disburses pork.

This time round they out-Roved Rove.  Like Canada's Liberals the campaigned from the extreme and will govern from the centre (LEFT of centre admittedly but as others point out Canada's Right is pretty close to the US Centre).  They got a whole bunch of activists riled up and created a sense of crisis requiring a change of regime.  A variant of the "its the economy stupid" meme that sank Bush 41 and put Clinton in office.

Once in power it isn't the rhetoric that matters.  Its the votes.  And as is shown time after time there is a whole lot more commonality between the parties on substantive issues than the rhetoric would suggest.

As to the appointment of Browner I am willing to bet that she is no more a "socialist" than Gore or Kennedy.  They have their principles......and if you don't like those for the right price they have others.

A lot of pigs wearing lipstick.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2009)

An interesting view on how real science (as opposed to "junk" science or politicized science) is done:

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/katzenjammer/archive/2009/01/13/how-scientists-think.aspx



> *How scientists think*
> 
> By dangardner 01-13-2009 COMMENTS(2) Citizen Katzenjammer
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2009)

A propos of nothing at all..... a hare-brained idea.

The "solution" to the "problem" of Global Warming and an investment opportunity.

Invest in Hewlett-Packard, Canon and Xerox

I am told that paper doesn't degrade in land-fills.

10 lbs of paper is actually 10 lbs of cellulose.

Cellulose is nx C6H12O6 with a molecular weight of nx 180.

It is created from 6x CO2 + 6x H2O.

The molecular weight of CO2 is 44.  6x 44 is 256.

Thus 10 lbs of paper actually represents 10 x 256 / 180 lbs of CO2.

Or 14.67 lbs of CO2.

Thus a box of paper actually represents 46.7% more than its own weight in captured CO2.

Bury that paper in a landfill (after it has been used of course) and you are permanently capturing and sequestring CO2.

So in future, don't feel gulty about printing out reams of erroneous drafts.  Crank up the printers. Crank up the shredders and eschew the recycling bin.

Do your bit to capture CO2 and stop Global Warming.  Kill Trees.


----------



## bradlupa (14 Mar 2009)

I don't see a point in believing that golbal warming is occuring when the forecasters are saying the temperature is rising, but they can't even forcast the weather 24-48 hours.  Seems hard pressed to believe them that far in the future


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2009)

bradlupa, I believe you are speaking of Environment Canada when you state "but they can't even forcast the weather 24-48 hours".
Some of the local US Television stations I have viewed during my travels, have Chief Meteorologists who hold a Ph.D, even in small market areas such as Sioux Falls, ND (pop 140K). Now many Ph.D does Environment Canada have?
I find US weather forecasting with the assistance of Doppler radar very accurate. The Weather Underground websites by location is very accurate in my estimation.
As far as Environment Canada is concerned, where else can you be regularly and consistently wrong, and not get fired.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Mar 2009)

Parliament?  Human Rights Commissions?  NDHQ?


----------



## JBG (14 Mar 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Weather Underground websites by location is very accurate in my estimation.
> As far as Environment Canada is concerned, where else can you be regularly and consistently wrong, and not get fired.


From what I've seen, comparing predictions to actuals they aren't bad.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Mar 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Parliament?  Human Rights Commissions?  NDHQ?


:rofl:

You forgot the Supreme Court of Canada.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Mar 2009)

Damn, forgot the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse.


----------



## Antoine (22 Mar 2009)

A good show is now on French CBC (TV) about the geo-economical-political turns in our North melting. It is not the first documentary about this, however, it is always good to know why in couple of years, CF are going to go North more often than today. The new Klondike gold rush !

http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/decouverte/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=71745


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2009)

Since the icepack is not melting, the show alluded to isn't a documentary but Science Fiction. (Not that I have anything against _good_ SF, but not so much for Fantasy.... >)

http://canadianbluelemons.blogspot.com/2009/03/when-proof-you-provide-doesnt-prove.html



> *When the Proof You Provide Doesn't Prove Your Point Shut Down Your Proof*
> 
> Dig this. The University of Illinois has posted for several years a utility to compare ice levels.
> Historically.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2009)

Al Gore celebrated "Human Achievement Day" instead of Earth Day after all.....

http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2009/03/earth-hour-at-al-gores-house-eyewitness.html



> *Earth Hour at Al Gore's House - An Eyewitness Account*
> 
> Hat's off to Drew Johnson who took a drive by Al Gore's mansion during Earth Hour to see how the Goreacle was celebrating the pagan festival:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2009)

Last day of March, -18 at my house this AM, still 10 inches of snow on the ground.  Global Warming, my lily white English arse.


----------



## JBG (31 Mar 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Al Gore celebrated "Human Achievement Day" instead of Earth Day after all.....
> 
> http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2009/03/earth-hour-at-al-gores-house-eyewitness.html


My gesture on Earth Hour was to suddenly stop my car in fast-moving traffic on I-287, Westchester County, New York. My gesture disabled about seven cars in a chain reaction crackup, reducing the carbon footprint.

Al Gore definitely rules!!!


----------



## c_canuk (2 Apr 2009)

> As far as Environment Canada is concerned, where else can you be regularly and consistently wrong, and not get fired.



I don't know about that, the weather network has consistently underestimated the weather this winter and has been a hell of a lot more vague than environment canada, especially in their long range forecasts.

I don't trust the weather network anymore and stick the environment Canada's website

also, the point being made was that the people doing the 20 year long range forecasts using computers to compare current weather conditions to historical data to extrapolate the future are doing exactly what environment canada and the weather channel are doing to come up with their long range forcasts. 

We know that long range forecasts are generally useless 2 weeks out, yet they pretend their 20 year forecast is fact and able to detect future fluctuations of fractions of a degree which are smaller than the margin of error that we're dealing with with historical data from before we had digital thermometers.

The fact is that there are too many factors, each doubling the amount of possible outcomes, that the idea of predicting changes so miniscule that far in advance is nonsense. You can't extract data from noise.


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Apr 2009)

Both the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen ran a front page story on a report by NOAA that links at least part of global warning to natural causes. The link to the Citizen's story is here:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Nature+just+blame+global+warming+scientists/1454205/story.html


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2009)

The Great Game Moves North

Summary -- 
The Arctic is rich in natural resources and lies at the epicenter of a rapidly changing climate -- and it is time the United States paid more attention to the region.

SCOTT G. BORGERSON is Visiting Fellow for Ocean Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Arctic Meltdown 
Scott G. Borgerson 

Thanks to global warming, the Arctic icecap is rapidly melting, opening up access to massive natural resources and creating shipping shortcuts that could save billions of dollars a year. But there are currently no clear rules governing this economically and strategically vital region. Unless Washington leads the way toward a multilateral diplomatic solution, the Arctic could descend into armed conflict.
The Arctic is the fastest-warming region on earth and continues to melt at a breathtaking rate. Last summer, for the first time in history, the polar icecap retreated far enough to open sea routes north of Eurasia as well as North America, and it is expected to be completely ice-free during the summer months in 2013. Boreal forests are appearing where there was once just frozen tundra, and last summer, the first wild fire was recorded north of Alaska's Brooks range, in a region where the local Inuit dialects lack a word for forest fire.
In an article in Foreign Affairs last year, I described how not only is the climate changing fast, but the region's geopolitics are also rapidly transforming. As the Arctic coastal states begin to make claims over both these transit passages and newly accessible deep-water resources, a Great Game is developing in the world's far north.
The next few years will be critical in determining whether the region's long-term future will be one of international harmony and the rule of law, or a Hobbesian free-for-all. Although the Bush administration took a huge step by publishing a new Arctic policy during its final week in office, the Obama administration must do far more to keep Washington from being further marginalized in this geostrategically important region.
The polar icecap in the central Arctic Ocean thinned by half between 2001 and 2007. Other signs -- such as warmer deep-water ocean currents, greater albedo feedback loops, and massive ice shelves breaking free -- point to further melting. Scientists are increasingly concerned that the thawing permafrost will disgorge millions of tons of methane, unleashing what some refer to as a "climate bomb," a runaway warming cycle that could dramatically raise the planet's temperature. 
The next few years will be critical in determining whether the region’s long-term future will be one of international harmony and the rule of law, or a Hobbesian free-for-all. 
The Arctic may be open to year-round shipping within a few decades, if not sooner. Eventually, the Arctic, like the Baltic Sea or Great Lakes, will freeze in the winter and melt in the summer. Shipping companies are taking notice. The German-based Beluga Shipping company, for example, is planning to move cargo from the Atlantic to the Pacific via the Northeast Passage this summer unassisted by icebreaker escort. 
Last July, the U.S. Geological Survey released the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the region's oil and gas potential, and the numbers are staggering. Based on a resource appraisal of technically recoverable hydrocarbons, the Arctic contains about 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and about 30 percent of the world's undiscovered natural gas. Together this represents 22 percent of all untapped but technically recoverable hydrocarbons. More than 80 percent of these resources lie offshore.
Due to the ongoing global economic crisis, development of these oil and gas fields has proceeded in fits and starts. The price of energy needs to be high enough to make production in such an extreme environment economically viable. To complicate matters even more, some Arctic coastal states have not settled on the regulatory standards for development. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, for example, ruled last November that before the Royal Dutch Shell company can move forward with exploratory drilling in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska -- for which it had already paid the U.S. government billions of dollars in leases -- the U.S. Interior Department needs to further study the environmental impacts of drilling on the sea's bowhead whale population and nearby indigenous communities.
Similarly, Norway has barred production of oil and gas in some of its northern waters, despite the Norwegian company StatoilHydro partnering with Gazprom, the state-owned Russian energy giant, in the Russian Arctic. While Norway is struggling with this contradiction, Russia seems to have no such qualms and has dived headlong into massive Arctic nonrenewable energy projects. Gazprom hopes to bring the enormous Shtokman field, in the Barents Sea, on stream by 2013. The field holds enough gas to provide all of the United States' electricity needs for six years, and Gazprom is eagerly eyeing the U.S. energy market, envisioning regular shipments of liquefied natural gas to import facilities in Maryland and Georgia.
Given the high stakes and pace of Arctic climate change, countries that border the ocean are working to extend their sovereignty in the region. After its controversial flag-planting on the North Pole seafloor in 2007, Russia moved to further bolster its Arctic presence in 2008. In addition to strategic bomber flights to the edge of U.S., Canadian, Norwegian, and Danish airspace, the Russian navy began patrolling Arctic waters last summer for the first time since the Cold War. On the eve of President Barack Obama's first visit to Canada in late February, the Canadian air force scrambled fighter jets to intercept Russian long-range bombers. 
The Russian federal government plans to invest more than a billion dollars in the northern port of Murmansk, doubling the port's capacity by 2015. Moscow also pledged last summer to build at least three new nuclear icebreaker ships to join what is already the world's largest icebreaker fleet. And much to the chagrin of environmentalists, Moscow completed a reactor vessel for the first floating nuclear power plant in October 2008.
Russia has developed a muscular new national security program that views the Arctic as a strategically vital territory. Last September, Nikolai Patrushev, the former head of the FSB (the successor agency to the KGB) and current secretary of the Russian Security Council, declared that "the Arctic must become Russia's main strategic resource base," and a forthcoming Russian plan for developing the Arctic over the next decade reportedly threatens that it "cannot be ruled out that the battle for raw materials will be waged with military means." 
Russia is not alone. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper held a cabinet meeting last August in the Arctic town of Inuvik, more than 2,500 miles north of Ottawa, to pledge his commitment to defend Canadian Arctic sovereignty. In 2008, Canada conducted its largest military exercise ever in the region and blocked the sale of Canadian radar technology to a U.S. buyer on national security grounds. In addition, Ottawa committed $40 million to scientific research projects to support its Arctic seabed claims. Meanwhile, Greenland passed a home-rule referendum in November that will eventually lead to independence from Denmark "in the not too distant future," in the words of Hans Enoksen, the current Siumut prime minister; the European Union has a new Arctic policy and plans for building its own icebreaker; and at the end of January, NATO held a conference in Iceland about its future mission in the Arctic.
Even Asian countries with no Arctic coastlines are getting into the game. The Chinese sent its icebreaker, the Snow Dragon, on its third Arctic expedition last summer. Beijing successfully earned observer status to the Arctic Council and also plans to install its first long-term deep-sea monitoring system in the Arctic to keep an eye on long-term marine changes and the impacts of global warming on China's climate. South Korean and Singaporean shipyards are building massive new icebreakers and ice-strengthened tankers to navigate new Arctic routes. Japan is closely watching the shorter shipping routes opening up in the region, which will benefit Japanese businesses due to the country's northern latitude. 
Last May, top officials from the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Russia gathered in Greenland to declare their mutual commitment to the rule of law and to behaving peacefully in the new Arctic. At the same time, Arctic countries are closely collaborating on mapping the area's seafloor, with scientists from one country frequently sailing on icebreakers of another. On the face of it, everyone seems to be getting along swimmingly.
Russia has developed a muscular new national security program that views the Arctic as a strategically vital territory. 
But all of this camaraderie is at odds with the growing remilitarization of the Arctic. The region is in the midst of transforming from a frozen, sleepy backwater into a potential epicenter of world affairs. How this all plays out in the geopolitical development of the region is a story that is very much still being written. The plot is full of characters espousing the rhetoric of cooperation yet pursuing their self-interests, and the conclusion could lead in multiple directions. 
The United States, however, remains largely asleep at the wheel. In the future, contests over fresh water, political instability from forced migrations, and increasingly severe pandemics due to global warming will become only more common. To prepare for such threats, U.S. national security strategy should focus not only on efforts to mitigate greenhouse gases but also on how to adapt to their effects. Nowhere is this more urgent than in the Arctic. The United States still needs to ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention, reach out to Canada on new Arctic cooperative initiatives, and replenish its geriatric icebreaker fleet (the latter doesn't look to be happening anytime soon, unfortunately, with no money allotted to it in recent U.S. budget plans). And in line with a renewed interest in multilateralism, the United States should consider novel avenues for Arctic diplomacy, such as pushing for the creation of a polar park at the North Pole as part of the current International Polar Year. 
Leaders in Moscow, Ottawa, Oslo, and Copenhagen are certainly aware of the sea change on their northern borders. Responsible statecraft requires those in Washington to take notice of the fast-changing politics on America's fifth coast as well.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64905/scott-g-borgerson/the-great-game-moves-north


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2009)

More trashing of windmills.....Don Quixote would be proud.

Source




> Wind power is a complete disaster
> Posted: April 08, 2009, 7:29 PM by NP Editor
> wind power, Michael J. Trebilcock
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Apr 2009)

April 18th, 100 KM North of Edmonton, -2C overnight, ice still on the dugouts.... 'nuff said.


----------



## JBG (19 Apr 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Great Game Moves North
> 
> Summary --
> The Arctic is rich in natural resources and lies at the epicenter of a rapidly changing climate -- and it is time the United States paid more attention to the region.
> ...



Oh really? I don't think so.


----------



## GDawg (19 Apr 2009)

That chart is hard on the eyes. its tough for me to draw a conclusion from it. Apparently more ice melts nowadays, but it mostly bounces back. If we have any resident ice scientists feel free to chime in...


----------



## c_canuk (21 Apr 2009)

I'm not an Ice Scientitst, but it looks to me like 2007 had the most ice melted by fall, but 2008 had less, and judging by 2009's position this spring compared to previous years, 2009 will probably have as little ice melting as 2005 or earlier and that it's all irrelavant since it goes right back to where it started every winter regardless of how much it melted.

it also looks like the worst year, 2007, only deviated from the norm by about 16%:

total max yearly change 15-4=11
  
difference between 2007 and the average 1.8

1.8/11= .1636363636363636




to me it looks like the the global yearly average temperature hasn't changed, but in 2007 and 2008 we had a longer hotter summer offset with sharper winters resulting in no change of actual global temperature judged by actual melting of ice.

I figure this supports my view that "measured" global warming is just statistical noise


----------



## George Wallace (21 Apr 2009)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I figure this supports my view that "measured" global warming is just statistical noise



Too bad there weren't 'Ear Defenders' for that noise.


----------



## GDawg (21 Apr 2009)

We spent centuries wishing we could navigate the northwest passage, and now that we may be able to do so (if but only part of the year) its pretty much the worst thing since Genghis Khan. When the cycle swings back the other way we will lament the good old days when ships could bypass the Panama Canal.


----------



## c_canuk (21 Apr 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Too bad there weren't 'Ear Defenders' for that noise.



not sure if by that noise you are refering to my comment or data that shows a slight trend towards global warming.

GDawg... I think that the graph above is showing that the north west passage isn't really opening up permanantly, just more ice was melted by fall than usual last 2007 & 2008 but it has refrozen back to the same amount every year resulting in no net increase in permanantly melted ice.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2009)

One thing the climate change alarmists like to use as a carrot are so called "green" jobs. Once real economists turn their attention to this topic, the promised green jobs evaporate like morning mist.....

OF course if imposing and enforcing serfdom on a large portion of the population is the real goal, then it all makes sense:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423



> *Green Jobs Myths*
> 
> Andrew P. Morriss
> University of Illinois College of Law; PERC - Property and Environment Research Center; George Mason University - Mercatus Center
> ...


----------



## JBG (25 Apr 2009)

GDawg said:
			
		

> That chart is hard on the eyes. its tough for me to draw a conclusion from it. Apparently more ice melts nowadays, but it mostly bounces back. If we have any resident ice scientists feel free to chime in...


There has actually always been a large ice-melt followed by re-freeze in the winter. That's what happens when you go from 24/7 daylight to 24/7 darkness.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2009)

The perils of DIY geo engineering. Things are even worse if you do a knee jerk geoengineering project because you "think" climate change isn't a perfectly natural occurance:

http://www.slate.com/id/2217230/



> *The Politics of Climate Hacking*
> What happens if one country decides to start geoengineering on its own?
> By Eli Kintisch
> Posted Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 4:51 PM ET
> ...



Of course you yourself can do some geoengineering by painting your driveway and roof white, and planting additional trees in your yard. (If everyone in a city were to do that, the "urban heat island" effect could be greatly reduced by reflecting away solar energy).


----------



## Old Sweat (5 May 2009)

From the Don't Have Enough to Do department, here is an analysis showing that global temperatures track the increase in US postal rates since 1880:

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/03/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2009)

heh:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graph.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 May 2009)

>What happens if one country decides to start geoengineering on its own?

Sink their ships.  Shoot down their air and space craft.  Sabotage their engines.  Shun their trade.  Assassinate their leaders and proponents of geoengineering.

Advocates of geoengineering DO NOT know and CAN NOT predict what all the effects of their meddling will be.  What they propose is to gamble with the lives and wellbeing of all life on this planet, not to undertake risk.


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2009)

Sadly, humans have already been geoengineering for about 5000 years. Should we consider reforestation a hostile act (since that is a form of geoengineering?). What action would you take against a nation or principality that banned the use of ashpalt as a paving material?

A large part of the climate change program is a hostile act designed explicitly to cripple western free market economies and provide for massive transfers of wealth to regimes like Russia. Perhaps we _should_ consider the proper response to the proponents of ideas like Kyoto and "cap and trade".....


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 May 2009)

My point of aim is not the incremental "geoengineering" of people going about their lives.  What is at stake are grand schemes to jolt the climate.


----------



## GDawg (10 May 2009)

Here is a nifty link.

http://www.surfacestations.org/ 

I know from reviewing some websites and films from climate change skeptics that the urban heat island effect could have a considerable impact on historic climate observations, and that effect would only grow more profound over time. The above link seems to prove the significance of urban sprawl and that climate change numbers have been blindly collated and published without a true adherence to the scientific process by ensuring some degree of uniformity in observations. 

I also wonder about the observations that are often cited from before the 20th century and how accurate those thermometers were...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 May 2009)

May 10, 2009 near Edmonton and there are no leaves on the trees - none, the latest I recall.  They are a week or two late.  The last two winters have been wicked.  So how do we explain the global cooling that comes after global warming?


----------



## Haletown (10 May 2009)

Cooling air temps, cooling oceans, very, very quiet sun, expanding polar ice . . . .  Ya, Al Gore got is soooooooooooo  wrong saying a trace atmospheric gas drives teh climate system.  

Buy long underwear, we are going to need 'em to saty warm.


----------



## JBG (19 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> May 10, 2009 near Edmonton and there are no leaves on the trees - none, the latest I recall.  They are a week or two late.  The last two winters have been wicked.  So how do we explain the global cooling that comes after global warming?


Both are natural cycles, driven in my view by a 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). We dont' need any geniuses like Gore, or their opposites back in the 1970's who wanted to pour carbon black on the polar ice caps, trying to muck with the climate.


----------



## ACEC (20 May 2009)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Cooling air temps, cooling oceans, very, very quiet sun, expanding polar ice . . . .  Ya, Al Gore got is soooooooooooo  wrong saying a trace atmospheric gas drives teh climate system.
> 
> Buy long underwear, we are going to need 'em to saty warm.



A friend of mine had an interesting pointed question that i think suits this thread:

How long does the earth have to cool before those who are not scientists stop declaring war on anthropogenic global warming?


----------



## Haletown (20 May 2009)

ACEC said:
			
		

> A friend of mine had an interesting pointed question that i think suits this thread:
> 
> How long does the earth have to cool before those who are not scientists stop declaring war on anthropogenic global warming?



Since they have changed the narrative to "Climate Change",  I'd say the rent seeking scientists will do everything and say anything to keep the gravy train rolling and the public spotlight focused on them for as long as possible, probably many more years.

All those nice trips to Bali to chat about Climate Change, interviews on TV and radio, adoring fans . . . it is a much preferable situation to being unknown professors in forgotten Departments in scattered University campuses and Government labs.  ya, they'll keep it going as long as possible and then some.   

Now if their pensions were tied to the accuracy of their forecasts. . . . it would be all over tomorrow..


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> May 10, 2009 near Edmonton and there are no leaves on the trees - none, the latest I recall.  They are a week or two late.  The last two winters have been wicked.  So how do we explain the global cooling that comes after global warming?



Update - May 20 and it has snowed 6 inches in the last couple days.  The trees normally leaf out the 1st week in May and they are still waiting.  At least 3 weeks late.


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2009)

Jerry Pournelle. Personally, I think Dr Pournell is being too generous in his reading of Energy Secretary Chu, political power/rent seeker probably covers the ground exactly...:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q2/view572.html#Wednesday



> I wish Rush Limbaugh would find himself a physicist advisor. Or at least someone who took college physics. Some of his political analysis of the environmental movement is correct -- see Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy -- but his rant on painting roofs and roads white or at least a lighter color betrays a rather profound misunderstanding. At least this is a misunderstanding: I doubt it's the willful ignorance we get from many of the global warming alarmists. Rush ought to know better, but many of the global warming alarmists do know better.
> 
> He asks where the reflected heat from white roads would go. The answer, of course, is that the UV and visible light components of solar radiation would not be absorbed into the road to be turned in to heat but rather returned to outer space, after which we don't really care where it goes. With darker roads and roofs the UV and visible light components are absorbed and become heat. Now some of that heat is re-radiated toward space. If there is water vapor, methane, or CO2 in the atmosphere over the re-radiating surface, then some or all of the IR radiation will be absorbed as heat; this is the theory of CO2-caused global warming. (It's also how greenhouses work, sort of: visible light and UV come in, are absorbed as heat, and the resulting IR is absorbed by the glass before it can get out. (I say sort of because the insulation and lack of wind in the greenhouse plays a very important part of keeping it warm.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (27 May 2009)

"He asks where the reflected heat from white roads would go. The answer, of course, is that the UV and visible light components of solar radiation would not be absorbed into the road to be turned in to heat but rather returned to outer space"

Not really.  Energy form the sun enters the atmosphere as shortwave radiation. Soon as it hits something solid, regardless of the color, it changes to long wave radiation - essentially heat.  Whether the heat is absorbed by a black road or roof  - and then slowly released into the atmosphere at night, or hits a white surface and the majority of the heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, all the long wave/heat energy ends up in the atmosphere, where it warms that atmoshpere.

This is just another one of the "Stuck on Stupid" ideas that sounds good but shows a complete non-understanding of atmospheric physics.


And can you imagine white highways here in the Great White North in the middle of winter ?  What road you say, where the hell is it ??

Now that would be fun driving.  Think Saskatchewan in a winter storm


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2009)

Energy from the sun enters the atmosphere as photons across a wide range of frequencies, including the visible spectrum.  Every photon not reflected is by definition absorbed by something, and its energy transferred to the matter which composes our planet and atmosphere.  Do you understand this?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2009)

It's not "Climate Change", it's "Regime Change"

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzMzMDBkNzYxOGIyMjQ3ZjJjYjA1NjVjOTg4M2U5M2E=



> Gaia’s Right
> *Environmentalism seeks to return us to the age of kings.*
> 
> By Mark Steyn
> ...




— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2009 Mark Steyn
National Review Online -


----------



## Haletown (12 Jul 2009)

Charlie is a dork & very numerically challenged . . . inbreeding in the royal bloodline perhaps.

As our climate rapidly cools, the Climate Change Scammers are hustling to do as much political damage and in Al Gore's case, get as rich as possible before their ponzi scheme implodes.

Bring on the next Climate Minimum and let's hope its a doozy . . . that way the next time the environmental jihadis dream up some phony scare campaign, nobody will believe them because their integrity will be shot because they promoted the Global Warming Big Lie.


----------



## Haletown (14 Jul 2009)

It started twenty or so  years ago with Global Warming.  The Warmongers, Climate Hysterics and Gorons said we were all going to die because I use electricity and you drive an F350.

Then the warming stopped, so they channel switched to "Climate Change" . . .  because that is a perfect label - meaningless, but rolls off the tongue and covers all the bases.

Now, with global temperatures falling, the sun that has gone quiet, cooling oceans and expanding polar ice mass, they are still unable to figure out their dumb as a bag of hammers theory about minor changes in a trace atmospheric gas driving our climate system is wrong.

The theory and the resulting models are out of whack with what is really happening.

So now, the tall foreheads, the leading scientists pushing tjhe AGW scam are saying:

"We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020"

Look at them . . . a picture of scientists who can't handle reality.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/real-climate-gives-reason-to-cheer/

Buy long underwear boys & girls, we are going to have some good old fashioned winters.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Aug 2009)

Oh oh, real science is breaking out in all kinds of places:

http://chuckercanuck.blogspot.com/2009/08/will-ian-plimer-destroy-planet.html



> *Will Ian Plimer Destroy the Planet?*
> 
> Ian Plimer is a geologist in Adelaide who has single-handedly reversed the debate on climate change in Australia. So much so, the Australian senate just dumped a cap-and-trade bill that Kevin Rudd promised was coming to save the planet. Apparently, Ian Plimer has the gall to practice science in that old-fashioned sense:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2009)

The great white hope on the opposite side; geoengineering. On the other hand, geoengineering might create just as bad a situation as Kyoto and related "climate change" power/rent seeking schemes. Do you want to pay for global liability insurance or the operating costs of a solar mirror?:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_30-2009_09_05.shtml#1251879017



> *Geoengineering and the law, Part II.*
> 
> A number of people writing in the comments thread asked what would happen under international law if the United States undertook a massive geoengineering project that went horribly awry and wiped out Bangladesh or some other country. The short answer is—nothing. Bangladesh could complain until it is blue in its face but it would have no legal claim against the United States. There is nothing like tort law in international law; tort principles have to be put together from the ground up in treaties. Those treaties are few and far between; Bangladesh and the United States belong to no treaty that would create liability for a geoengineering failure. Domestic remedies would be unavailable because of sovereign immunity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

Here, reprosduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is Norman Spector’s analysis of the first day of the current, _preliminary_ climate change conference:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/climate-change-crack-up/article1296813/


> Climate change crack-up?
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...



Canada *cannot* adopt any useful climate change policies until we know, for sure, where and how far the US in going to go. It must be a continental plan – anything else will fail, miserably, and the government should be up front with Canadians. _“We’re waiting for President Obama’s *lead*,”_ Prime Minister Harper should say, _“and we will cooperate in crafting a North American solution as soon as America takes the lead.”_

Until we get an American lead we should stick with _intensity_ targets; if it’s good enough for China it’s good enough, as an interim position, for us.


----------



## Haletown (22 Sep 2009)

We can expect a tsunami of global warning hysteria for the next few months leading up to COP15/Copenhagen.

As the global temperature falls, as the oceans cools, as the sunspot index drops, the Warmongers are getting ever more desperate and figure this is the last chance to push through their global political agenda.

I think they are a dollar & a great lie short and the backlash against the global war on carbon from those who feel they have been scammed by all the hysteria is not going to be pretty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

Haletown said:
			
		

> We can expect a tsunami of global warning hysteria for the next few months leading up to COP15/Copenhagen.
> 
> As the global temperature falls, as the oceans cools, as the sunspot index drops, the Warmongers are getting ever more desperate and figure this is the last chance to push through their global political agenda.
> 
> I think they are a dollar & a great lie short and the backlash against the global war on carbon from those who feel they have been scammed by all the hysteria is not going to be pretty.




And I'm guessing that's one of the major contributors to "warming." Perhaps, we'll see during the next 11 year sunspot cycle.


----------



## Haletown (22 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And I'm guessing that's one of the major contributors to "warming." Perhaps, we'll see during the next 11 year sunspot cycle.



You can guess at whatever you like, that is your choice, but if you take a moment to look up information on the Sun Spot Index you'll probably find it doesn't contribute any warming or cooling. It's just a calculation that is used for its predictive powers.  

In case you haven't been following the NASA saga, they have been out to lunch for the last two+ years or so on their prediction of when the current solar cycle ends & the next one begins.  It has been quite hilarious as they have twisted themselves inside out trying to cover up their errors and dodge the critiques.

NASA is deathly afraid they will be cut off from their global warming hysteria Gravy Train.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

I meant that solar energy contributes to warming and, therefore, that a (relative) lack of solar energy, such as occurs at the bottoms of the (roughly) 11 year cycles, reduces warming.


----------



## Haletown (22 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I meant that solar energy contributes to warming and, therefore, that a (relative) lack of solar energy, such as occurs at the bottoms of the (roughly) 11 year cycles, reduces warming.



Agreed . . .  but I would say it drives warming not just contributes.  

The Sun Spot Index just reflects the state of the Cycle  and is why I said originally that a reduction in SSI = cooling is very likely.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2009)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, on the climate change negotiations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/china-diminishes-hope-for-global-climate-deal/article1297854/


> China diminishes hope for global climate deal
> *Copenhagen summit set for failure as major polluters fail to break new ground toward a treaty*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...



I cannot, for the life of me, understand why there ever was any _”brief optimism that China's President had travelled to a one-day UN climate summit in New York with firm commitments to reduce the growth in the emissions”_. China has consistently said that:

•	To the degree that there is a climate change problem it is one created by the West and the solution is the *responsibility* of the West; and

•	China cannot and will not punish the Chinese people (by denying them the benefits of a modern, mobile, electrified, industrialized society) just so that Westerners can shirk their responsibilities.

The Chinese appear willing to reduce the *rate* of growth of their emissions – essentially parroting Canada’s position. I’m a bit surprised they went that far. That “concession,” I think, is to domestic, not international, pressure. Many Chinese people are complaining about pollution from coal fired electricity and low quality truck/car engines.


----------



## Haletown (23 Sep 2009)

Eell these are journalists after all.  Math is difficult so they re-printing a Press Release or just making something up is easier than doing some research, acquiring data, analyzing and even graphing that data. That's Old School style and it   isn't required by the modern journalist's convention. They are allowed to make stuff up, repeat what others have said with the bother of fact checking and write stuff that has their agenda at heart, not honest reporting.

Fisking this story . . .

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/is-chinas-energy-intensity-story-myth.html


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Sep 2009)

The following piece from today's _Financial Post_ is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

*If a new Little Ice Age soon sets in, as many scientists believe, Arctic shipping will not happen in our lifetimes.* 
By Lawrence Solomon

The Arctic ice “is melting far faster than had been previously supposed,” we heard this week from the UN’s Environment Program, in releasing its 2009 Climate Change Science Compendium. 

This same week, National Geographic reported that the Arctic ice is probably melting far slower than previously supposed. After ramping up the rhetoric — two years ago National Geographic told us that “the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions,” and last year that “Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer” — National Geographic now advises that “the Arctic probably won’t experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040.”

If you’re confused by stats on Arctic melting, you have lots of company. Arctic stats are easy to misunderstand because the Arctic environment is unlike our own — the Arctic magnifies the changes we experience in the temperate regions. In summer, our days get longer and theirs get really, really long, just as in winter, when our days gets shorter, theirs all but disappear. By analogy, the Arctic also magnifies temperature variations, and resulting changes to its physical environment.

In the Arctic, the ice has indeed been contracting, as the global warming doomsayers have been telling us. But it has also been expanding. The riddle of how the Arctic ice can both be contracting and expanding is easily explained. After you read the next two paragraphs, you’ll be able to describe it easily to your friends to set them straight.

Each winter, the Arctic ice pack rapidly expands and each summer it rapidly contracts, as you can see thanks to photos from a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency satellite that tracks the changes in the ice pack. On its website, you can also get data showing the area of sea ice for every month going back to 2002.

Compare March of this year to previous Marches, for example, and you’ll see that the Arctic ice has been expanding of late — a story rarely told. But compare August of this year to previous Augusts and you’ll see that the August ice over the years has tended to contract — this is the basis of the scary stories that we hear about the Arctic ice disappearing. A snapshot of the Arctic ice, without knowledge of the bigger picture, can lead to scary conclusions.

To give your friends an even bigger picture, inform them that during the Little Ice Age, in the 1600s, much of the continent was frozen over. New Yorkers in winter could walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Ever since, the ice has been contracting, spurring attempts by fabled explorers such as Henry Hudson and Sir John Franklin to seek a Northwest Passage through Canada’s Arctic. By the early 1900s, as we continued to come out of the Little Ice Age, the ice had receded enough to allow Roald Amundsen to traverse the Northwest Passage in fits and starts, his ship needing three years to navigate through the ice. Not until 1944 did the ice recede enough to allow a schooner to cross the Northwest Passage in a single season. The Northwest Passage remains too risky to allow commercial shipping to thrive, and although some have confidently predicted the advent of commercial shipping, the insurance premium required to navigate through the perilous ice floes effectively rules it out for the foreseeable future. If a new Little Ice Age soon sets in, as many scientists consider likely, commercial shipping will not happen in our lifetimes.

By taking a snapshot in time, and by ignoring the history and the ecology of the Arctic, global warming alarmists can make a grim case for a disappearing Arctic, and even fool themselves. In May of this year, a six-country effort involving 20 scientists an aircraft outfitted with precision equipment to Canada’s Arctic in an expedition designed to prove that the Arctic ice was thinning. The expedition found the opposite — newly formed ice was up to four-metres thick, twice what was as expected. Around the same time, three other explorers, on behalf of the Catlin Arctic Survey in London, set off on skis on a trek to the North Pole to measure the thickness of the melting spring ice. Unprepared for blizzard winds of 40 knots and Arctic temperatures of 40 degrees below zero, the expedition made little headway, ran out of food, suffered from frost-bite, and finally had to be airlifted to safety — at their slow-going rate of progress, they couldn’t have survived the 82 days required to travel the remaining 542 kilometers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2009)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, reminds me of the Liburdy fiasco. (Prof. Liburdy just _knew_ that EMF (radio frequency radiation) *had* to be a problem – it was intuitively obvious. Only one problem: he could not find any data to support his intuition. So he falsified it.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/report-casts-doubt-on-mds-claims-about-alberta-reserves-cancer-rates/article1355980/


> Report casts doubt on MD's claims about Alberta reserve's cancer rates
> *The Globe and Mail obtained findings of a lengthy investigation by Alberta's College of Physicians and Surgeons into whistleblower John O'Connor's claims*
> 
> Katherine O'Neill
> ...



I suspect Dr. O’Connor, like Liburdy, just *knew* that the folks in Fort Chipewyan *must* suffer from _something_ because of the _evil_ oil-sands – which are a whole lot like Blake’s “dark, Satanic mills.” So he falsified the data. I also suspect that all the environmentalists who protest the analysis of O’Connor’s lies do so because they know that their case rests, *in some part*, on lies.


----------



## YZT580 (9 Nov 2009)

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article6905082.ece  The link will take you to a Times article that says, in part, that maybe, just maybe, people have been too quick to conclude that CO2 is the cause of global warming and that it is possible that there could be other more relevant factors.  It also suggests that the models are in error.  Whooops.  Not so good considering Copenhagan is coming up.  It could just be an inconvenient truth.  YOu can be sure that the article and links to the science reports will be sent to every deniers favourite politician.


----------



## Haletown (9 Nov 2009)

And now even the UN is turning on itself, devouring its own children as it were.  Or maybe this branch of the UN has realized that the IPCC and the UNFFFC is getting all the $bacon, the $icing and the $gravy as well.

"One of the world’s top environmental organizations, the UN-affiliated International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), has publicly stated that global warming is being overhyped. The Geneva-based organization made the surprising comments with regard to the often-heard claim that global warming is the chief threat to the extinction of species.

In fact, climate change is “far from the number-one threat” to the survival of most species, said Jean Christophe Vie, deputy head of the IUCN species program. Vie considers hunting, overfishing, and human destruction of habitat as more important, and more urgent, threats that should not take a back seat to climate change. “There are so many other immediate threats that, by the time climate change really kicks in, many species will not exist anymore.” The IUCN compiles the authoritative international Redlist of endangered species.

IUCN’s comments, reported Friday in Times Online, were made in defence of a paper in Science by two University of Oxford researchers that found climate change models yield invalid results because they don’t reflect the real world. “The evidence of climate change-driven extinctions have really been overplayed,” concluded Professor Kathy Willis, the paper’s lead author who is also director of the Oxford Long-Term Ecology Laboratory.

IUCN, established in 1948 as the world’s first global environmental organization, is the world’s oldest and largest global environmental network. It is comprised of more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. IUCN has official observer status at the United Nations General Assembly."

http://tinyurl.com/yj37vj4


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2009)

A hacker has uploaded papers and emails from the Hadley CRU, exposing the workings of the spin meisters:

http://mooseandsquirrel.ca/2009/11/20/08:58/hadley-cru-hacked-man-made-climate-change-theory-is-smoke-and-mirrors-not-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Moose-and-Squirrel+(MooseandSquirrel.ca)



> *Hadley CRU hacked: Man-made climate change theory is smoke and mirrors, not science*
> 
> by Natasha on Friday, November 20, 2009, 8:58 am
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (20 Nov 2009)

I took a peek at some of the information online....pretty damning data against the environmentalists and global warming advocates......

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
November 19, 9:42 PMEssex County Conservative ExaminerTerry Hurlbut
Article Link

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog's owner, identified as "Jeff Id", downloaded the file, examined it, and posted a brief summary on his blog. Another commenter, identified as "Steven Mosher," passed the information on to Steven McIntyre's Climate Audit blog and to another blog, The Blackboard, run by a blogger identified as "Lucia." Most recently, blogger Anthony Watts, who runs a blog titled "Watts Up With That?" mentioned the FTP archive in his own blog.

Commentary on all the blogs involved has been brisk, except, oddly enough, at The Air Vent, where only seven comments have been received.

The FTP server is in a Russian domain and uses the anonymous FTP protocol, which does not require a pre-registered user account or password for downloading. The file is named FOI2009.zip, an apparent reference to US Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, the Freedom of Information Act.

Several commentators have expressed skepticism as to the authenticity of the archive, pointing to its lack of clear provenance and suggesting that someone was attempting to embarrass, either directly or indirectly, the dignitaries attending the upcoming climate-change conference in Copenhagen. Other commentators who have examined the e-mails in the archive conclude that the header and other information that they contain is too detailed to be a hoax. Thus far, no commentator has found anything in the e-mail headers that appears to be mistaken.

Some of the most embarrassing e-mails are attributed to Philip Jones, the Director of the CRU; Keith Briffa, his assistant; Michael E. Mann of the University of Virginia; Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona; and others. One such e-mail makes references to the famous "hockey-stick" graph published by Mann in the journal Nature:

    I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

The emphasis in the above quote was added.

Mr. Mosher offered this summary of the rest of the e-mails that he had found:

    And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real

John Daly (not to be confused with the professional golfer of the same name) is identified in one of the e-mails as a global-warming skeptic who died in January of 2004.

As embarrassing as the e-mails are, some of the documents are more embarrassing. They include a five-page PDF document titled The Rules of the Game, that appears to be a primer for propagating the AGW message to the average subject/resident of the United Kingdom. The document suggests that it is a precis of a longer document housed at the Web site of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2009)

More on AGW fraud:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024995.php



> *The Alarmists Do "Science": A Case Study*
> 
> November 21, 2009 Posted by John at 8:18 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Flip (22 Nov 2009)

I've been following this on WattsUpWithThat and now there is a searchable database

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/

Rumors abound ie. The hackers are Russian or "It was an inside job". Personally, I don't care. I do care about the content.

There are two things everyone should see if they get the chance.....a documentary called Not Evil Just Wrong.

And my favorite,  Apocolypse?No!  Available as DVD or on Youtube

They are mutually reinforcing answers to Gore and they make a point about the dangers of activism.
I've been showing both DVDs to everyone who will sit through them.

So, one question.......How long before "ClimateGate" hits CBC ?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect Dr. O’Connor, like Liburdy, just *knew* that the folks in Fort Chipewyan *must* suffer from _something_ because of the _evil_ oil-sands – which are a whole lot like Blake’s “dark, Satanic mills.” So he falsified the data. I also suspect that all the environmentalists who protest the analysis of O’Connor’s lies do so because they know that their case rests, *in some part*, on lies.



As long as there has been an Athabasca River it has flowed with a certain degree of oil as it cuts through the middle of the tar sands.  There are numerous industrial sites including many pulp mills on the Peace and Athabasca systems plus endless other oil activity not related to the tar sands.  Hell, when I flush it heads straight to Fort Chip.  I'm not sure how O'Connor pegged health problems on the tar sands.  Without going into details there are many factors leading to high cancer rates on Indian reserves particularly lifestyle choices.

A name you see making environmental pronouncements is The Pembina Institute.  The attached link screams big business - about 66 employees:

http://www.pembina.org/about/staff

There is also Pembina Corporate Consulting:

http://corporate.pembina.org/

Am I wrong to assume that if you hire Pembina Corporate Consulting as environmental consultants you won't hear from the rest of the bunch?  For a moment I forgot that only the polluting oil companies are in it for the money, not the environmentalists.


----------



## Haletown (22 Nov 2009)

even worse for the Warmists than the emails is the data files.  Budgeting scams, funding from the Environmental industry and Steve over at Climate Audit has just found computer code + documentation that commits fraud bey eliminating data that doesn't produce hockey sticks.

Remember Bre-X ?  This will be like 100 Bre-X's for the Warmongers and small group of scientists who hijacked the IPCC and the research funding.


----------



## Haletown (23 Nov 2009)

This is fun . . .   from an SDA link

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/climate-science-the-quiz.htm


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Nov 2009)

Al Gore takes on the oil sands and Alberta in this story in the Star reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the copyright act. 

[size=12pt]*Extracting oil from Alberta's tar sands jeopardizes the survival of our species, says Al Gore*.[/size]

"Gas from the tar sands gives a Prius the same carbon footprint as a Hummer," the former U.S. vice-president told the Star in an interview prior to a Toronto speaking engagement scheduled for Tuesday evening.

"I know that doesn't make me popular in Alberta," said the jet-hopping environmental activist, best known for the movie and book An Inconvenient Truth. 

"But it's simply a fact. A lot of money is at stake, but a lot of lives and the future of human civilization are also at stake."

If Gore's warnings are heeded, expect housing prices to fall fast and far in Fort McMurray, the northern Alberta boomtown where single-family dwellings sold for a reported average of $629,582 in October thanks to the Athabasca tar sands megaproject.

If not, then you might as well pack your bags for Armageddon, because that is where Gore believes the planet is headed unless humankind radically shifts from carbon-based fuels. Time is short, he warns, and political will in the United States and elsewhere is lagging far behind what's needed.

The U.S. Senate has yet to pass a bill setting tough limits on carbon emissions, for example, something that should have been done by now, according to a prediction Gore makes in his newly released book, a blueprint for planetary salvation titled Our Choice. 

Meanwhile, a global conference on climate change, set for Copenhagen early next month, is no longer expected to produce breakthrough agreements restricting the pumping of greenhouse gases into the planet's atmosphere, a practice that continues at what Gore regards as a catastrophic pace.

"Is it disappointing?" he said. "Yes. The pace of negotiations has been slow this year. The stark truth is, at present, the maximum we can imagine to be politically possible still falls far short of the minimum necessary to solve the crisis. We put 90 million tons of CO² into the atmosphere every 24 hours, and the amount is increasing decade by decade. It's not okay."

Still, as he surveys a planet in crisis, Gore also sees reason for optimism. The U.S. House of Representatives has moved to curb carbon emissions, narrowly passing a bill this summer that Gore calls "a very solid first step, if not as tough as I would like."

Republicans have mostly been absent from efforts to draft legislation limiting carbon emissions, but at least one prominent Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has joined the fight and is encouraging others to follow his lead.

And Gore says emerging industrial powers, including Brazil, China and India, are now seriously addressing the challenges of global warming.

"The world is in the early stages of a massive shift away from carbon-based fuels," Gore said. "Slowly but surely, leaders around the world are coming to grips with the fact it would be extremely irresponsible to impose this burden on future generations."

In his new book, Gore explores what sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power can do to wean humankind from oil and coal, while also creating economic wealth. He is far more skeptical about other vaunted solutions, including nuclear energy and carbon-capture and storage, both of which he regards as uneconomic.

If world leaders follow his blueprint for action, Gore foresees a future that seems almost too good to be true – a planet humming on abundant supplies of clean, affordable energy, achieved at little or no net cost to global prosperity or employment.

In a recent interview, the man who nearly became U.S. president in 2000 conceded the outlook is somewhat more complex, but said he is not sugar-coating the future in order to make it politically palatable.

"Inevitably, a transition like this will advantage and disadvantage some more than others," he said. "But I don't believe it's sugar-coating to say our civilization will be more prosperous and better off."

In his campaign to save the environment, Gore has encountered plenty of critics, many of whom insist the environment is not in need of saving. Some question his use of scientific evidence.

Gore dismisses much of the opposition he faces as "artificially created by large carbon polluters."

Other global-warming deniers might be sincere, he says, but they're wrong.

"Because this crisis is so unprecedented, it triggers the natural tendency we all have to confuse the unprecedented with the improbable."

As for the Athabasca megaproject, Gore has derided Western Canada's oil-sands developments before. In a 2006 interview with Rolling Stone, he called such projects "crazy."

"They have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts. But, you know, junkies find veins in their toes." 

By one estimate, Canada's vast oil-sands petroleum reserves provide the country with 15 per cent of the world's oil supply, a share exceeded only by Saudi Arabia.

Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, Gore is on the road these days promoting his new book.

Despite its title – Our Choice – Gore argues that humans really have no option but to stop treating the atmosphere as "an open sewer."

"It sounds absurdly difficult," he said, "but we really have no choice."


----------



## YZT580 (24 Nov 2009)

This from the guy who uses a G3 to commute from meeting to meeting and whose personal electrical consumption is 20 times the average.  And his book was banned from use in British schools because of 12 (I think) errors in science.  And And And.  The list goes on.  In the meantime, Arctic ice was up by 20 percent over the low of 2007 and the Eastern Antarctic ice is increasing at a greater rate than the Western Ice is decreasing.  Hopefully, the Canadian group in Copenhagan will dig their heels in and not sign anything.  In the meantime, I want my 60 watt incandescent light bulb back!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> "  the jet-hopping environmental activist,



The whole article should have been cut right there.....


----------



## Kat Stevens (24 Nov 2009)

I live in the epicentre of evil, hereafter known as Alberta.  I live in a 55 year old 3 bedroom house, natural gas heat.  I drive a six year old Ford F150 super crew 4X4, and have CF bulbs everywhere it's practical to have them.  I will put my carbon impact on this planet up against those of Al Gore, Bono, David Suzuki, or any of the other celebri-muppets who clog up my valuable big screen TV time to tell me how I'm destroying the planet.  The truth is, we're not destroying the planet, we're making it inhospitable for humans, the planet will get along just fine without us.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (24 Nov 2009)

So the guys who essentially invented global warming, policed it against alternative opinions, and sold it to a world that was ready to sacrifice its industry are frauds.  Simply put, global warming is a proven fraud and doesn't exist until somebody with competence AND honesty can show the trends they faked.  Wanna bet it aint goona happen.  The biggest fraud since Y2K,  the major TV networks are still in denial after having bought it hook line and sinker.  Repeat after me "Global Warming is A Fraud."


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Nov 2009)

So what does Eddie do 3 days after global warming is proven a fraud?  He spends $1/2 billion of my money to stop something that does not exist.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/11/24/federal-support-carbon-dioxide-pipeline.html

These guys have to cool their jets until this plays out.  The global warming proponents were frauds.  There never was nor will their ever be man made global warming  - at least none proven.


----------



## Flip (25 Nov 2009)

Dennis, I think Stelmach has to go along to get along......

You might be overlooking the flip side here, pumping CO2 into old oil wells provides a value and a return on the 1/2 Billion.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Nov 2009)

Flip said:
			
		

> Dennis, I think Stelmach has to go along to get along......
> 
> You might be overlooking the flip side here, pumping CO2 into old oil wells provides a value and a return on the 1/2 Billion.



You are right.  20-25 years ago oil companies were set to inject carbon dioxide into the Swan Hills field to repressurize it to recover more oil and it had nothing to do with the environment or government.  Continuing low oil prices made for poor economics and the plan was dropped.


----------



## Haletown (28 Nov 2009)

this is a fun exercise . . . from Kate's place @ SDA

So what would you cut and where do we find $9.x Billion annually ?

In order to fall in line with the Copenhagen/COP15 agreement Canada needs to cut 150,000 Mt of carbon emissions from our annual level. 
The table below lists the major carbon emission sources. So your task is to choose which areas of the Canadian economy to devastate . . . but you total cuts needs to add up to 150,000 Mt.
After you have figured out what parts of the economy need to go bye-bye, then address the COP 15 para 41 requirement . . . you know the one where it says Canada needs to start paying an annual amount equal to a minimum of 0.7% of our GDP for our "Climate Debt".
0.7% is about $9 billion dollars annually . . . so what are you going to cut out of the current Federal budget to free up $9+ billion annually ?
I'd cut Equalization payments to Provinces - but you-know-who would go ballistic because although they deny they are net recipients of Canadian largesse, they would whine like stuck pigs if their entitlement to the entitlement was cut off.
Electric/heat generation 126 000
Fossil Fuel Industries 70,000
Mining & Gas 23,000
Residential 40,000
Automobile 41, 000
Light Gas trucks 45, 000
Heavy Gas Trucks 6,640
Heavy Diesel Trucks 40,100
Railways 7,000
Off Road Diesel 25,000
Off Road Gas 6,7000
Domestic Aviation 7, 804
Metal Production 13, 800


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Nov 2009)

Canada is simply has high energy requirements.  While you can survive at +40C without cooling, our way of life will cease to function at -1C without external energy.  Our winters average much colder than that.  Add to this our distances between population centres and much of our energy consumption just sustains us.  When you start hacking CO2 targets out of non life-sustaining energy use, it's unfeasably brutal.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Nov 2009)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Metal Production 13, 800


Producing Metal (as in Metallica, Anthrax, Venom, etc) produces that much in carbon?  WTF?


----------



## Haletown (29 Nov 2009)

all the numbers  . . . .

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2007/tab_eng.cfm

This is real, this is what Copenhagen is all about.

But no worries, Copenhagen will be a bust.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Nov 2009)

Carbon credits are trading for $0.15 per tonne.  

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

If I spend $15.00 and buy 100 tonnes, can I eat beer and chili and idle my car all winter without feeling guilty?

Wasn't the expectation that CO2 would trade for $20.00 per tonne, not $0.15?  Obviously there aren't many believers out there.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2009)

Fewer believers because of _this_:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/open-and-transparent-data-needed-for.html



> Open and Transparent Data Needed for Reproducibility and Verification of the Climate Models
> 
> Watts up with that explains the core of the Climategate issues
> 
> ...


----------



## KJK (29 Nov 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Canada is simply has high energy requirements.  While you can survive at +40C without cooling, our way of life will cease to function at -1C without external energy.  Our winters average much colder than that.  Add to this our distances between population centres and much of our energy consumption just sustains us.  When you start hacking CO2 targets out of non life-sustaining energy use, it's unfeasibly brutal.



Absolutely correct Dennis and I might add that as a major natural gas exporting country we are penalized for helping other countries reduce their 'greenhouse gases'.

KJK


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Nov 2009)

Judging by the reaction in the Guardian  of James Hansen,Al Gore's pet Goddard Institute (NASA) scientist, I believe that he agrees with you 'orrible lot of deniers.



> ...Cap and trade is an inefficient compromise, paying off numerous special interests. It must be replaced with an honest approach, raising the price of carbon emissions and leaving the dirtiest fossil fuels in the ground.
> 
> Are we going to stand up and give global politicians a hard slap in the face, to make them face the truth? It will take a lot of us – probably in the streets.



The last resort, if not the ardent desire, of the true revolutionary "aux barricades!!!"

In the meantime the politicians have dumbed down "an existential crisis" to another combination of new trade regulations, a shift of financial assets and yet one more shot at getting the rich to pony up the 0.7%  development budget promised by Mike Pearson back in the 60s so that the UN doesn't have to beg Uncle Sam for funding.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2009)

Politicians can expect to get "slapped in the face" as Climategate expands:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/02/lawrence-solomon-australia-ditches-cap-and-trade-in-climategate-s-aftermath.aspx



> *Lawrence Solomon: Australia ditches cap and trade in Climategate's aftermath*
> Posted: December 02, 2009, 4:50 AM by Lawrence Solomon
> Lawrence Solomon, Climate change, global warming, cap and trade, Australia, Rudd, carbon grteenhouse gas, Climategate
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (2 Dec 2009)

Losing the 20-30 year old demographic . . .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

When a good little liberal like Jon Stewart turns on the Warmongers and Al Gore you know the game is at a turning point.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2009)

And more. Responsible governments should be preparing fraud charges against these clowns:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/



> *Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally*
> 
> Posted By Myron Ebell On December 5, 2009 @ 1:24 pm In . Feature 01, Computers, Environment, Internet, Science, Science & Technology | 26 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## sm1lodon (6 Dec 2009)

It is strange to me how one of the two primary gases that are swapped back and forth between living things with chlorophyll and carotenes and living things that are listed as animals is suddenly regarded as this horrible, death-brining toxin that will bring about the end of humankind.

I also have no complaints about the globe getting warmer. People irrigate and inhabit hot land. You can't cultivate, and the vast majority of people, given a choice, don't inhabit frozen wasteland.

The whole C02 thing is making people rich who trade in carbon credits, like Al Gore, isn't it? 

Like TV, you have to ask yourself "Who has the most (money) to gain by making us all think we need to pay more money for not toeing their line, and who has the most (money) to lose?

Before it was global warming, it was nuclear power that the enviros were shrieking about. Then I read that the EPA declared nuclear power as one of the cleanest and least environmentally-impacting forms of power generation that there is.

Did all the punk-rock-dressed protesters (I remember them on TV) of the 80s turn around, repent, and pay back the people for all the delays, damage, and deceit? Noooo, no, they just got new placards that decried the universal evil, in their sayings, of C02.

So, now they are shrieking about global warming.

Note how it is always something that can take money out of the pockets of the people in developed nations and try to make them feel ashamed somehow that they are not living on a forest floor, naked, eating tree bark that is the Latest Environmental Craze.

No one seems to be legislating in poverty-stricken nations taxes for having far more children than they can afford to feed, now are they? Why? No money in it. But overpopulation, or under-funding your family, more accurately, like the AIDS "epidemic" can be cured with a zipper that is firmly shut. But, as I said, there is no money they can make from that, though it would do much more good to quit breeding if you can't feed your offspring.

After the whole C02 thing has been milked for trilions of dollars, there will be another one after that, another one after that, etc. ad infinitum, if they have their way.

What's next? Protesting oxygen? Protesting humidity? Protesting rain? Sunshine? Farting? Breathing?

There is money, lots and lots of money, in telling bald-faced lies for the sake of manipulating the common person so he has to cough up money.

It's what happens when a society abandons any concrete standards of moral virtue, because absent any absolute standard of right and wrong such as "don't tell lies", "those in positions of influence shall use that influence for the common good and not just for their own gain" and other seemingly obsolete concepts, they invent bogeymen to make others feel guilty about and pay for.


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Dec 2009)

Forget all that, recycling is going to destroy the environment first:

The recycling conundrum: How your blue bin hurts the environment


----------



## Haletown (6 Dec 2009)

Al Gore responds to ClimateGate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI


----------



## KJK (6 Dec 2009)

Further proof that carbon reduction is only for the masses not the important people. :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

KJK


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 Dec 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Forget all that, recycling is going to destroy the environment first:
> 
> The recycling conundrum: How your blue bin hurts the environment



In Alberta electronics are collected and shipped back to Asia where things are stripped accomplishing some recycling of materials but I assume not components.  It would be interesting to see how much CO2 is generated and ulimately how much of the product simply ends up in an Asian landfill.  I would assume that scrounging a few dollars from an old computer would make no sense without the tax we are charged on purchase to collect and ship the things to Asia.

Smart green is nice;  Stupid green is ... stupid.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2009)

Jerry Pournelle:

http://jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view599.html#Saturday



> *Summarizing Climategate*
> 
> There is a good summary of what is known and what is not known about Climate Change models by MIT Meteorology professor Robert Lindzen in today's Wall Street Journal.
> http://online.wsj.com/article/
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Dec 2009)

I found this examination of climategate to be interesting:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf

According to some the hockey stick should be facing blade down as they project 50 years of cooling.  To approach Copenhagen with corrupt research as our guide is lunacy.  This would make such a great election issue but I think the Conservatives might have sipped the Kool-Aid too.  The mid-term US elections may bring some debate if the world capitalist system remains ungutted and unflayed at the time.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

Considering 54 newspapers around the world are not just actively propagandizing but have orchestrated a syncronized campaign of global kool-aid drinking 

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/cmon_everyone_its_time_for_mas.php



> *C'mon Everyone: It's Time for Mass Editorials!*
> 07 Dec 2009 05:07 pm
> 
> Did anyone else manage to read this without thinking of this?
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2009)

Have a look at this latest shot fired in the war on global whatever it is.

http://adland.tv/commercials/moms-against-climate-change-kids-vs-police-demonstration-2009-30-canada


----------



## Haletown (9 Dec 2009)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Have a look at this latest shot fired in the war on global whatever it is.
> 
> http://adland.tv/commercials/moms-against-climate-change-kids-vs-police-demonstration-2009-30-canada



Joe Goebbels would be very proud of the folks who cooked up that piece of propaganda.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Dec 2009)

9 December 2009, Meaford, Ontario, it ain't global warming today.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Dec 2009)

For the past week, the warmest it got in my little corner of the globe is -22.  Hope the frost doesn't hurt the pineapple patch out back.


----------



## GAP (9 Dec 2009)

-29 here this morning...not sure what the windchill was in the city, but outside of city it was -45..............heat is a wonderful thing.....


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> .......heat is a wonderful thing.....


To paraphrase Lord Christopher Monckton, from Apocalypse?No!, "and why do more species live in the tropics? Because if you live in the arctic, you freeze your balls off."   :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2009)

What the warmists do their best to deny:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/12/j-storrs-hall-of-foresight-explains.html



> *J Storrs Hall of Foresight Explains the Medieval Warm Period and Global Warming*
> 
> There was a Medieval Warm Period (900-1100 AD), in central Greenland at any rate. But we knew that — that’s when the Vikings were naming it Greenland, after all.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (10 Dec 2009)

Last night on CBC late news was an item about the CO2 produced by the potash mines in Yellowhead County in Alberta.  Nope, there are none in Alberta.  Interestingly Yellowhead County has a lot of coal mines.  With such concise reporting is it no wonder they missed climategate - other than a Rex Murphy comment?  Rex is so un-CBC he must be on his way out.  I guess Marshall McLuhan was right - the medium is the message - because network news has lost its zest to report replacing it with a need to manage the message.  There must be some reporters at the networks who are getting pretty ashamed of themselves.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2009)

The same sort of people who report on "Global Warming" reported this:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10648.html



> *Journalists and Rocket Scientists*
> Posted by David Foster on December 7th, 2009 (All posts by David Foster)
> 
> In 1920, Robert Goddard was conducting experiments with rockets. In an editorial, The New York Times sneered at Goddard’s work and particularly at the idea that a rocket could function in a vacuum:
> ...



I suppose we might read the global warming retraction in 2049


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2009)

You know the best way to deal with questions of fact and logic? Armed force! Bring on the Brownshirts.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/11/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate/



> *UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate*
> by Mike Flynn
> 
> A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions”  during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.
> ...


----------



## wannabe SF member (11 Dec 2009)

Big fraud in Europe due to the carbon tax:

http://news.aol.ca/article/european-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam/753741/?icid=main|canada-hp|dl1|link2|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.ca%2Farticle%2Feuropean-fraudsters-steal-7b-in-carbon-credit-scam%2F753741%2F


----------



## Haletown (11 Dec 2009)

a must read . . .  I call it fraud when people organize to deceive

http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/


----------



## Haletown (11 Dec 2009)

and the keep telling us it s getting warmer, but they don't tell us that it is the adjusted data that shows what they want.


How do they "adjust" thew data. . .  the "homogenize" it. . . .  more like Pasteurize it.

Why does the adjusted data always raise the temperature ?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-after/#more-14001

Blink


----------



## Haletown (11 Dec 2009)

very good summary . . .

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/12/trick-in-context.html#comments

"The "trick" in context is clearly an effort by activist scientists at the highest levels of the IPCC to misrepresent scientific complexity to policy makers and the public. "

'nuff said . . .


----------



## CougarKing (12 Dec 2009)

Somehow I feel this is just going to be dismissed again as another product of the "MSM-backed global warming conspiracy" discussed on this thread.  :

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001



> *Review: Climate e-mails petty, not fraudulent *
> Climate experts, AP reporters go through 1,000 exchanges
> By Seth Borenstein, Raphael Satter and Malcolm Ritter
> The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Dec 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> Somehow I feel this is just going to be dismissed again as another product of the "MSM-backed global warming conspiracy" discussed on this thread.  :
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/?GT1=43001



Associated Press merely exemplifies the established press's desire to manage the news rather than report it.

I need a "Hide the Decline" T-shirt.  When tree-ring data does not correlate well with recent temperatures, most scientists would doubt its validity for historical purposes.  Instead the CRU accepted it for historical purposes, possibly understating historical temperatures and completely eliminating the medieval warm period.  The use of real measured temperatures for recent data indicates a sudden temperature increase in recent years.  By changing the base of measurement a situation akin to changing from Celcius to Fahrenheit degrees is created.

A scientist should be aiming for the truth.  Anyone can prove anything by ignoring half the evidence.  This is simply a case of academic fraud driven by deep personal belief and tens of millions in grant money.  As they say "its always about the money" or "follow the money."


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Dec 2009)

Off topic, but follows previous post:

Number of "factcheckers assigned by AP to Sarah Palin's book - *11*
Number of "factcheckers" assigned by AP to President Obama's two books - *0*

AP assigns 11 “factcheckers” to Sarah Palin’s book – and they still get it wrong

Mark Steyn, in a must-read, laughingly calls them the “Rogue Eleven”: http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/2644/99/

AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report.

Wow. That’s ten “AP writers” plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That’s 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment?


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2009)

Specific to AP and Global Warming Reporting - *Link*


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 Dec 2009)

Last night the temperature at Edmonton International airport was - 46.  The previous low for the day was - 36.  It's only one day but my anecdotal guess is that it's part of the decline in world temperatures that started in 1998 and confounded climate scientists to the point of dishonesty to maintain the upward trend started toward the end of the last century.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2009)

If, and it’s a big IF, CO2 emissions need to be cut for the good of the planet/humanity then human behaviour must change.

Economics *can* drive human behaviour: make something more expensive and people will _demand_ less of it - they will find cheap(er) alternatives.

The law of supply and demand is iron and immutable: when the cost of a product (_supply_) rises _demand_ for that product falls; when costs go down _demand_ goes up – it always works, everywhere.

_Cap and trade_ systems are designed, by politicians, to disguise the workings of the market, to make people forget the law of supply and demand. The theory is that business – competition, actually - will, somehow, or other shield consumers/voters from the real costs of cap and trade – forcing investors to pay the bill. The theory, probably correct, is that consumers/voters are too stupid to understand that they, always, pay for everything, one way or another, and they will pay for cap and trade, too – mainly in a lower standard of living. Investors will *not* pay, they will move their money elsewhere. Canadians will lose jobs.

The one and only economic tool to change CO2 demand is a tax – applied once, to the _*individual* consumer_, at the final point of sale: the gas pump, the heating bill, the price of almost everything that is grown or manufactured anywhere in the whole world. Businesses, which are corporate, not individual, consumers would not pay those taxes. 

When gasoline costs $10.00/litre Canadian drivers will use less and less of it; when the plastic packaging costs more than the item inside Canadian consumers will buy fewer and fewer of those items; when it costs three times as much as now to air condition a home Canadians will discover fans; when the price of home heating triples Canadians will reinvent the woollen sweater – domestic wool will be cheaper than petroleum based synthetic fibres; and so on. Costs will rise, people will adapt; new solutions will create jobs and wealth and Canadians will, broadly, live better.

Stéphane Dion’s _Green Shaft Shift_ was silly because he, too, wanted to try to mitigate the wholly predictable economic effects of a carbon tax, but his basic idea was right: a consumption tax. Obama is wrong and Stephen Harper should tell him that and he should tell him we are not _harmonizing_ with the USA. Some will claim that our economy will be disrupted unless we do what America does. Not so. Actually, if we ensure that only _*individual*_ consumers pay the carbon tax, our goods and services will be cheaper to export and imported goods will be more expensive to buy – creating jobs for Canadians. Additionally, we can, if we wish, impose a carbon tax on e.g. petroleum at the point of export, making life more expensive for our American and Chinese customers – who will not stop buying because we are one of the few stable, honest countries in the whole world with large reserves of petroleum. (Generally, I oppose punitive taxes.) 

If CO2 is the problem then a clear, simple carbon tax – applied at the final point of sale to individual consumers – is the answer.

If consumers do not pay, in cash, up front, then they will pay through unemployment and a lower standard of living, but pay they will. There is no one else. Canadians should grow up and smarten up.


Edit: spelling


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Dec 2009)

I agree whole-heartedly.  "Cap and trade" might as well be called "smoke and mirrors."  The whole point to most of the countries of the world seems to be to snag a chunk of world wealth without investing in their people or economies.  I suspect a lot of tanks, aircraft, yachts, and Swiss bank accounts will be the result in the third world.

The only solution is to directly tax the CO2 creation that goes into a product.  Pain is involved for the consumer but destroying the western economies through the back door of cap and trade is not painless.  I realize that in the world of politics, nothing is ever revenue neutral but perhaps personal income taxes could be severely curtailed or eliminated.  

There would have to be discrimination between energy sources to make it work.  Nuclear power would have a very low rate of tax while coal fired power would be taxed dearly.  Manufactured goods from countries that are 100 % nuclear would be taxed much less than those  from countries that are primarily coal fired.  The trick would be to identify how much CO2 was created in manufacturing a product and taxing each kilogram at a certain rate to encourage discrimination between products.  

The main problem in implementation would be an additional accounting for weight of CO2 on top of dollars but any accounting system could handle it although point-of-sale terminals would probably need rejigging.  It is not totally unusual for organizations to record non-monetary units in their books.

The reality, as I see, is that CO2 induced global warming is a fraud but if the politicians are forced to attack it, let them do it through the front door.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2009)

Using armed guards to stop reporters asking questions, hiding raw data, methodology and algorithems and now "dissapearing" publicly available data down the memory hole are all useful tools for building trust. I would like to see the Canadian delegation refuse to discuss or sign anything at Copenhagen until the raw data and other information is publicly released:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/whats-going-on-cru-takes-down-briffa-tree-ring-data-and-more/



> *What’s going on? CRU takes down Briffa Tree Ring Data and more*
> 
> Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bass ackwards (14 Dec 2009)

As much as I hate the thought of disagreeing with Mr. Campbell, my personal belief is that when the cost of heating ones home triples, there are going to be far too many Canadians -people who are already no strangers to wool sweaters- are either going to have to resort to crime or they're simply going to freeze to death. Call me a racist, but I don't see where you have to be a nonwhite immigrant living in Toronto to be _"marginalized". _ 

A couple of winters ago, while scanning CNEWS, I ran across two articles on the same day.
The first was the latest gloom and doom from the global warming crowd at their latest meeting. That particular one was in Honolulu Hawaii. 
Somehow, I doubt they all sailed there for that meeting.

The second article concerned people living in Cape Breton who were at the point of having to choose between buying food or stove oil.

Even taking into account the plethora of things that the press routinely leaves out of their articles -maybe some of the folks in CB are spending money on things they oughtn't- the fact remains that 
a) some parts of this country get awfully g-damned cold.
b) the cost of heating ones home in some parts of this country are already atrocious.

I'm lucky. I personally am in good shape for now. I make good money and I live in a small box of an apartment which is heated by nice cheap Manitoba electricity. 
But Saturday morning, we had minus 56 windchills when I headed off to work (they're down to minus 40 now, thank God!) and if I was some poor bugger _not_ making a big fat union wage, and I'd read about Barack Obama cranking the thermostat in the oval office, and a week later read David Suzuki writing a puff piece about how great Obama was for the environment (both of these occurred last winter), and it was suggested that all this was somehow going to make me "live better"...

Umm...no.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2009)

I'm not disputing that there will be _pain_ - or worse - IF we decide that we must reduce CO2 in order to save the world/humanity. What I am saying is that *IF* we must reduce CO2 then we should choose the economic lever that will work: a consumption tax aimed, solely and exclusively, at the individual end consumer - you, me and the poor people.


----------



## Bass ackwards (14 Dec 2009)

I picked up on the large "ifs" the first time around and I honestly don't think you're advocating the rape of the Canadian public.

I guess this is where my density factor comes to light because I fail to see the end difference in where the tax is targeted: either way it's going to be you, me and the poor people ultimately getting bent over the table while our betters (you'll find many of them in Copenhagen right now) carry on as if they were normal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2009)

The principle is that digging up oil or running an airline or making useless plastic _thingys_ does not harm. The harm occurs when the oil is consumed or people fly on airplanes, etc. Tax the beejezus out of airline tickets and, bloody quickly, planes will stop flying; put a hefty tax on gas and people will use less so less will be mined; and so on. The consumers' choices (_demand_) drive everything else.


----------



## mellian (14 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The principle is that digging up oil or running an airline or making useless plastic _thingys_ does not harm. The harm occurs when the oil is consumed or people fly on airplanes, etc. Tax the beejezus out of airline tickets and, bloody quickly, planes will stop flying; put a hefty tax on gas and people will use less so less will be mined; and so on. The consumers' choices (_demand_) drive everything else.



Canadian Airline tickets as enough fees as is, taxing them even more would be ridiculous. Just to go to Las Vegas with a Canadian airline would cost me between 800 to 1000 dollars return trip from Montreal, while a hour jaunt to Burlington Vermont only cost me like 320. 

Just for fun, checked the prices for going to Vancouver from Montreal one time in comparison to from Burlington VT or to Seattle and ride the bus up to Vancouver. For most of the dates I checked for, would have been cheaper. 

So no, taxing airline tickets even more is not going to work, especially in the end tax money will be used to bail out the Canadian Airlines anyway.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Dec 2009)

To repeat an earlier post Canada is not a heavily industrialized country and much of our high use of energy is simply to keep us alive at -40 and provide transportation between our distant cities.  Cutting back energy consumption will cripple our economy or freeze our backsides.  Whichever government puts teeth in laws that actually reduce CO2 will be quickly thrown out.  I suspect we can only expect lip service because only the NDP would willingly destroy the economy for ideals.  People may say they want reduced CO2 but the only way it can be accomplished is with brutal taxation.  Half measures will accomplish nothing.


----------



## Bass ackwards (14 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The principle is that digging up oil or running an airline or making useless plastic _thingys_ does not harm. The harm occurs when the oil is consumed or people fly on airplanes, etc. Tax the beejezus out of airline tickets and, bloody quickly, planes will stop flying; put a hefty tax on gas and people will use less so less will be mined; and so on. The consumers' choices (_demand_) drive everything else.



OK. After much staring at this and feeling stupid because I _"just don't get it"_, I *think* I see where you're coming from. 
And yes, whatever you tax the hell out of will be reduced in demand. 
Great.
Personally I have no desire to fly anywhere. Nor would it kill me to not drive my jeep out to the lake on weekends. 
On the other hand, I'm enjoying this "prairie windchill warning" that Environment Canada had been yakking about, and heating my home is simply not a "luxury" to be cut down on. 
I'm not wandering around here wearing nothing but a thong -I've got lots of wool and  flannel happening. I'm just trying to stay warm. 
So taxing the hell out of whatever I choose to heat with isn't going to reduce my demand. 
It might make me give up a toy or two -and that's fine too. But once the toys are gone (and I don't have many) ... and I'm still freezing to death...then what ?


----------



## mariomike (14 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> put a hefty tax on gas and people will use less so less will be mined;



The experts say it will save lives. They calculated that 2,600 Americans are saved by a 20% increase in gas prices. ( Doesn't say if the fatality figure includes pedestrians struck, or motorists only ).  Also fewer injuries and better air quality:
http://journals.lww.com/joem/Abstract/2008/03000/High_Gasoline_Prices_and_Mortality_From_Motor.2.aspx

My apologies if this has already been mentioned in the thread. :


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2009)

Regardless of what we think, 300 million Americans voting with their wallets either through a tax or Cap and Trade will change our way of life as well. Since most of the tax or Cap and Trade dollars will be flowing towards American political rent seekers, this won't be to *our* benefit at all.

Of course market capitalism works two ways, increase the cost and demand will drop, but other, lower cost substitutes will emerge. (By lower cost, I mean relative to what is being priced out of the market).

In fact, if you read the A scary strategic problem - no oil   thread, you will find many solutions which may become cost effective under these new conditions.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2009)

Interesting to me that under the Cap and Trade system it is recommended that the Oil sands companies buy credits from the Forestry companies because the oil companies produce CO2 and the forestry companies consume CO2.

Most industries that I know of pay their suppliers for their inputs.  Under the new model it seems that the forestry companies will be paid to consume CO2 and grow trees.

Other places that used to be caused a subsidy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2009)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> ... But once the toys are gone (and I don't have many) ... and I'm still freezing to death...then what ?



The theory Experience says that people, being people - greedy and inventive - will find new, cheaper ways to heat your home. You'll still pay, as much as they - whoever develops the alternative - can wring out of you, but you will use less CO2 (which is our stated aim, after all - saving the planet and all that) and you will therefore pay lower CO2 taxes. If/when enough people drive fewer kms, and do so in e.g. electric vehicles, fly less often, heat their homes differently and use less plastic packaging and so on there will be less oil taken out of the ground because there will be no one to buy it.

Even in cap and trade, etc, the individual consumer pays, eventually, 100% of the costs - but partly, and insidiously, in lower standards of living: including in reduced life span.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2009)

Here is an _opinion_ by two retired senior officials, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/a-credible-budget-will-have-to-include-tax-increases/article1400092/


> A credible budget will have to include tax increases
> *Hoping for the best is not an option when dealing with deficit*
> 
> C. Scott Clark and Peter DeVries
> ...




I agree with Clark and DeVries that:

•	A federal deficit is something that can't be wished away;

•	The Conservative government has cut taxes by more than $100-billion since the 2006 budget;

•	The Minister of Finance seems determined to close his eyes and hope things improve;

•	The budget will need to find about $30-billion by 2014-15;

•	Cutting spending on agriculture, aboriginals, international assistance, research, student assistance, certain Crown agencies and *defence* will be difficult;

•	Any credible budget will have to include tax increases; and

•	The answer lies in taxing consumption.

I *disagree* that returning the GST to 7% is the right or even a good answer. A also disagree that raising income taxes is a good idea.

The GST is too easy for governments. Cutting the GST constrains the sorts of wasteful, ill planned social programmes that characterized e.g. the Trudeau years. Brining it (the GST) back opens the door for more of that damage. It will take generations to wring Trudeau’s damage out of the fabric of Canadian society even with constraints on spending; making social spending easier will just delay necessary, fiscally driven social reforms. 

The income tax is, essentially, a tax on success and a tax on job creation – the savings (*excess wealth*) of the ‘rich’ (always a debatable term) are invested in companies that grow and hire new employees.

So, yes, a consumption tax, but: What consumption tax?

Well, how about a carbon tax? Even though I guess reducing CO2 is not going to save the planet/humanity, I also guess it (less CO2) cannot be a bad idea. Taxing carbon consumption, simply – at one, single point of sale: the individual consumer (not the company) – will raise billions and billions. Some of those billions and billions can should must be used to take millions of low income Canadians off the tax rolls, completely, thus making e.g. home heating less onerous while we wait for ‘better’ solutions.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2009)

If the CPC raised _any_ tax, or introduced a consumption tax, it would be political suicide. I can hear the howls now from Iffy and his gang of media. But, the LieLiberals would do essentially the same thing if they where in government. A Mexican standoff, will the government losing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2009)

The _beauty_ of a carbon tax is that it can be introduced for a _social_ purpose: to save us from ourselves. It needn't be presented as just another way to pick the taxpayers' pockets to pay for bureaucratic waste and ineptitude; it can be presented as morally necessary self flagellation that will, finally, restore us to our self-proclaimed status as _moral superpower_, once again able to hector the USA for its manifold socio-political failings, for, generally, not being us.

A well planned, simple, single point of payment (the individual consumer) carbon tax will, very, very quickly, raise huge amounts of money that successive governments can waste with glee.

A smart government - such things have existed, in times gone by - would introduce the tax so that it grows, point by point, over about three years; then it would announce that, beginning in the fifth or sixth year, after the next election, the tax will be reduced by a point, on some items - hinting that further reductions may be possible if one keeps re-electing the *right* party.


----------



## sm1lodon (15 Dec 2009)

I'm all for global warming, anyway, even if it were true. I have no need for polar ice caps or caps on C02. Bring on the warming. Warming encourages plant life, which produces humidity, which increases cloud cover, which will equalize the climates worldwide.

Of course, I can't prove this. Just like the global warming terrorists can't prove what they say is a result of my car.

But, as I said, the net result: us having to pay money. The root cause: someone's greed.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2009)

Say what you want. The LieLiberals and the media will beat it down, distort the truth, and the CPC will be defeated. You cannot raise taxes if you are a CPC government. Canadians are generally not well informed and are selfish. Thanks Trudeau.

P.S. The temporary tax on gasoline to reduce the deficit is a good example of a carbon tax going wrong and a tax policy not to be believed.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2009)

There is one other option, but my Google-fu is weak today.

I seem to recall the Finance Minister claimed to have identified something on the order of $100 billion in wasteful spending across the government, but had no plans to do anything about it since this was all part of the wonderful stimulus we needed to defeat the recession. I'm obviously paraphrasing here, and while I would like to believe there is $100 billion available to be cut, the number might be a lot less...

IF this number was indeed true (or even within an order of magnitude), then the deficit problem simply solves itself as the government cuts that wasteful spending. If the actual amount is indeed $100 billion, *then the national debt can be paid off * in five years, and another five years would fill the coffers and eliminate the unfunded liabilities of CPP and other federal pensions. That is an argument which might indeed sell to the hard pressed Canadian taxpayer and voter.

Other premutations are possible as well. The government can cut the $100 billion in wasteful spending and then lower income taxes by a like amount, which would be a bit like putting a bottle of Nitrous Oxide to the engine of the economy. The revenue explosion would then (ideally) pay off the debt and service unfunded liabilities.

Being eternally optomistic, I could also foresee that after a few years of deep budget cuts without affecting the day to day lives of 98% of Canadians, voters would become more receptive to further budget cutting as well, creating a virtuous circle. (Maybe I should also check the dosage on those anti-inflammatory drugs as well... )


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Dec 2009)

The following abridged letter to the editor, which was published in today's National Post and is reproduced under the fair comments provisions of the Copyright Act, is one of the most original and clever takes on data manipulation I have ever seen. It may even make Edmontonians smile through their frost-bitten lips.

Re: Cold Comfort: Mercury Rises To -20 C In Edmonton, Dec. 15.

Those who believe it may be cold in Edmonton will be cheered to know that the recently published temperatures consist of only raw temperature data. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia, U.K., has used its complex and peer-reviewed computer adjustment for that raw data to determine the real temperatures for inclusion in future IPCC reports on global warming.

It must be noted that the CRU-adjusted temperatures for Edmonton continue to show this to be one of the warmest weeks in Edmonton's history and exactly matches the catastrophic and accelerating warming prediction of the proven IPCC computer model.

The Edmonton weather office will replace the raw temperature data in its records with the CRU-corrected data as soon as possible to support future CRU climate research, however, the CRU asks that anyone who may have taken notes or have a memory of the raw temperature data of recent days to erase or otherwise forget it in order to avoid any possible future embarrassment the raw temperature data may cause. It further states that the science remains fully settled and there is no need to invite any silly debate with climate warming deniers who do not understand the CRU's complex scientific methods.

Dwight Christensen, Ottawa.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Dec 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The following abridged letter to the editor, which was published in today's National Post and is reproduced under the fair comments provisions of the Copyright Act, is one of the most original and clever takes on data manipulation I have ever seen. It may even make Edmontonians smile through their frost-bitten lips.
> 
> Re: Cold Comfort: Mercury Rises To -20 C In Edmonton, Dec. 15.
> 
> ...


:rofl:
I suppose that toques aren't needed anymore, then?  And I suppose that the polar caps MUST be melting as I type this, given that it's so much warmer up there in the long Arctic night ;D


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2009)

Russia drops the bomb!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/



> *Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming *
> 
> By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
> 
> ...



Do feel free to forward this to your local legacy media and Member of Parliament


----------



## Jungle (17 Dec 2009)

Some questions are not welcome in Copenhagen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded

Is this guy a scientist or a politician ??  ;D

Some 30 years ago, Steven Schneider was scaring the world with the coming ice age and ensuing food shortages:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Apparently, the earth has not warmed in the last 10 to 15 years, and it looks like it might actually cool for the next 2 decades; is Prof Schneider going to go back to the global cooling option ??

And another one, just for S&G:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUq0JnaIock&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Dec 2009)

I'm not big into conspiracy theories with only the Kennedy assasination stuck in my craw for the last 46 years but Google links for the term "climategate" have gone from a high of 55 million to 23 million last week now down to 13.7 million today.  As the topic is flogged to death on the internet the references decrease?  Has me mystified.

Also many of the first links are people criticizing climategate.

http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/021306.html

Wiki's version of the truth as they see it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

There is so much strange stuff surrounding climategate including the non-reporting by the legitimate media that I have added climategate to my list.  There is either an active conspiracy or a conspiracy of ignorance, usually visually depicted by three monkeys.  I just got my renewal for Time.  I intend to present them with my own editorial comment.  Henry Luce must be spinning in his grave.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> There is either an active conspiracy or a conspiracy of ignorance, usually visually depicted by three monkeys.



More proof anyone?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx



> *Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor*
> Posted: December 19, 2009, 2:53 AM by NP Editor
> lawrence solomon, climate change, Wikipedia
> How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Dec 2009)

Photos from a recent meeting of news directors of the major networks:







Any wonders that Wiki is a dirty word around here and in academics.   I have done some Wiki editing on non-contentious historical subjects and probably all of it is still there.  If it were all false, it would probably still be there too.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I'm not big into conspiracy theories with only the Kennedy assasination stuck in my craw for the last 46 years but Google links for the term "climategate" have gone from a high of 55 million to 23 million last week now down to 13.7 million today.  As the topic is flogged to death on the internet the references decrease?  Has me mystified.



http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/021306.html


> Search for "Climategate" using deifferent search engines results in following hit numbers December 7 2009, 23.40 CET:
> Google: 31.300.000 hits
> Yahoo: 24.700.000 hits
> AltaVista: 41.700.000 hits
> ...




12.3 million hits today.  I find the management of information for political purposes as scary today as when the Nazis or Communists did it.

Tiger Woods has 52 million hits - I better quit while I'm behind.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/021306.html
> 
> 12.3 million hits today.  I find the management of information for political purposes as scary today as when the Nazis or Communists did it.
> 
> Tiger Woods has 52 million hits - I better quit while I'm behind.



Today - 95.1 million.  I guess they must have questioned their sagging credibility.  Still scares me how a topic can be manipulated for political reasons.



> Results 1 - 10 of about 95,100,000 for climategate.


----------



## Scott (21 Dec 2009)

Are you done talking to yourself? Spare tinfoil, this time of year, should be used for cookies....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Dec 2009)

Scott said:
			
		

> Are you done talking to yourself?



No!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html


> No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.
> 
> Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.
> 
> What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.



Now I'm done.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2009)

I'm not!

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-basques-in-glory.html



> *Pachauri in expenses scam*
> Posted by Richard Tuesday, December 22, 2009 IPCC, Pachauri
> 
> Not only has Dr R K Pachauri, chairman of the UN's IPCC been developing a very significant portfolio of private interests, evidence is mounting that he has been carrying out his business activities for these organisations under the guise of his UN duties, and charging the expenses to the UN.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2009)

Sorry Scott.   Me neither.   By the way Wattsupwiththat is a particularly interesting clearing house for anti AGW info.

Cheers

From NC Times  (California) via Wattsupwiththat




> From Global Warming Believer To Skeptic
> By: Bradley Fikes —  December 21st, 2009
> UPDATE: For whatever reason, Thanks to a link from Climate Depot, this post has drawn an outpouring of commenters. Thanks for stopping by, and thank you, Climate Depot! And thank you for your patience with the comment moderation. I check comments frequently, and will step up the pace to keep the conversation going.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Dec 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Today - 95.1 million.  I guess they must have questioned their sagging credibility.  Still scares me how a topic can be manipulated for political reasons.



Tinfoil is impossible to find.  I use aluminum foil.  It has successfully kept aliens from reading my brainwaves so don't knock it..  Sorry but one more.

http://employmentmoney.blogspot.com/2009/10/al-gores-connection-with-google.html


> Al Gore has taken a hand in becoming part of Google's search quality team. In other words, Gore will be putting in his two cents about what should be censored on the Internet. Google's weird attachment with politics doesn't seem to fit well with a lot of Internet readers and marketers, including myself.



Small world.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2009)

Wow. You certainly can't be more presidential than this....:

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2009/12/21/the-copencabana/



> *The Copencabana*
> 
> Small Dead Animals has a translation of a German article which purports to describe how Barack Obama stormed into a meeting of heads of state, acting like it was a scene from a Hollywood movie. Although the Welt article has the most detail, there are collateral reports from other papers which suggest an extraordinary scene took place, although not necessarily confirming the details of Welt.  The question is what happened and what did it signify.
> 
> ...


----------



## Antoine (27 Dec 2009)

A lot of food for thought on the current issue Chemical & Engineering News of December 21, 2009

'' Whether or not global warming stemming from human activities is occurring is developing into the great scientific debate of our time. If it’s true, the larger questions are what the climate consequences will be and whether or not there is anything anyone can do about it. ....There is no question that Earth’s atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased since the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, with most of the rise coming since 1950.....But here the cordial agreements stop. At the heart of the global-warming debate is whether that warming is the direct result of increasing anthropogenic CO2 levels or whether it is simply part of Earth’s natural climate variability.  ''

more on http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/87/8751cover.html

And you`ll find more articles on the current issue 

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/cen/87/i51/toc/toc_i51.html

I did not post the integral article due to copyright.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is an article that seeks to explain the apparent fanaticism of the Green _movement_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Decade+Green+Meanies/2390556/story.html


> The Decade of the Green Meanies
> *Extreme environmentalism has become a harsh secular religion, writes Robert Sibley*
> 
> 
> ...




It *may* be a bit over the top to compare environmentalism with e.g. Christianity and socialism but I think the comparison to Fascism (and the Nazis) and Communism is not too farfetched. I also think the idea that people _long_ for something – something easier than serious religion - in which to believe is valid.

Others have compared the modern environmental _movement_ to the Children’s Crusades (_circa_ 1212, if such a thing really happened at all) or to something akin to a flash mob in its _organization_.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jan 2010)

And this issue of Science Daily includes a report of a study that finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide emissions has not increased in a century and a half. The issue also includes links to other studies that support and contradict these findings, so it is an illuminating if somewhat perplexing read.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2010)

Well that huge fusion reactor in the sky _might_ have something to do with climate:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/12/the-year-in-sunspot/



> *2009’s Sleepy Sun Finally Woke Up in December*
> 
> * By Alexis Madriga
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jan 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well that *huge fusion reactor in the sky * _might_ have something to do with climate:


Are you talking about your weather machine again? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Are you talking about your weather machine again? ;D



I thought we agreed not to mention it until field tests are complete. Finding qualified evil minions is so hard these days.....

Like these ones:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6795858.html



> *Climategate: You should be steamed*
> By NEIL FRANK
> HOUSTON CHRONICLE
> Jan. 2, 2010, 4:28PM
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Jan 2010)

;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2010)

Fraudsters are now going to be caught in their own webs of lies and deception:

http://www.sortofpolitical.com/2010/01/this-just-might-have-potential-to-cause.html



> *This just might have the potential to cause a few grey hairs...*
> For some people within the AGW ranks.
> 
> James Delingpole, UK Telegraph, lays it all out in Climategate: Michael Mann's very unhappy New Year.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Jan 2010)

Do you think one of the end results will be Al giving back the Academy, the Nobel Peace Prize and millions of $$$????


----------



## Jungle (8 Jan 2010)

Anybody notice we went from "ice age" 30 years ago to "global warming" recently, but we are seeing more of "climate change" these days ?? 
Very convenient, as "climate change" can be used for any perceived changes in any aspect of the weather to keep the funds flowing.  :


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jan 2010)

Climate change you can believe in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#



> *The mini ice age starts here*
> 
> By David Rose
> Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010
> ...




And for the mathematically inclined:

http://ragingtory.blogspot.com/2010/01/complete-and-total-disproval-of-agw.html



> *The complete and total disproval of AGW.*
> 
> All done in one single paragraph. Check this out:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2010)

Sheltering the guilty:

http://dailycaller.com/2010/01/12/climategate-professor-michael-mann-protected-to-maximum-extent-by-penn-state-policy/



> ‘*Climategate’ professor Michael Mann protected ‘to maximum extent’ by Penn State policy*
> By Scott Ott   01/12/10 at 2:43 am
> 
> The Old Main administrative building at the Pennsylvania State University.It ultimately falls to one man to decide if we ever see headlines that shout: “Penn State Climate Prof Fudged Facts to Fetch Funding”, or perhaps “Nittany Lyin’: Penn State’s Mann on the Street.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2010)

Hmmmm.....



> Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin named the search engine they built "Google," a play on the word "googol," the mathematical term for a 1 followed by 100 zeros. The name reflects the immense volume of information that exists, and the scope of Google's mission: to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.



http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2010/01/googlegate-google-censoring-climategate.html



> Saturday, January 16, 2010
> *Googlegate: Google censoring climategate *
> Lawrence Solomon has picked up on Google's apparent censoring of climategate references:
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2010)

> key in “Christianity is” and Google will suggest unflattering completions to the phrase




Interesting.  I keyed it in, for poops and giggles, and I get
Christianity is:
...bullshit
...not a religion
...fake
...a cult
...islam
...false
...wrong
...a lie
Catholicism is
...Islam
...wrong
...a cult
...not Christianity
...the true religion
...bullshit
...Christianity
...a false religion
...false
...of the devil

Islam is:
(no fill-ins)
Republicans are:
...morons
...retarded
...ignorant
...insance
...hypocrites
...sore losers

Wow.

And this:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,750,000 for *climategate*. (0.13 seconds) 
(Those are results for CLIMATEGATE at Google.  For Bing.com:
1-10 of 57,100,000 results
The first hit?
www.climategate.com


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2010)

I wasn't sure whether to post this here, or in the "jokes" or "dumbest thing heard" threads....



> *UN climate report hurt by errors on glaciers  *
> Thursday, January 21, 2010
> 
> A Canadian professor has reported five glaring errors in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.



It's one of those moments when you just don't know whether to laugh or cry


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 Jan 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Today - 95.1 million.  I guess they must have questioned their sagging credibility.  Still scares me how a topic can be manipulated for political reasons.



Google hits for "climategate" went up to 55 million, worked its way down to 10 million, jumped back up to 95 million and is now under 2 million.  Yes, it still scares me.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (21 Jan 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's one of those moments when you just don't know whether to laugh or cry



No doubt, the apology/retraction was on Page 37 in super small font in some scientific journal.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Feb 2010)

To qoute Homer Simpson
"Look Lisa, I have to go outside and shovel 10 feet of global warming."


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2010)

Why would scientists manipulate data and fake global climate change, you ask?:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategate_is_it_criminal_1.html



> *Climategate: Is It Criminal?*
> By Dexter Wright
> 
> The potential criminality of the Climategate scandal is exactly the issue that is being investigated by authorities in Britain. The British Parliament has convened hearings to investigate East Anglia University and the Climate Research Unit to uncover unethical and illegal activities. As more information is revealed, the whole Climategate affair begins to take on the makings of a good mystery novel. Like any good mystery or crime plot, the web of involvement is widespread.
> ...


----------



## Antoine (7 Feb 2010)

You can find serious scientific editorials from

www.nature.com/climate/index.html

pubs.acs.org/cen/climate/climatearchive.html

www.sciencemag.org

rsc.org/Publishing/Magazines/index.asp

From these magazines, you can find interesting opinions from the scientific community.

Regards,


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2010)

Looking for the guilty:

http://psu.campusreform.org/group/events/2010-02-08/rally-for-academic-integrity



> *Rally for Academic Integrity*
> 
> Date:
> Friday, February 12, 2010 - 12:00pm - 1:00pm
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Feb 2010)

Is this just a protest, or is there anything that would compel the faculty in actually revisiting the matter?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2010)

Follow the money:

http://bigjournalism.com/otockfield/2010/02/12/climategate-uk-edition-following-the-money-all-e4-trillion-of-it/



> *Climategate, UK Edition: Following the Money, All €4 Trillion of It*
> 
> There’s a question oft-posed by the proponents of global warming… or of “climate change,” as the new term of art has it, thus allowing warmists to claim both the snowstorm now blanketing America’s East Coast, as well as the melting of that snow, as evidence for their theory.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (15 Feb 2010)

Looks like a great idea to me!

http://celebedge.ca/Bang/ContentPostingSplash3column?newsitemid=SPLTXT20198&feedname=SPLASH_NEWS&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=False


> Donald Trump says Al Gore should be stripped of Nobel prize
> 
> The former US Vice President was the co-winner of the award in 2007 for his work on climate change.
> 
> ...



Too bad The Donald chimes off about way too many things.  He actually has a really good point on this one.


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Feb 2010)

I agree with the Trump-eter on this one.

Global climate change has been a constant condition. Ask any paleontoligist. Our world has always been in a constant state of change. 

Follow the money, look at Al Gore as he makes his billions and putting out that sham of a movie. No it was propaganda.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2010)

The climate scam is collapsing even faster. From the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_t



> *The Continuing Climate Meltdown*
> More embarrassments for the U.N. and 'settled' science.
> 
> It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2010)

I guess he figures he's gotten all the money out of the UN that he can.

 Article Link 



> *UN climate change chief to resign*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How tenuous a grasp on reality do you have to have to concurrently believe the truth of his two sentences highlighted above? If people don't want to associate themselves with even a lame, toothless pronouncement, you're nowhere near "an inch from a formal agreement." 

With that sort of spin, his background must be with Holland's version of the NDP (given their belief in how close they were to winning the last Federal election)

I see he is, however, going to keep on the UN gravy-train until 1 July -- and I'm guessing his salary is somewhat higher than mine.  :


----------



## zipperhead_cop (18 Feb 2010)

I wonder if his luggage gets sent to Val-d'or Airport, Quebec, by accident when he flies?   ;D


----------



## GAP (18 Feb 2010)

Obama's going to have a tough time pulling Cap & Trade out of the fire......
Cap and fade
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Thursday, February 18, 2010
Article Link

It's hard to tell right now which part of global warming policy is in the fastest free fall -- the economics, the politics or the science. The politics seemed to be winning the race yesterday. At least five major U.S. corporations have pulled out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an agglomeration of business and green groups lobbying Washington for climate legislation. High on USCAP's agenda is a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions.

The withdrawal of BP,  Conoco Phillips and Caterpillar from USCAP is widely seen as another sign that cap and trade, which would allow corporations to buy and sell emissions credits, is losing ground politically. Another political sign that a major climate bill containing a cap-and trade regime was unlikely came recently when President Barack Obama announced he might be willing to carve out the cap-and-trade elements from climate legislation as a separate bill. Since a stand-alone tax carbon plan surrounded with a corporate trading system would be political dynamite for the adminstration, Mr. Obama's comments triggered speculation that cap-and trade would never see daylight.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Feb 2010)

But …

There’s always a but, as evidenced in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_ web site:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/20/lawrence-solomon-faith-in-fission.aspx


> Lawrence Solomon: *Faith in fission*
> Posted: February 20, 2010
> 
> *Environmentalism is the religion of the left, but many on the right blindly follow a misguided dogma of their own*
> ...




There is, indeed, a price for green power or for green anything or, for that matter, for anything at all.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Feb 2010)

Me, I kind of like Coal.  Leaves a wonderful tang in the air as it burns merrily in the hearth.  Combined with Eurasian Milfoil I reckon we might have a winner.

Coal to boiler  - happy miners

Boiler yields heat and power and lots of luvverly CO2  - happy consumers

CO2 and heat in a stagnant slough infested with Eurasian Milfoil equals lots of easily harvested rapidly reproducing fibre - happy workers

Fibre yields paper (using power and heat from boiler) - more happy workers

Paper yields reports - happy bureaucrats

Reports yield filled filing cabinets fully of sequestered Carbon - happy librarians and environmentalists

Secret reports to burn  - recycle as boiler fuel - happy spooks and more happy environmentalists

You might even e able to use that CO2 to grow cucumbers and tomatoes in Afghanistan and Darfur ...... not that they need  the food there.

But that all assumes that CO2 is something more than a noxious fume that contributes nothing to life as we know it - and EPA knows otherwise.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (22 Feb 2010)

Just cuz....


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2010)

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley answers the AGW fanatics in a long and detailed post here:

http://sppiblog.org/news/answer-to-a-global-warming-fanatic

Perhaps the best paragraph in the entire post shows how real scientific evidence trumps "consensus":



> Thirdly, during the pre-Cambrian era CO2 concentration was 300,000 parts per million, or 30% of the atmosphere, 773 times the 388 parts per million (<0.04%) in today’s atmosphere. Yet at that time glaciers came and went, twice, at the Equator and at sea level. The appearance of glaciers in this way could not have happened if CO2 had the exaggerated warming effect, derived by modelling rather than by measurement, that the IPCC imagines.



Read the rest, and pass it on....


----------



## Antoine (26 Feb 2010)

Beat the clock, another Carbon credit crazy idea!  ;D or  : ?

Carbon credits proposed for whale conservation by Richard A. Lovett, _NatureNews_, 26 February 2010:

www.nature.com/news/2010/100226/full/news.2010.96.html



> *Stopping whale hunting could help sequester millions of tonnes of carbon.*
> 
> Biological oceanographer Andrew Pershing wants carbon credits for whale conservation. That's because whales, he says, are like trees. "Like any animal or plant, they are made out of carbon. And whales are so big they each store a lot of carbon," he says.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Feb 2010)

Same logic

People are made of carbon.

Make more people ........ then charge them for the privilege of sewing them in a blanket (also made of carbon) with a shot at their feet and sending them to Davy Jones.


----------



## Antoine (27 Feb 2010)

I think their point was that 



> Because large animals require less food per unit mass than smaller animals, any given food source (such as krill) can support a lot more biomass in a whale than in a small animal such as a penguin.....the indirect benefits of iron fertilization from whale faeces might remove more carbon from the atmosphere by boosting algal growth than the growth of the whales themselves



But they fall in the typical Scientific Reductionism trap. I am always surprised how scientists can be naive when they leave their ivory tower. 

Nothing new but The Global Warming "compagny" and its products such as carbon credit are going to be used by everyone to sell you anything and everything, even to support the Whale Savers !


----------



## zipperhead_cop (27 Feb 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> People are made of carbon.



And soyalent green is made of people.  So we should be able to buy it with our carbon credits.


----------



## mariomike (27 Feb 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> soyalent green is made of people.



"It's people. Soylent Green is made out of people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!"


----------



## Antoine (28 Feb 2010)

> And soyalent green is made of people.  So we should be able to buy it with our carbon credits.



That was un-politically correct and I like it  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2010)

The numbers tell all that you need to know:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm



> *The money trail*
> 
> Joanna Nova
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (13 Mar 2010)

Terence Corcoran: Remember Amazongate?
Posted: March 12, 2010, 7:42 PM by NP Editor Terence Corcoran, Climate change, IPCC
Article Link
New research shows no evidence of Amazon devastation

Climate scientists attached to the rickety Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change structure raise two key interchangeable arguments in their defense. The first is to deny that anything of significance has been found in the various IPCC scandals. Climategate? Nothing there but a few emails that display intemperate behaviour and typical charmless chat among scientists doing their jobs.

“Scientists are not public relations experts,” say the apologists. Glaciergate and the melting Himalayan ice? Insignificant — barely a footnote in the official IPCC reports, and a minor mistake in any case; there’s nothing here to cast doubt on the thousands of pages of good work by thousands of scientists. “Regrettably, there were a very small number of errors,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday after announcing the appointment of a review panel to investigate those tiny little errors, produce a report and move on, preferably by August before the next round of panic-ridden climate talks.

The second official line of defense is to attempt to deny the very existence of any mistakes, errors or butchered science. Denial, in fact, is often the first strategy deployed when any criticism surfaces. Then, if the story of scientific error is proven true, the mistakes are then dismissed and trivialized as of no consequence.

~~~~~~~~read the article for the information deleted here

The Sunday Times of London called the IPCC Amazon statement to be a “bogus rainforest claim.” Soon, however, the denial machine swung into action. The Times will be in hot water over this, they said. While the original IPCC report was based on WWF research, there was other science that supported the idea that the Amazon could be decimated by climate change.

The author of that other science, Daniel Nepstad, of the Woods Hole Research Center, said that while the WWF version of his paper got things wrong, the IPCC was correct — up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reduction in the amount of rainfall. Mr. Nepstad based his conclusion on assessments of the Amazon rainforest’s behaviour during the 1998 El Nino period. Other research in 2004 and 2007 also seemed to support the idea that the Amazon would be decimated by global warming.

But this week new research supports the original Amazongate version of the science. The Amazon may not be at risk from climate change. Researchers at Boston University, headed by Ranga B. Myneni, professor of geography and environment, found that satellite readings used by other scientists were based on contaminated data.  In a paper published by Geophysical Research Letters, Prof. Myneni and associates say they found no evidence that the Amazon suffers extreme tree mortality, excessive forest greening or other trauma under extreme climate conditions.

The Myneni paper examined the impact on the Amazon of a major 2005 drought. Some scientists have argued that the 2005 drought caused significant rainforest disturbances. But Prof. Myneni says that science is based on satellite data that cannot be reproduced because much of it is “atmosphere corrupted.” Once the corrupted data is removed, a new assessment is possible, The Boston research shows that much of the speculation around the Amazon either greening up or browning under extreme conditions to be false. During the 2005 drought, Prof. Myneni reports, the Amazon behaved no differently than it did during 2003 and 2004, when there was no drought.

Prof. Myneni supports the basic IPCC climate science theory. But he said in an interview yesterday that the IPCC was being “alarmist” when it took the WWF research and produced a report that projected that 40% of the Amazon could be devastated and reformed by even a slight reduction in rainfall.

As it turns out, he says, the experience of 2005 shows that there is no evidence for the WWF claim and the evidence used in later research is faulty.
None of this resolves the Amazongate issue. What it does show, however, is what all the of the IPCC science problems show: The science isn’t settled.

Financial Post
end


----------



## GAP (26 Mar 2010)

With this action, think how the US will react in regards to their upcoming Carbon Tax.....thus how it will effect us....

 France: Sarkozy Drops Unpopular Carbon-Emissions Tax
Article Link

  By BRUCE CRUMLEY / PARIS Bruce Crumley / Paris   – 2 hrs 13 mins ago

It was unveiled as a monumental act of the French Republic - a measure so important President Nicolas Sarkozy ranked it beside "decolonization, election of the President by universal suffrage, abolition of the death sentence and legalization of abortion" in the list of national accomplishments. Yet a mere seven months after making those lofty comparisons, Sarkozy this week decided to bury his vaunted tax on carbon emissions designed to help slow global warming. The move was the first policy fatality in the wake of the March 21 regional elections that handed leftist opponents a landslide victory.

Less than 24 hours after the disastrous regional results were announced, Sarkozy instructed Prime Minister FranÇois Fillon to cull the carbon tax rather than apply it as planned. The reason: the reform was one conservative voters and legislators alike have derided as leftist. At its heart was a $23 tax on each ton of carbon produced - mainly applied at the gas pump and via heating bills. (See TIME's coverage of the World Energy Technologies Summit.)

The measure was intended to prod consumers to conserve energy and invest in greener cars and insulation, and raise $4.7 billion to $6.1 billion in new annual revenues to finance state-funded ecological investments. But what voters and rightist parliamentarians saw in it was one of the most visible examples of Sarkozy doing the opposite of what he'd promised when running for the presidency - and in this case, creating new taxes rather than cutting and eliminating as pledged. "Up till now, Sarkozy has led by saying 'I believe and I have decided,' and he's now being forced to modify that to 'I will do what I was elected to do,'" says political analyst Jean-Luc Parodi. "He's the example that remarkable people are equally remarkable when they make mistakes, and he's having to face some of those. In reality, the disastrous regional elections gave him the excuse to backtrack on the very unpopular carbon tax."

The carbon tax had been plagued with troubles from the start - including the near refusal by rightist legislators to pass it until the ElysÉe whipped them into line in November 2009. A month later - just days before it was set to take effect - France's Constitutional Council struck the law down because it unlawfully applied measures to consumers while exempting French companies, by far the biggest carbon emitters. Sarkozy pledged to widen the measure to include businesses. But that only mobilized France's employers' lobby. With the voters finally having had their say, Sarkozy has decided to shelve the measure he once said would "save the human race." (See pictures of Paris expanding.)

The President maintains he is only delaying application of the tax until the E.U. comes up with a similar initiative applicable to all member states. "Environmental dumping threatens our jobs, [and] it would be absurd to tax French companies while giving a competitive advantage to those in polluting countries," Sarkozy argued, saying he remained committed to a carbon tax as a necessary move to protect the environment - though only once nations "who continue to pollute without shame" agree to become as virtuous.

How likely is that to happen? Not very, according to media reports in France. French newspapers and television news channels said Sarkozy's address meant the carbon tax was "dead and buried" - most of all because of the high improbability of all 27 E.U. members voting in an identical measure. Even Sarkozy's own allies are questioning the President's logic. "If we wait for Europe to make a decision, the carbon tax will be put off indefinitely," lamented Sarkozy's Secretary of State for Ecology Chantal Jouanno in the daily LibÉration Thursday. "I despair this stand-down, and I despair that ecolo-skepticism has won out." (Read "Sarkozy Stands by France's Hated Immigration Minister.")

But as Parodi notes, most conservatives are elated over the move - and emboldened to defy future Sarkozy measures they disagree with. "The taboo of opposing his leadership has been broken," Parodi says. Meaning, the postregional victim list of would-be Sarkozy policies is likely to grow over the coming year. 
More on link


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2010)

I do so love a good conspiracy theory and this one feels like a doozy.

And it involves 





> ......International Organisations, Governments, Parliamentary Bodies and Industry, both financially and politically, with paticular acknowledgement to United Nations, The Global Environment Facility, The World Bank, European Commission, the *Governments of Canada* and Great Britain, the Senate of Brazil and Globe Japan


  supporting an organization called GLOBE whose remit is 





> “To provide a forum for ideas and proposals to be floated in confidence and without the attention of an international spotlight“



Courtesy of James Delingpole of the Telegraph and the Spectator



> Climategate: the parliamentary cover-up
> March 25th, 2010 Climategate exposed the greatest scandal in the history of modern science but you’re never going to hear this from any of the official investigations. Andrew Orlowski at The Register has uncovered why.
> 
> Turns out, that there’s this well-funded SPECTRE-like advocacy group called GLOBE (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment) International which has co-opted leading parliamentarians from the main parties in both the Commons and the Lords into advancing the AGW agenda.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Mar 2010)

Conspiracy theories are wonderful. One does not have to think to find an answer to deep, perplexing issues.

I tend to follow the Charles Krauthammer (US pundit) principle: if it comes down to conspiracy or government incompetence to explain a complex, deeply suspicious issue, opt for government incompetence every time.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2010)

Generally, Old Sweat, je suis d'accord.  That doesn't stop idiots from conspiring.

But somebody seems to have been tickled up by the speculation.  Interesting that some of the profiles on the commissions look pretty skimpy.  Basic line is that "we've been here all along - you just haven't been paying attention".

http://www.globeinternational.org/
http://www.globeinternational.org/content.php?id=1:0:0:0:0

And this http://copenhagen.globeinternational.org/news/globe_international_statement.aspx

Quoted in full below.

The friends and associates are the Socialist International and the Club of Rome

The point of origin was "The End of History" --- 1989  with a change of gears in 2005.

I have a visceral reaction to "Internationals" these days, Robert Fowler notwithstanding.  I further react adversely to legislators working across parties, across borders and across rules not hindered by national constraints.....  And this mob stinks like an extension of the Socialist International, the London School of Economics, the Labour Party and DEFRA - Laski in action.





> GLOBE International Statement
> 26th March 2010
> 
> "GLOBE International was founded in 1989 to generate a greater understanding among legislators from the major economies of increasingly global environmental and sustainable development issues, including climate change, land use change, biodiversity and ecosystems decline.
> ...


----------



## GAP (28 Mar 2010)

EU changes strategy on climate change
Article Link

The failure to agree on legally binding limits for greenhouse gas emissions at the Copenhagen summit has forced Europe to shift its approach to climate change diplomacy, the European Union president said Friday.

President Herman Van Rompuy said the EU's 27 governments now believe they need to press other parts of the world to tackle climate change "step by step" -- which means they would temporarily cool a big push for other regions to sign a pact curbing global warming.

"Since Copenhagen, we need to approach this on a step-by-step basis," Van Rompuy said. "We're going to try and develop a new negotiating dynamic."

The EU's climate change commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, said she would lay the groundwork for the EU to increase its target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. She said she will identify what the EU would need to do to make the bigger cut, and how that might help promote jobs and economic growth.

The EU is currently promising a 20 per cent cut while saying it will deepen that to 30 per cent once other nations make big cuts. Environmentalists say the EU should toughen its goal because the current target will be easy to reach, as the recession reduces demand for power from polluting electricity stations and factories.

European leaders had lobbied hard for a deal and were embarrassed when they failed to convince others, particularly China, to set targets that would help keep global warming under a 2 degree Celsius increase.

EU governments said in a statement Friday the union would "strengthen its outreach" to other countries "by addressing climate change at all regional and bilateral meetings" and at major international gatherings such as the Group of 20 major world economies.

The nations supported extra talks "in other settings and on specific issues" that could boost slow efforts to reach an agreement at UN climate change negotiations -- apparent support for UN climate envoy Gro Harlem Brundtland's call for a double track of talks.

The statement said they also expect "concrete decisions" from another round of climate discussions in Cancun, Mexico in November and December this year.

The EU also promised to speed up paying out some US$3.2 billion a year they have committed to developing countries between 2010 and 2012 for programs to adapt and combat climate change.

But they warned that Europe's contribution to some $100 billion a year from rich nations to help developing nations fight global warming had to be linked to "meaningful and transparent actions" by poorer countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
end


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2010)

Cue the Brownshirts:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/013710.html



> *Y2Kyoto: The Greenpeace Militia*
> 
> The climate fascists are getting restless...
> 
> ...



Not too unlike how these sort of people deal with free speech issues like Ann Coulter in Ottawa. The choice of wording is interesting as well. Remember this one:

"We must be lucky once. You must be lucky always"


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Apr 2010)

This just in; Al Gore is on a private jet bound for Iceland in hope of convincing the volcanoes to stop or seriously reduce the amount of  carbon discharged into the atmosphere over the next five years.  In related news, Iceland files for bankruptcy protection from carbon creditors... stay tuned as further details develop


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Apr 2010)

Nasty people those Icelanders.

Kidnapping Irish priests and Scots girls (the girls I get.....)
Running away from honest justice
Fishing on British grounds
Cutting British fishing nets 
Refusing to stay still while the Royal Navy shoots at them
Ripping off British pensioners.....

And now spewing all over them.

And all this at the time the climate specialists figure we can double up a "year without summer" volcanic eruption with a "Maunder Minimum" lack of sunspot activity (and to top it all off they seem to have lost some of that heat they thought we were producing).

East Anglia is gonna be a cold, cold place.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Apr 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> East Anglia is gonna be a cold, cold place.



Tooo coold to fight.  What will the Football Holigans do?


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Apr 2010)

I know it's a favourite British cliche' over here, like deep fried eggs and room temperature beer, but the vast majority of football hooligans hung up their gloves 20 years ago.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2010)

These guys didn't hang up their gloves:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2917986



> *Save the Earth ... or else*
> 
> Rex Murphy,  National Post
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2010)

Remember the popular insult delivered to recruits (lower than whale s**t)?

Now we discover this is a valuable substance after all  

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html



> *Whale poop is vital to ocean's carbon cycle*
> 
> Saving endangered baleen whales could boost the carbon storage capacity of the Southern Ocean, suggests a new study of whale faeces. Whale faeces once provided huge quantities of iron to a now anaemic Southern Ocean, boosting the growth of carbon-sequestering phytoplankton.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Apr 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember the popular insult delivered to recruits (lower than whale s**t)?
> 
> Now we discover this is a valuable substance after all
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18807-whale-poop-is-vital-to-oceans-carbon-cycle.html



Whale?  Sounds like Bull.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2010)

Here is a "real surprise"  :

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/more-global-warming-profiteering-by-obama-energy-official/?singlepage=true



> *More Global Warming Profiteering by Obama Energy Official*
> 
> Ex-Gore associate and current Obama energy official Cathy Zoi is exploiting global warming for her own mega-gain.
> April 26, 2010 - by Christopher Horner
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2010)

More pushback:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sensenbrenner-report-challenges-epa-greenhouse-finding-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true



> *Climategate: Sensenbrenner Report Challenges EPA Greenhouse Finding (PJM Exclusive)*
> 
> Rep. James Sensenbrenner today releases a report calling the science behind the EPA's endangerment finding for carbon dioxide into question.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2010)

All I know is it's the 6th of May, and temps are still below zero at night here.  C'mon folks, do your part and go outside and idle your cars for at least an hour... can we fix it?  Yes we can!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 May 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> All I know is it's the 6th of May, and temps are still below zero at night here.  C'mon folks, do your part and go outside and idle your cars for at least an hour... can we fix it?  Yes we can!



I'll try and idle the MSVS all weekend long just for your Kat..............


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 May 2010)

Every little bit helps.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (6 May 2010)

Virginia's attorney general wants back research bucks.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Cuccinelli-targets-grants-to-climate-scientist-92723669.html




> Cuccinelli targets grants to climate scientist
> By: William C. Flook
> Examiner Staff Writer
> May 4, 2010
> ...


----------



## GAP (10 May 2010)

Whatever Happened to the Hole in the Ozone Layer?
Article Link

  Stuart Fox
Life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
LiveScience.com Stuart Fox
life's Little Mysteries Staff Writer
livescience.com – Thu May 6, 8:50 am ET

Three British scientists shocked the world when they revealed on May 16th, 1985 - 25 years ago - that aerosol chemicals, among other factors, had torn a hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole. The ozone layer, which protects life on Earth from damaging solar radiation, became an overnight sensation. And the hole in the ozone layer became the poster-child for mankind's impact on the planet.

Today, the ozone hole - actually a region of thinned ozone, not actually a pure hole - doesn't make headlines like it used to. The size of the hole has stabilized, thanks to decades of aerosol-banning legislation. But, scientists warn, some danger still remains.

First, the good news: Since the 1989 Montreal Protocol banned the use of ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, the ozone hole has stopped growing. Additionally, the ozone layer is blocking more cancer-causing radiation than any time in a decade because its average thickness has increased, according to a 2006 United Nations report. Atmospheric levels of ozone-depleting chemicals have reached their lowest levels since peaking in the 1990s, and the hole has begun to shrink.

Now the bad news: The ozone layer has also thinned over the North Pole. This thinning is predicted to continue for the next 15 years due to weather-related phenomena that scientists still cannot fully explain, according to the same UN report . And, repairing the ozone hole over the South Pole will take longer than previously expected, and won't finish until between 2060 and 2075. Scientists now understand that the size of the ozone hole varies dramatically from year to year, which complicates attempts to accurately predict the hole's future size.

Interestingly, recent studies have shown that the size of the ozone hole affects the global temperature. Closing the ozone hole actually speeds up the melting of the polar ice caps, according to a 2009 study from Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.

So even though environmentally friendly laws have successfully reversed the trend of ozone depletion, the lingering effects of aerosol use, and the link between the ozone hole and global warming, virtually ensure that this problem will persist until the end of the century. 
end


----------



## GAP (13 May 2010)

Boy, talk about pushing agendas......this whole thing just gets stupider and stupider..................

Europe to examine case for bigger CO2 cuts
Article Link
  By Roger Harrabin  Environment analyst, BBC News   


Europe's climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is to set out the case for a unilateral 30% EU cut in CO2.

At the end of May she will unveil research examining the consequences to Europe's economy of outdoing the current 20% target.

She said no position had been taken by Europe on a new unilateral target.

But she warned the fall in CO2 during the recession meant a 20% cut would not drive the clean energy innovation Europe needed.

She said China was investing almost 10 times as much as the EU in plans for a low-carbon economy. 

"Europe risks being left behind," she said at a lecture in London organised by the International Institute for Environment and Development.

She said that due to the recession, it is now a third cheaper to achieve the 20% target than when it was agreed in 2007.

"For an extra 11bn Euros on the sum originally proposed, the EU can now make a 30% CO2 cut [by 2020, based on 1990 levels]" she said. Her paper will examine the costs and benefits of such a proposal.

"She said it would include benefits like cleaning up local air pollution and energy security - and, crucially, the stimulus it would give to low-carbon innovation in Europe. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (18 May 2010)

What "renewable" really means:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-insane-myth-of-renewable-energy/?singlepage=true



> *The Insane Myth of ‘Renewable’ Energy*
> 
> The nonsense from green energy lobbyists is nothing short of crazy talk. Why is Congress, or anyone else, buying it?
> May 18, 2010
> ...


----------



## Haletown (18 May 2010)

Neither wind or solar make any sense . . .  The Global Warming proponents lay on the eco-guilt so they can get their feed-in tariffs and get rich.

Ontario has just signed up for $billions of this nonsense.  The only question is will Dulton pay/hide the feed-in tariff payments in General revenues or will he put on the the Electric Bill where people can see how much they are paying.

He's a politician so he'll hide it . . . but Ontario taxpayers still will have to pay between 800% and 1200% more  to Green Power electrical producers than a Hydro or Thermal electrical producer.

So being in the Green Business is really about  $the $green rather than  The Green.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 May 2010)

It's sad....I started out as a Global Warming believer long ago.....long before Al Gore's movie ever hit the scene.  

But with the release of so much information, it's obvious that it's one giant scam....money, prestige & travel for "climate scientists" who have manipulated most if not all the temperature records....kickbacks for UN leadership to promote the fake crisis....even more money for so-called "green companies" (most of which are based in Europe) to provide us a solution we don't really need....a new found source of tax revenue to fund unsustainable entitlement spending for left-leaning politicians.....and a new cause d'etre for those same left-leaning politicians to guarantee the votes of people who sign up for a cause because it's trendy, rather than because it's real.

The truly frustrating part for me is if we redirected even half this money to preserving important eco-systems, we could actually make a real difference.  Instead Europe calls Palm Oil "sustainable" and they end up incentivizing the bulldozing of massive swaths of Indonesian rain forest to make way for Palm plantations.

The whole thing makes me ill and I now see Global Warming Alarmists as the most un-green people on the planet as their policies are fundamentally doing more harm than good.....and they should be embarassed by that fact.


----------



## Haletown (18 May 2010)

Spain's socialist government jumped on the AGW bandwagon and it has been an economic disaster . .   a preview of the future for Ontario's economy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/leaked-doc-proves-spain%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98green%E2%80%99-policies-an-economic-disaster/

Good summary. 

Maybe Dulton will have to roll back civil service salaries in Ontario like the Spanish government did?


----------



## KJK (18 May 2010)

I was reading the Edmonton Journal this morning and it seems that Alberta narrowly dodged a serious brownout/blackout on Monday. The utilities had to ask major industrial customers to reduce power use after the Battle River power station went down unexpectedly. Since 2 other major power stations in Alberta were down for scheduled maintenance and there was no power available from SK or BC the spot rate hit $999 per kwh. Where were the much vaulted windmills? Apparently there was no wind with the heat in southern AB so not 1 wind farm was contributing power. How will this possibly work when we have 30% or more of our power from windmills? It sure isn't something I would want to bet my life on. It is bad enough in the summer but in the winter it could be deadly.

I couldn't find a link for the article but if I do I'll post it.

KJK


----------



## GAP (18 May 2010)

If I remember correctly, there are terrific transmission lines going North - South, but the grids East - West were never fully developed so that stuff like this needn`t happen.....I know Mb & Sk swap power through their grids, as does Ont - Mb, but I am under the impression that this goes South, then East, then North, through the US grids....

I will stand corrected by someone who actually knows....


----------



## KJK (19 May 2010)

Gap, that's likely true in most provinces but Alberta has only one light line tying us with Montana. We get most of our extra power requirements from BC or SK.

KJK


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 May 2010)

Wind is 5% of capacity.  Our interconnections with other jusidictions are quite small.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/682.asp


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2010)

This also has implications in the US "Election 2012" and "US Economy" threads:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/  (21 May 2010)



> I HATE TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO,” Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute writes at PJM, “but I revel in it:”
> 
> As predicted was inevitable, today the Spanish newspaper La Gaceta runs with a full-page article fessing up to the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” boondoggle, which happens to be the one naively cited by President Obama no less than eight times as his model for the United States. It is now out there as a bust, a costly disaster that has come undone in Spain to the point that even the Socialists admit it, with the media now in full pursuit.
> 
> ...



American legacy media should be cuing crickets about now, and I expect the usual suspects in Canada will also be sitting inside Tim Horton's rather than in full persuit of the story...


----------



## a_majoor (24 May 2010)

Another one of the usual suspects emerges:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/we-know-about-soros-%E2%80%94-but-who-is-maurice-strong/?singlepage=true



> *We Know About Soros — But Who Is Maurice Strong?*
> 
> Canadian mogul and avowed socialist Maurice Strong manipulates governments to benefit his "green" portfolio and those of his friends: George Soros, Ted Turner, Al Gore, and China.
> May 24, 2010
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2010)

Global cooling is to be feared. The onset of hard winters and poor harvests will stress societies in ways far harder than the current economic crisis is doing:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-cold-wave-may-be-looming-%e2%80%94-this-time-the-science-is-good



> *Global Cold Wave May Be Looming — This Time, the Science Is Good*
> 
> Posted By Art Horn On May 31, 2010 @ 12:02 am In Column 1, Science, Science & Technology | 8 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2010)

Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny
Article Link

 By Lawrence Solomon   June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found  here.

Financial Post
End


----------



## Journeyman (8 Jun 2010)

My tree-hugging g/f hates you guys for bringing these articles to my attention



......thank you  ;D


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> My tree-hugging g/f hates you guys for bringing these articles to my attention
> ......thank you  ;D



If you give her enough of these articles, she might change from hugging trees to........you?  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jun 2010)

June 8th, high today of 16C.... Global-what-was-it again?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2010)

Skiing anyone?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Jun 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Skiing anyone?



No but I went to a wedding in Edmonton the last weekend in May and it snowed all day.  Not unexpected because there was a blizzard in northern Alberta the weekend before.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2010)

I know.

We had the same storm in Lethbridge,  the garden spot of Alberta.


----------



## xo31@711ret (9 Jun 2010)

Ah, but the tree huggers don't call it 'global warming' anymore; it's now 'climate change'   :


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 Jun 2010)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Ah, but the tree huggers don't call it 'global warming' anymore; it's now 'climate change'   :



Yes.  Global cooling is caused by global warming. ???


----------



## 57Chevy (28 Jun 2010)

Magnitude of global warming uncertain: Survey

There is more than a 10 per cent chance the planet could undergo dramatic warming even if humanity manages to curb emission in coming decades, according to a survey of leading climate experts.

"The possibility of really dramatic climate outcomes is significant," says engineer David Keith, of the University of Calgary, whose survey highlights the large but seldom discussed uncertainty in climate change scenarios.

It is known the climate will warm as a result of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide bumped into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. But it is still not clear how much, says Keith, director of the U of C's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.

To gauge the risks Keith and his colleagues canvassed 14 leading climate scientists, including two in Canada. Most are on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The scientists were asked for their expert advice on how the climate system will respond to different emissions scenarios. Their responses are detailed in a report published Monday in the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Keith says the most significant finding is that it is "still very uncertain" how the climate will change.
The "risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC" reports, he says. The UN reports are used at international talks aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.

But on the flip side, Keith says the survey also found a higher than expected chance of seeing less warming than expected.

In a "medium" emissions scenario, which Keith says will be hard to meet given the increasing global emissions, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere climbs to 550 parts per million by 2200 and stays there.

"It's still technically possible but it'd be pretty darn hard," Keith says of the "politically optimistic" scenario.

"More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we'll get five degrees C warming under that scenario," he says.

"And five degrees C is gigantic," says Keith, noting it is enough to "knock out" the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.

Keith says the level of CO2 will likely climb beyond 550 ppm since emissions keep rising despite years of talk and promises to reduce emissions. Unless humanity puts on the brakes, he says atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could hit 1,000 ppm by 2200.

The experts surveyed said this scenario carries a "substantial probability of the climate warming eight to 10 degrees C" — a heat wave that Keith says would be "stunning."
Given the danger, he stresses the need to cut emissions now.

"The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air," says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste. "Even if we stop emitting CO2 completely the impact will still be with us for thousands of years."

The report says the science community needs to focus more on reducing the uncertainty in global warming predictions.

Meantime Keith says policy-makers need to acknowledge the uncertainty and risks. Just like engineers must be aware of structural weaknesses in bridges, he says policy-makers need to come up with strategies for dealing and managing the "worst-case" climate scenario of dramatic and rapid warming.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Magnitude+global+warming+uncertain+survey+finds/3212837/story.html#ixzz0sCglnBFk

            (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (29 Jun 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> To gauge the risks Keith and his colleagues canvassed 14 leading climate scientists, including two in Canada. Most are on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



Is this someone's idea of humour?  Haven't the IPCC "experts" pretty much been discredited for faking data and supporting fake data?


----------



## HavokFour (15 Jul 2010)

I'm just going to throw this in here if it hasn't been posted yet.

Carbon Dioxide is a *PRODUCT* of temperature change, not a cause. Greenhouse gasses form together at the troposphere, in theory, the rate of warming should be highest at this point, however, this is not the case. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which is impervious to temperature changes, not carbon dioxide.

The Thermal capacity (or specific heat) of CO2 (about 0.8 J/(g*K)) is lower than that of air (about 1'ish J/(g*K)), meaning that pumping CO2 into the air will bring the thermal capacity down as the percentage of CO2 rises, not up. This is why in the 60's hippies tried to tell everyone industry would cause a big freeze in the 90's, and we all know how that turned out, don't we?

Pretty much anyone who does scientific research to question global warming gets blacklisted, unfunded, and/or attacked by green groups. So its not really science. Science functions from always trying to prove AND disprove a theory.

Also, it appears both the Arctic and Greenland(One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. OH SNAP!) didn't get the memo.

Oh hey look at this, most of the planet didn't get the memo!

In _other_ news...


----------



## Redeye (28 Jul 2010)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Is this someone's idea of humour?  Haven't the IPCC "experts" pretty much been discredited for faking data and supporting fake data?



They haven't been discredited at all, actually.  An extensive study of the so called climategate scandal (which incidentally involved the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) basically stated that the science held, and most of the allegations revolved around taking things said in emails completely out of context.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/07/climategate_scientists_honest.html is a good synopsis with a lot of links.  Including this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618024.stm


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Jul 2010)

Sure - total honesty.  Saying that you will lose your research data if required to produce it is normal.  Coincidently the data seems to be missing.  Discussing the change of basis of temperaure calculation from tree rings to recorded data at a point in time to "hide the decline"  Normal science - sure.  That's Mike's Nature Trick - makes great hockeysticks.


So this is scientific research:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/


> Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
> Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
> first thing tomorrow.
> I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
> ...



Penn State University had a cover-up inqury to "prove" themslves legit and so did the British.  It was all simply more BS.


----------



## Redeye (29 Jul 2010)

Yes, that's the quote that was demonstrated to be taken totally out of context by those who attacked the research.  Incidentally, your link feeds to another, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ - the host site seems to present a wealth of knowledge.

Also, there's this.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/the-earth-is-hotter-than-ever-global-warming-is-real-researchers/article1655436/

Thanks, but I'll trust the vast scientific consensus versus just about anything claimed by right wingers who seem to be in the pockets of so many lobbyists.


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Jul 2010)

Global warming 'undeniable,' world report says: 
The past decade was the warmest on record and, as glaciers melt, severe storms batter cities and heat waves increase, more than 300 scientists have concluded that global warming is "undeniable."

A new report, published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Thursday and compiled by investigators from 48 different countries including Canada, identified 10 climate indicators that are clearly linked to changing surface temperatures and they "all tell the same story."

"Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. . . . There is now evidence that more than 90 per cent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our oceans," said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and manager of the NOAA Climate Monitoring Branch.

The study suggests continued warming will transform how societies currently function, as coastal cities, water supplies, agriculture and infrastructure will all be threatened.

"People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created — one that's warmer and more extreme," the report says.

Each of the past three decades has been hotter than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record but in the 1990s, temperatures increased every year and the pattern continued into 2000.

The past decade was 0.6 C warmer than the 1960s, and 0.2 C warmer than the 1990s.

Temperatures were the hottest between 2000 and 2009 and the first six months of 2010 were the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.

"The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet," Arndt said.

The study, the most extensive in a series of reports, examines global warming but does not investigate a cause or a solution. The scientists used global data from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys.

The 10 climate-change indicators pointing to global warming included declining Arctic sea-ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and rising air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface.

The scientists say the combination of factors was startling, as their "undeniable" conclusion became glaringly obvious.

The NOAA points to extreme weather conditions documented around the world in 2009. Flooding in Brazil killed 40 people and left 376,000 people homeless, three intense heat waves broke temperature records in Australia and the central north Pacific, near Hawaii, experienced tropical cyclones after years of calm.

The researchers say extreme weather events are unavoidable, but dangerous and erratic weather will be more frequent and more severe as global warming continues.

           (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2010)

The Global Warming Superthread had hundreds of refutations from numerous sources to the idea that climate change was caused by human activity. Even some of the supposed "proofs" turned out to be embarrassing; melting glaciers in Greenland are exposing Viking farms which existed during the Medieval Warm period, and observations taken on distant planets show waring and cooling in concert with the Earth.

Whatever happened to that thread? I served as a great nonsense filter to the alarmist's cries.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Jul 2010)

Nowhere in that piece is it suggested that human activity has caused or even contributed to global warming.  In fact, it is clearly stated that:



> The study, the most extensive in a series of reports, examines global warming but does not investigate a cause or a solution.



I applaud this kind of science, as it avoids the unnecessary politicization of the facts.


----------



## pbi (31 Jul 2010)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Nowhere in that piece is it suggested that human activity has caused or even contributed to global warming.  In fact, it is clearly stated that:
> 
> I applaud this kind of science, as it avoids the unnecessary politicization of the facts.



Hear, hear. Well said. Why is it that whenever the subject of global warming is brought up, the Left and the Right run screaming behind their respective barricades, plug their ears with their fingers, close their collective eyes and start chanting "SHUT Up La La La La SHUT UP  La La La". What makes this issue so divisive and explosive? I mean, we don't beat each other up about earthquakes or hurricanes or other important  natural events, so why this?

Cheers


----------



## Haletown (31 Jul 2010)

"Glaciers and sea ice are melting" . . .  well their first claim is bogus.

There is more Arctic Sea ice again this year  . . . .  the summer minimum has been increasing since the cyclical low in 2007.

And the Antarctic has been increasing in area & mass since accurate measurements beban in 1979.

So the first claim by these researchers is incorrect . . .  let the slippery slope continue.


----------



## pbi (1 Aug 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> "Glaciers and sea ice are melting" . . .  well their first claim is bogus.
> 
> 
> 
> So the first claim by these researchers is incorrect . . .  let the slippery slope continue.



Slippery slope to what, though?  What is is that we're supposed to be afraid of from the pro-warming camp?

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2010)

;D

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

How Canada's Arctic once hosted alligators and turtles

LINK

*It may seem hard to believe now, but dry, frigid Ellesmere Island in Canada's high North was once teeming with alligators, turtles and rhino-like mammals.*

Scientists who have long wondered how the beasts could have survived so far north think they now have the answer. It turns out that the now-glacier-covered island in Nunavut was actually a pretty temperate place back in the early Eocene period, 52 or 53 million years ago. 

Researchers from University of Colorado at Boulder estimate that average temperatures back in the Eocene were about 20 degrees Celsius and fell only to about 0 to 3 degrees C in the winter -- which helps to explain how ancient alligators and giant tortoises were once able to thrive there. 

Prof. Jaelyn Eberle, of the university's department of geological sciences, said her team came to these conclusions after analyzing the fossils of mammals, fish and turtles found on Ellesmere Island. 

The team used a combination of "oxygen isotope ratios" from the fossilized bones and teeth enamel to estimate the average annual Eocene temperature for the site. 

"Our data, gathered from multiple organisms, indicate it probably did not get below freezing on Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene, which has some interesting implications," she said in a news release. 

"This is arguably the most comprehensive data set for the early Eocene High Arctic, and certainly explains how alligators and giant tortoises could live on Ellesmere Island some 52 to 53 million years ago," said Eberle. 

Eberle explained that fossilized bones and tooth enamel contain biogenic apatite -- a mineral that is fossilized after death. This mineral can be used as a sort of "flight recorder" to draw conclusions about paleoclimate conditions. 

She says her team looked at teeth from a large, hippo-like mammal known as Coryphodons, as well as bones from bowfin fish and shells and bones from aquatic turtles from the Emydidae family, the largest family of contemporary pond turtles. 

They then used evidence found on the teeth to draw conclusions about the temperature of the water that the animals were drinking. 

"When it comes to oxygen isotope values in tooth enamel, what we found for these creatures is that you are what you drink," she said. 

They found that while Coryphodon and bowfins grew throughout the year, the turtles' shells appeared to grow only during summer months. That's similar to what turtles do today when they live in areas far from the equator. 

They also found that Eocene alligators could withstand slightly cooler winters than their present-day counterparts. That's not too surprising, given what scientists know about alligators adaptability. 

But the existence of large land tortoises in the Eocene High Arctic is still somewhat puzzling, said Eberle. She noted that today's large tortoises inhabit places like the Galapagos Islands where the cold-month average temperature is about 10 degrees C. 

Eberle said the findings not only help to explain how species have evolved and migrated over the millennia, the research also offers "a deep time analogue" for today's rapidly warming Arctic region. 

Evidence suggested that temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as those at mid-latitudes, as greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere, due primarily to fossil fuel burning and deforestation. 

This new study foreshadows the impacts of continuing global warming on Arctic plants and animals, Eberle said.

"It's a means of being able to predict what's in store for Arctic ecosystems as the climate continues to warm, today and into the future," she said.


----------



## HavokFour (8 Sep 2010)

*Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss*​


> PARIS (AFP) - – Estimates of the rate of ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, one of the most worrying questions in the global warming debate, should be halved, according to Dutch and US scientists.
> 
> In the last two years, several teams have estimated Greenland is shedding roughly 230 gigatonnes of ice, or 230 billion tonnes, per year and West Antarctica around 132 gigatonnes annually.
> 
> ...



Read more...

REALLY now? That's a pretty major thing to be brushed off as a "minor factor". Sweet lord, my 7th grade science teacher would be fuming. Is this another case of the 'researchers' spoofing the results?


----------



## HavokFour (8 Sep 2010)

*“Kiwigate” - NZ Crown Agency taken to Court Over Temperaturre Records *​


> September 7, 2010: Critical Pacific Ocean subset of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature data now to be examined by New Zealand High Court.
> 
> In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world, the newly formed New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust has taken legal action against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), a ‘Crown Research Institute’ contracted by the NZ Government to be its sole adviser on scientific issues relating to climate change.  Instead of using the New Zealand Met Service temperature record that shows no warming during the last century, NIWA has adopted an “adjusted” record of seven surface stations that shows a 1 deg. C rise, almost 50% above the global average for that period.
> 
> ...



Read more...


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2010)

Regardless of the heated debate about anthropogenic climate change (and personally, I don't see how some manner of AGW can be denied - it is clear that human activity alters environmental factors and doesn't take much to extrapolate that there is a reasonable probability that we are not helping the process at least.

The fact is that the climate is changing and even if it's some sort of great cyclical thing, the impact potential is very, very clear.  There's a reason Viking settlements on Greenland failed, after all.  The impact on food production and so on will be significant potentially.

Incidentally, on the Vikings and other civilizations including environmental impacts of climate change, I would highly recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond.  Fascinating investigations of civilizations that have thrived or failed, and the factors that influenced those outcomes.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2010)

Re ancient civilizations

Best advice - "Pick up thy bed and walk"

If you're tied to your sewer system and local pub you will die.

The infanteers of the world will not.


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2010)

The screaming hysterical eco grifting warmongering herd have been telling us for ten years we only have ten years left to avert eco-Armageddon.

Blah, blah, blah.

Just ten years left . . .  so much beer left to drink and so little time to do it.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's a reason Viking settlements on Greenland failed, after all.



Most historians call the reason "The Little Ice Age".


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Sep 2010)

Some time ago I read an article in Time magazine and it was referring to huba loo about global climate change (which has been on going since earth formed)

It was interesting to note that there was a big scare in the early seventies that we were going to be thrown into another major ice age in 10 years. Turned out to be a bit of panicking on some poorly miread data I would guess.

I am a big fan of studying the pleistocene era and the more you look at it, the more you realize, climate is never constant. You can not truly measure global climate over a 10 year or a 100 year period. I would look at the trend over the last hundred thousand years.

Most of Canada 25,000 years ago was buried underneath massive ice sheets. It took several thousand years but the ice did retreat. 15,000 years ago, you could walk from Russia to Alaska without getting your feet wet or even seeing the ocean. It was the bering land bridge (which is buried under the ocean). At the same time, the grand banks of NFLD was dry land.

Something to think about before "doom and gloom, the world is melting..."


----------



## HavokFour (16 Sep 2010)

*Say Goodbye to Sunspots?*​


> Scientists studying sunspots for the past 2 decades have concluded that the magnetic field that triggers their formation has been steadily declining. If the current trend continues, *by 2016 the sun's face may become spotless and remain that way for decades—a phenomenon that in the 17th century coincided with a prolonged period of cooling on Earth*.
> 
> Sunspots appear when upwellings of the sun's magnetic field trap ionized plasma—or electrically charged, superheated gas—on the surface. Normally, the gas would release its heat and sink back below the surface, but the magnetic field inhibits this process. From Earth, the relatively cool surface gas looks like a dark blemish on the sun.
> 
> ...



Read more...

Better get started knitting myself some mittens.


----------



## sean m (26 Sep 2010)

Has anyone read this, it is interesting yet scary. Hopefully we can still become a superpower without the threat of global warming.


http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews//20100924/global-warming-100925/

By the year 2050 Canada could be enjoying newfound status as a global superpower blessed with a developed north, plenty of fresh water, a growing population and new shipping lanes through the Arctic.

That's the theory put forward in Laurence C. Smith's new book "The World in 2050" -- a scientific exploration of the effects of climate change over the next 40 years.

According to Smith's 40-year projection, global warming will free up northern natural resources such as oil, gas and water. That in turn will attract immigrants and lead to new infrastructure and development for northern rim countries -- NORCs, as he calls them -- at a time when southern countries will be running out of resources and seeing their populations fall.

The north will also warm up, meaning fewer and fewer of those -40 Celsius days that tend to grind productivity to a halt.

But this is not a reason to celebrate, Smith is quick to point out. While Canada, Russia, the Scandinavian countries and northern U.S. will see significant benefits from a warming planet, the rest of the world will suffer catastrophic losses.

"Most climate change is overwhelmingly negative, I'm not a Pollyanna," he told CTV.ca from his office at UCLA, noting that we are already experiencing the harsh effects of a warming planet.

"The pine beetle is devastating B.C. timber and summer heat waves knocked out 30 per cent of Russia wheat crop, so it would be disingenuous of me to suggest all of this spells nothing but good news. But alongside the bad news there will be some beneficial changes."

Smith, a scientist and professor of geography and earth sciences at the University of California Los Angeles, set out four years ago to write a book about the negative effects of climate change in the north.

There are two stories to every issue. I went there and found people suffering but I also found people flourishing, doing well.

-- Laurence Smith

Just prior to that, ice levels in the Arctic had receded to a record low and there was a feverish search among journalists for stories about the negative fallout for northern life.

Smith joined in that hunt.

"I'm a climate scientist by training and an Arctic specialist, so I went to the Arctic to document the effects of climate change and hopefully humanize it a bit," he said.

"I wanted to hear, frankly, about the negative effects of climate change. And I did. I got all those stories and I got more than that on top of it. I got a lot more than I bargained for."

Inevitably, Smith's conversations about melting ice and shrinking hunting grounds segued to other issues, like land claims, education issues, new development and industry -- those were the topics northern residents really wanted to talk about.

"There are two stories to every issue," Smith told CTV.ca.

"I went there and found people suffering but I also found people flourishing, doing well."

That discovery changed the direction of Smith's project and he began to consider the possibility that climate change could have a silver lining -- at least for some.

Dramatic projections

In "The World in 2050" Smith analyzes four "global forces" that he believes are the main drivers shaping our future world:

    * Climate change
    * The worldwide effects of a growing and aging population
    * Increasing demand for dwindling natural resources
    * Globalization and worldwide economic integration 

Among his findings, Smith projects that China will pass the U.S. as the world's strongest economy by 2050. The U.S. will move to second, followed by India.

Mega-cities will proliferate in this new world, and wet regions will get wetter while dry parts of the planet will get even drier.

And of course, the world will get a lot warmer. By century's end, Smith predicts, the planet's temperatures will have risen by 15 degrees Celsius on average -- at best. At worst, it will be double that.

The earth's animal population will also suffer huge losses as a result of these changes and some species will be forced further and further north, in order to survive.

Weathering the storm

Canada, however, is well positioned geographically, politically and socially to deal with many of these changes, Smith said.

Perhaps most importantly, Canada is a country that welcomes skilled immigrants. As a result, despite our aging demographic, Canada's population is set to increase by 30 per cent in the next 40 years -- a growth rate rivalling India's.

"That's mostly due to her ability to attract highly skilled immigrants," Smith said. "Canadian immigration policy favours work skills and language above all else, even family reunification."

Culturally, Canadians have become a very welcoming country to newcomers, Smith said, referencing Canada's multi-ethnic television spectrum as an example. That characteristic will serve the country well, Smith said, as outsiders begin to clamour for opportunities here.

Russia, by contrast, will likely experience a population crash due to its xenophobic attitude towards outsiders.

"There's a spectrum and it all goes back to the exact same thing, how welcoming are you of global integration? And the countries that welcome outsiders grow, the ones that don't, do not," Smith said.

Smith also cites the birth rate of Canada's northern indigenous people and the "resurgence of their political power" as a strength for Canada.

Among the Inuit the median age is 23, compared to 40 for the country as a while, and in Nunavut the birth rate is 24 babies for every 1,000 people.

"So it's a small population but it's one of the fastest growing," Smith said, pointing out that a growing northern population bodes well for the region.

A warning cry

Despite the positive predictions Smith makes for Canada over the next 40 years, he says his message is overwhelmingly one of warning. He hopes readers will not take his theories as a reason to celebrate their NORC status, but that they will be inspired to change the course currently set in motion.

"It's my fervent hope that this book makes people think harder about what were doing now so we can avert many of its predictions," he said.

"We're talking about a tiny part of the globe. These handful of benefits occur in a small place, and they have to be framed against the background of a world depressed. It seems almost selfish to relish in those benefits that come at such a cost."


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2010)

If the prior post by HavocFour is correct, we won't be celebrating our NORC status at all.....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Sep 2010)

We'll all be illegal aliens in Mexico...........


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Sep 2010)

The more affluent this country becomes, the more money we shovel into welfare and societal leeches.  Net result for average Joe/Jane?  Zilch.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2010)

Eco-Fascism shows its true face:

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/01/most-honest-political-ad-of-all-time/



> *Global Warming murder fantasy nabs prize as most honest political ad of all time*
> October 1, 2010 - by Zombie
> Share |
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Oct 2010)

Well, that was pretty disgusting. What are they trying to say? That it's OK to kill children and adults that don't agree with you?

If I was of a mind to participate before I watched the film, I'm certainly not now!


----------



## HavokFour (2 Oct 2010)

I think it reveals a lot about the 'global warming' mindset. To me it says "We're OK with your choice. Now please follow us into this dark alley for 'reprogramming'."

What I really want to know is what the hell the director was thinking when he thought this would be OK to show on national television. Sure it got the whole issue press time (then again, when isn't 'global warming' in the news?), but it's seriously going to hurt the cause in the long term.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Oct 2010)

I thought it was bloody awesome!  Not much help for the climate conspirists, but a great look at the carbon bullying that has been going on.  

They should do one of those for H1N1 flu shots.


----------



## Haletown (5 Oct 2010)

So some fear mongering eco-grifter makes the claim"

"And of course, the world will get a lot warmer. By century's end, Smith predicts, the planet's temperatures will have risen by 15 degrees Celsius on average -- at best. At worst, it will be double that."

That means in 90 years an increase of about  0.17 degrees per year.  Given that the most accurate satellite data says the troposphere has warmed  about .5 degrees since 1979, this is quite the claim.  

Kind of like saying the Leafs will win  10  or maybe 20 Stanley Cups by the end of the century.


The bigger the lie, the greater the fear, the more funding they hope to get.


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2010)

Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way
Article Link
 Published 04 October, 2010, 22:20 Edited 05 October, 2010, 21:10

After the record heat wave this summer, Russia's weather seems to have acquired a taste for the extreme.

Forecasters say this winter could be the coldest Europe has seen in the last 1,000 years.

The change is reportedly connected with the speed of the Gulf Stream, which has shrunk in half in just the last couple of years. Polish scientists say that it means the stream will not be able to compensate for the cold from the Arctic winds. According to them, when the stream is completely stopped, a new Ice Age will begin in Europe.

So far, the results have been lower temperatures: for example, in Central Russia, they are a couple of degrees below the norm.

“Although the forecast for the next month is only 70 percent accurate, I find the cold winter scenario quite likely,” Vadim Zavodchenkov, a leading specialist at the Fobos weather center, told RT. “We will be able to judge with more certainty come November. As for last summer's heat, the statistical models that meteorologists use to draw up long-term forecasts aren't able to predict an anomaly like that.” 
More on link

 How a two-degree increase would hit home in Canada
John Ibbitson Globe and Mail Update  Oct. 05, 2010 10:06AM EDT
Article Link

Bad for skiing, good for golf. Hard on the St. Lawrence seaway, a boon for the cod fishery.

Rather than just worrying about the effects of global warming, a new study projects the actual impact on Canada’s environment and economy, if the planet experiences an increase of two degrees this century. 

PDF file of National Round Table on the Environment and Economy maps climate-change impact 
More on link


----------



## bdave (5 Oct 2010)

Global Warming Alarmists are like PETA: a bunch of a retards with nothing better to do worried about something that is natural, with nothing to back up their claims.


----------



## Haletown (5 Oct 2010)

The morons that released the 10:10 blowing up the kiddie dissenters video are receiving the full internet treatment.

They have been "Downfalled" and given the "Director's Cut" treatment.


http://eyetube.me/play/YouTwat/1010_The_Dictators_Cut

This isn't going away soon, especially after the greenie fear mongering that came out of Ottawa today about a 15 degree temperature jump this century.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Global Warming Alarmists are like PETA: a bunch of a retards with nothing better to do worried about something that is natural, with nothing to back up their claims.



Yet these are the same clowns who foresaw the next ice age when we had bitterly cold winters in the 70s.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Global Warming Alarmists are like PETA: a bunch of a retards with nothing better to do worried about something that is natural, with nothing to back up their claims.



That's unfair to retards.  They don't chose to be simple.


----------



## lethalLemon (6 Oct 2010)

Cycles... That's all it is.

Sure, we see these "record breaking temperatures" and temperatures that are "off the norm"; but we can't see detailed weather patterns down to 0.1 of a degree (Celsius) 100 years ago... 300 years ago... 150 000 years ago.

What Scientists do know is that the Earth works in cycles; and it's quite possible all we're seeing is the tip of an iceberg of a cycle.


You know what I say?

BRING THE HEAT! 8)


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Oct 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Coldest winter in 1,000 years on its way




Likely going to be a BIG winter and coming extra early too.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2010)

There are many indicators (especially from solar observations) that we might actually be entering another "little ice age", which would have pretty severe effects on agriculture, shipping and almost every other human activity.

Humans, plants and most animals like warmer weather, so you might consider uprooting and moving south along with the rest of the great migration.

OTOH, Canada was actually settled during the last little ice age using 16th century technology, so be prepared to dig in a bit and tough it out (the last one only lasted about 400 years...)


----------



## bdave (7 Oct 2010)

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/health-sapping.html


----------



## HavokFour (7 Oct 2010)

*Another brilliant moment in AGW marketing*​


> Because nothing sells policy like, er, images of people killing children.  Andrew Bolt  alerts Australian readers to the latest in marketing from anthropogenic global-warming activists, this time from a group with the ironic name ACT-Responsible.  Kind of makes one long for the days of polar-bear hugs, huh?
> 
> I’d say that ACT-R is creatively challenged, all right.  Bolt also objects to a video embedded on his site that exploits a child’s supposed nightmare (while hugging a polar-bear doll, natch), but that one is more stupid than offensive.  It argues that we should allow governments to impose Draconian policies because a child has a nightmare, and ends with several children saying “Save the world!” into a camera.  It’s a good way to avoid acknowledging that the AGW hysterics still haven’t built a single successful predictive model proving their assertions about future weather systems, still haven’t addressed the serious data gaps in their studies, still have Rajendra Pachauri at the head of the IPCC despite the serial scandals regarding their academic standards of inclusion in the report, and in general having offered little but apocalyptic posturing.  Putting a noose around a little girl on an ice cube is all they really have.



*WARNING! EXTREMELY DISTURBING PICTURE:* Article, Full sized poster


----------



## bdave (7 Oct 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> *Another brilliant moment in AGW marketing*​
> *WARNING! EXTREMELY DISTURBING PICTURE:* Article, Full sized poster



I don't find this picture disturbing in anyway.
It has nothing to do with killing people and I actually think it conveys its message very well.
It's basically saying "Our lack of care for the environment will be the death of future generations".


----------



## Haletown (7 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I don't find this picture disturbing in anyway.



That is disturbing. 

The picture is in some ways far worse that the the very disturbing 10:10 snuff video . . "agree with us or we have the right to murder you".  

This picture is a shameless exploitation of an innocent child for political purposes. Josef Goebbels would appreciate the sliminess of the imagery.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I don't find this picture disturbing in anyway.
> It has nothing to do with killing people and I actually think it conveys its message very well.
> It's basically saying "Our lack of care for the environment will be the death of future generations".



Well, lets deconstruct this shall we:

The victim is an innocent chiled who is being threatened by human agency (the noose)

The message is "Do what we say, or we will kill you"

Like the 10:10 video the message is very clear. The vast majority of people "get" it, hence the sudden withdrawl of these ads and scrubbing of web sites.


----------



## bdave (7 Oct 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, lets deconstruct this shall we:
> 
> The victim is an innocent chiled who is being threatened by human agency (the noose)
> 
> The message is "Do what we say, or we will kill you"



Nope.
What I see is the noose being "climate change and human impact".
This[global warming] causes the ice berg to melt.
I see it as clearly saying "We are messing with our children's future".


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2010)

Which is of course why these ads get pulled and the agencies which create them in the first place try so hard to scrub their existence from the internet. Even they "get" it.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2010)

That poster was right out of control. Lets get this straight from ArmyRick (Again, I love studying the Pleistocene era because of so many cool animals that humans interacted with and these animals could easily f*ck us up).

We are constantly going into or coming out of ice ages. Thats been that way for hundreds of thousand years. We can stop all man made objects from operating and turn off every machine we make for eternity and the CLIMATE WILL STILL CHANGE! Its always changing, its never constant. 

To the naive young man that thinks that poster conveys a positive message, are you an Al Gore (fraudster) fan?


----------



## Haletown (8 Oct 2010)

The message that poster has for children is "we are being killed by our parents activities".

Very nasty, negative stuff when you have to go after the kids with your propaganda.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2010)

More Geoengineering. The ability to control the amount of sunlight entering the Earth's biosphere is...interesting. How this would work in a period of diminished solar activity is an open question.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/scaling-up-todays-technology-towards-j.html#more



> *Extrapolating todays technology towards the J Storr Hall Weather Machine*
> 
> The Hall Weather Machine is a thin global cloud consisting of small transparent balloons that can be thought of as a programmable and reversible greenhouse gas because it shades or reflects the amount of sunlight that hits the upper stratosphere. These balloons are each between a millimeter and a centimeter in diameter, made of a few-nanometer thick diamondoid membrane. Each balloon is filled with hydrogen to enable it to float at an altitude of 60,000 to 100,000 feet, high above the clouds. It is bisected by an adjustable sheet, and also includes solar cells, a small computer, a GPS receiver to keep track of its location, and an actuator to occasionally (and relatively slowly) move the bisecting membrane between vertical and horizontal orientations. Just like with a regular high-altitude balloon, the heavier control and energy storage systems would be on the bottom of the balloon to automatically set the vertical axis without requiring any energy. The balloon would also have a water vapor/hydrogen generator system for altitude control, giving it the same directional navigation properties that an ordinary hot-air balloon has when it changes altitudes to take advantage of different wind directions at different altitudes.
> 
> ...


----------



## bdave (9 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> To the naive young man that thinks that poster conveys a positive message, are you an Al Gore (fraudster) fan?



Not being naive here, but does anyone honestly think this: http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THE-EXPO/affiche.pdf
was meant to be a threat? It's simply stating "The lives of our children are in our hands - stop global warming". I never said it conveyed a positive message. I said it conveyed ITS message; global warming will kill us all, very well.
I don't see this at all as being anything close to that retarded "no pressure" commercial. I get the impression people are looking for something that isn't there.
I also hate Al Gore.  :threat:


----------



## safetysOff (9 Oct 2010)

Unless the G20 governments get on the same page giving incentives for producing fewer carbon emissions( i.e. parking/gas compensation for electric cars, incentives for renewable energy plants, compensation for purchase of electric cars, etc.)  for its citizens/businesses this world is going to get a whole lot warmer.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2010)

Sigh.

88 pages of facts, observations and evidence and we _still_ get posts like that. If enough people were so incurious about the facts, maybe there would be no need to make insane posters, ads and threats about killing innocent children...a lose/lose scenario all around


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2010)

Thucydides - 

Some NGO twerp writing in the National Post letters recently derided the effort as a fruitless mowing of the lawn that accomplished nothing because the lawn must constantly be mown.  

That is the nature of the beast though.  There is no cure.  There is only constant maintenance and attention with occasional nipping of a dandelion in the bud.

Safetysoff - 

Sorry to put you in the dandelion category, that is not the most productive method of engaging someone if trying to educate them to alternate hypotheses.  Suffice to say at this time that many folks are NOT of the opinion that the world is coming to an end unless we allow Big Brother to direct the minutiae of our lives.   A scanning of the discussion so far on this thread should give you some insight into why many are not of the same opinion as yourself.


----------



## safetysOff (9 Oct 2010)

> to say at this time that many folks are NOT of the opinion that the world is coming to an end



Not saying the world is coming to an end, just that we, as a human population, are impacting our world's environment to an extent that most don't even realize, that's all.  For better or worse, who knows.  My opinion only though



> Quote from: Brad Sallows on January 02, 2009, 17:19:40
> you pointless, vacuous wanker.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Oct 2010)

I think WE do realize the extent we are damaging the enviroment. BTW we have a greater threat from air pollution than we do climate change. 

Have you read any of my previous post, safetyoff? Have you actually talked to any climatoligist? If you had, you would realize climate change is coming wether we want it or not. Again I will drive my point home to young-uns like yourself, Climate is never constant.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Oct 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> you would realize climate change is coming wether we want it or not. Again I will drive my point home to young-uns like yourself, Climate is never constant.



Thus far, nobody has allowed facts to get in the way of the big eco-conspiricy.  Like when they said you shouldn't burn your old tires and car batteries.  Total bunk.


----------



## safetysOff (11 Oct 2010)

> Have you actually talked to any climatoligist? If you had, you would realize climate change is coming wether we want it or not.




Yes I have, I've also talked to a number of grads over the years who were  researching this and similar topics as well.   

I'm not disagreeing, the globe's climate changes on its own/with the influence of the species it  contains, and has for millenia, without a whiff of human influence.  However, I think we're at a point where we, as a human species have the population number and technology to influence climate changes *at a rate * that no other species has before. . . . .ocean algae have spawned to such great numbers in the past as to influence the ocean's biochem, the evolution of plants altered the oxygen/CO2 ratio of the atmosphere, etc

This on its own should garner some attention from people that have the potential to influence future change in this area.

Not realizing this short is sighted.  Will the way we change the atmosphere with air pollution lead to detrimental effects. . . depends on your point of view.  I ultimately think it will because the vast majority of species aren't as able to adapt to such quick changing conditions as we are.  Changing the environment at a quicker pace than other species are able to adapt will lead to quicker species extinctions.  Simpler ecosystem's are more likely to collapse completely from new stresses placed upon them.  That could have _severe_ repercussions. . . . . 

Or we could just burn tires, dump our old batteries in our rivers and stick our collective heads in the dirt.


----------



## Haletown (11 Oct 2010)

We should all try and keep up.  First it was "Global Warming", but when the warming didn't happen like the Warmistas forecast, they greased in the new title "Climate Change".  That was good for awhile until someone pointed out that the normal state of our climate is to change - it is after all, a complex, dynamic, chaotic system. So the label Climate Change is as dumb as saying "Water Wet"

But now the Warmistas have a new label and a new narrative - Global Climate Disruption.  I'm thinking  this new label was the result of a lot of hard work and we should be kind to their failing campaign and at least humor them by using Global Climate Disruption when we are dissing the stupidity of the policies they are trying to foist on everyone.


It is only being polite.


----------



## safetysOff (11 Oct 2010)

I found it interesting to read about what happened to the society on Easter Island. . . . while not exactly what's happening with global warming now it bears some similarities that could be extrapolated to the globe's present population and how we're altering our environment. 
(when was the last time you were able to use 'extrapolate' in a sentence  ;D BOOYA!)

I'll give you a quick summary.  The society on Easter Island had a finite amount of trees, land for farming and fishing stocks off shore.  Their chiefs were more concerned over building Tiki heads  (insert nations economy here) than on managing their environment.  They blindly altered their  environment by cutting down all their trees, had all the topsoil wash away, due to no tree roots holding it down, leaving little area for farming or for trees to regrow and out fished their immediate fish stocks.

When their populations began starving there was civil conflict and their society collapsed.

Not realizing about how our society or population is affecting climate change/global warming/the atmosphere or whatever you want to call it  at a global scale and not having any foresight about it will, I'm positive, lead to a similar  type of cascade or set of issues down the road


----------



## Northalbertan (11 Oct 2010)

Safetysoff, that is a very broad generalization of "global climate change".  But it is no worse that the climate models that have been used to predict the "coming global warming disaster I hear so much about.  Living in northern Alberta and with winter rapidly approaching I would welcome a little global warming come January.   :cold:   :cheers:


----------



## zipperhead_cop (11 Oct 2010)

safetysOff said:
			
		

> Their chiefs were more concerned over building Tiki heads  (insert nations economy here) than on managing their environment.  They blindly altered their  environment by cutting down all their trees, had all the topsoil wash away, due to no tree roots holding it down, leaving little area for farming or for trees to regrow and out fished their immediate fish stocks.



Hmmm, so their government wasted time and resources on something useless and unproven and their society collapsed?  Cool.  Thanks for providing an example of why _our_ government should not spend one more cent on all this carbon emission BS.  I guess you really did read the whole thread.


----------



## bdave (11 Oct 2010)

I'm sure we are the cause of SOME of the climate change.

However, it's hard to swallow all the crap Al Gore and co. are feeding us when they are the ones flying around in their private jets and leaving all the lights on in the mansions they own but don't live in.
When the world leaders start to reflect what they say, then maybe more people will listen.

edit: Replaced 'mentions' with 'mansions'. Whoops.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2010)

safetysOff said:
			
		

> I found it interesting to read about what happened to the society on Easter Island. . . . while not exactly what's happening with global warming now it bears some similarities that could be extrapolated to the globe's present population and how we're altering our environment.
> (when was the last time you were able to use 'extrapolate' in a sentence  ;D BOOYA!)
> 
> I'll give you a quick summary.  The society on Easter Island had a finite amount of trees, land for farming and fishing stocks off shore.  Their chiefs were more concerned over building Tiki heads  (insert nations economy here) than on managing their environment.  They blindly altered their  environment by cutting down all their trees, had all the topsoil wash away, due to no tree roots holding it down, leaving little area for farming or for trees to regrow and out fished their immediate fish stocks.
> ...



What you say about Easter Island is a theory. No one knows what happened. We can only guess. Quit stating your opinion as fact, unless you can back it up. And backing it up means proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just quoting someone else's opinion.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Oct 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> I'm sure we are the cause of SOME of the climate change.
> 
> However, it's hard to swallow all the crap Al Gore and co. are feeding us when they are the ones flying around in their private jets and leaving all the lights on in the mentions they own but don't live in.
> When the world leaders start to reflect what they say, then maybe more people will listen.



I live in Central Alberta, live 24 kms from the nearest grocery store, drive a 3/4 ton diesel pickup, and heat my home with natural gas.  I'll put my carbon footprint up against David Suzuki's, Al Gore's, Sean Penn's, or Bono's any day.  Fucking celebretards piss me off.


----------



## safetysOff (11 Oct 2010)

> What you say about Easter Island is a theory. No one knows what happened. We can only guess. Quit stating your opinion as fact, unless you can back it up. And backing it up means proving beyond a shadow of a doubt. Not just quoting someone else's opinion.




What I've said so far has been _my own personal opinion_, not trying to pass it off as fact by anymeans.  I used that example, that I read a long while ago, not sure what the reference was, for comparisson only, to try and show that it's not just climate change but the resulting consequences that it can have on a society that may need to be considered.

Leaving it at that, I've gotten way too into this thread. [beer][/beer]


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Oct 2010)

Nice one, Doc:

US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' 

 Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

Anthony Watts describes it thus:

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.

It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/


----------



## Journeyman (12 Oct 2010)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'


What you needed to quote was the ending of Professor Lewis's resignation:

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money,  exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.  When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2010)

Break out the polypro and Polar Fleece:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-super-la-nina-and-the-coming-winter/?print=1



> T*he Super La Nina and the Coming Winter*
> Posted By Art Horn On October 25, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 47 Comments
> 
> A super La Nina is developing.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (26 Oct 2010)

Donna Laframboise has been doing the grunt work to dissect the crap & lies that the IPCC spin machine spews . . . very interesting stuff.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/

Here she counts the "thousands of the world's best scientists" BS

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/the-non-stop-ipcc-spin-machine/

Can you count to 258?

Her latest series is to look at the qualifications of the Lead Authors of the IPCC  . . .  and guess what?  Seems working for Greenpeace is the best qualification not getting your advanced eduction degrees.

Suppose we should expect such deceit and corruption . . it is the UN after all.


----------



## jhk87 (2 Nov 2010)

Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are

1 - A problem
2 - Will cost plenty in the long term
3 - Can be addressed



The rhetoric, employing straw men doing mythical things (like this nonstop obsession with Al Gore) debases the discussion and clouds the fundamental problem of long-term vs short-term costs (and risks, and, for that matter, benefits.)


Would like to participate in this discussion, but only if everyone can agree to calm down and act like mature, informed citizens.


----------



## Haletown (2 Nov 2010)

Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are  realize that their ride on the Fame & Gravy Train is 100% dependent on continuing to raise the Scare and Fear level among the citizenry.

No Faux Crisis, no R&D funds shoveled off the truck.

No Faux Crisis, no flattering interviews on TV and invites to Hollywood.

No Faux Crisis, no trips to Bali in the depths of Winter to discuss AGW


----------



## HavokFour (2 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> ...but only if everyone can agree to calm down and act like mature, informed citizens.



I was under the impression we were already doing so.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (2 Nov 2010)

> Of course, all of the evidence presented above is anecdotal and takes no account whatever of the vast majority of scientists saying that human contributions to global warming are
> 
> 1 - A problem
> 2 - Will cost plenty in the long term
> 3 - Can be addressed



It pretty thoroughly debunks the *vast majority of scientists* part. Unless there are so few scientists that 258 is a "vast majority".


----------



## HavokFour (2 Nov 2010)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> It pretty thoroughly debunks the *vast majority of scientists* part. Unless there are so few scientists that 258 is a "vast majority".



God help us if there are only 258 on the planet.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Nov 2010)

JHK87,

What did you mean by everybody calming down and participating in the conversation? I don't see anybody getting fired up.

What  do see are valid points being made and then three pages later, someone who clearly hasn't read through everything goes on a new tangent. Like yourself.

What vast majority of scientist say this?


----------



## jhk87 (2 Nov 2010)

Of course I could speak to the original post put the past few pages have been a seeming nonstop track of bluster accusing people of "faux" crises and Al Gore of masterminding some massive global scam (available only on pajamas media.)

Oh. and
At least 87% of scientists, actually.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/01/19/survey.scientists.agree.human.induced.global.warming.real


For a reasonable summary: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Oh, and at least 87%


----------



## Haletown (2 Nov 2010)

Well that settles it . . .  wikipedia say 87%.

Or you can actually count the names, like Donna Laframboise has done

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/the-non-stop-ipcc-spin-machine/


Let's see . . .  count the actual names or rely on Wikipedia.

Hmmmmmmm   what to do, what to do, who can be trusted?  Basic grade 2 arithmetic or anonymous Wikipedia entry . . .  or could it be the infamous William Connelly before he was banned?


Your choice . . .


----------



## Journeyman (2 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> For a reasonable summary:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


I gather the basis of a "reasonable" summary is one that is supportive of a poster's opinion.

That article was changed nine times on 21 Oct, again on 22 Oct, twice on 31 Oct, again on 1 November... 
Yep, that Wikipedia is as close as one gets to peer-reviewed support for an argument.  :


----------



## jhk87 (2 Nov 2010)

Because "nofrakkingconsensus.com" is a pretty reliable, unbiased source.


----------



## Haletown (2 Nov 2010)

So your argument is based on the logic that counting, simple basic arithmetic, is biased?


----------



## jhk87 (2 Nov 2010)

1 - If you looked at the original post, there were multiple sources anyways, and;

2 - It really depends who's doing the counting.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (2 Nov 2010)

No, there were multiple links referring to the same opinion poll done by one person. That's a big difference from "multiple sources".


----------



## Haletown (2 Nov 2010)

Another Home Run from Donna . . .  if you live in Ontario, be afraid, be very, very afraid.  Dulton tries to be a good little greenie and does it by totally screwing the Ontario economy . . .


•“The only people who want to push wind energy for its own sake are those who expect to profit from it.”
•“Windmills don’t run on wind, they run on [government] subsidies.”
•“Solar panels are not powered by sunlight, they are powered by taxpayers.”

Another phrase for subsidies is "Taxpayers money"

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/wind-and-solar-in-fantasy-land/

Dulton will likely try to hide the real cost by not putting the total subsidy on your  Hydro bill . . .  he'll hide the majority of the subsidies by paying them out of general revenues.

Wonder how many hospitals and schools won't get funded to pay for all those subsidies, or does he just plan to go deeper into debt.

Colour dulton Green.

Colour Ontario's economy screwed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Colour Ontario's economy screwed.



Being green is only part of it. He's been thieving from us since he took power.


----------



## jhk87 (3 Nov 2010)

This sounds a lot like fear-mongering about people stealing money. Perhaps we should include the external costs of oil - environmental clean-up, the extra spending on national defence going to contain Iran, Saudi Arabia and to a point, Venezuala that we're funding through oil purchases, the eventual costs of global climate destabilisation, costs to public health, tax breaks given to oil companies....and all of the sudden, renewable energy doesn't look all that expensive. It's also a heavy industry that Ontario might just be able to support without a constant injection of funds into unsuccessful American car companies.

Actually, much of what McGuinty was doing was implented by Germany to rebuild its decrepit GDR-era industrial base in the east, and it emerged one of Europe's strongest economies alongside the Danes and the Swedes, who, by the way, are doing quite well.

As for scientists, I'll point you to the joint declaration of the national academies of the G8 nations - who are accountable to their members and genrally represent the scientific community:



> The need for urgent action to address climate change
> is now indisputable. For example, limiting global
> warming to 2°C would require a very rapid worldwide
> implementation of all currently available low carbon
> ...



Also, there is the AAAS, which has a wider membership (national academies are usually higher-ranking scientists):



> The scientific evidence is clear: global climate
> change caused by human activities
> is occurring now, and it is a growing
> threat to society.



Not, to mention, the Pentagon and even Environment Canada, which is surprising given the federal government's paranoid grip on information and truly pathetic showing in international climate efforts.

Of course there are dissenters - that's science - but because there are scientists who don't believe in evolution doesn't mean we don't accept the view of the majority and use evolutionary genetics to cure disease.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Nov 2010)

Public Backlash: Denmark Turning Again Windfarms 


Denmark used to be such a pretty wee place......and I found the original windmills, individual turbines scattered in farmers' fields attractive and novel

And then it got to the point that their entire shoreline is covered with the things.  The whole country looks like some grand Rube Goldberg electrical sub station.

And Sweden and Norway are very happy with the situation as Denmark exports windpower credits and buys hydropower from both of them and natural gas from Norway....as well as coal-fired power from Germany. 

They can't use their own power efficiently.


----------



## jhk87 (3 Nov 2010)

And all of this coming from.......*the Global Warming Policy Foundation*, a skeptical think-tank funded by extractive industries!


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> And all of this coming from.......*the Global Warming Policy Foundation*, a skeptical think-tank funded by extractive industries!



If it makes you happy or content to believe in the AGW theory, well just fill yer boots buddy. 

If it makes you happy that a multi-$billion, transnational environmental industry is making public policy then be happy.



If it makes you happy that your energy systems are being hijacked by bad public policy and your happy paying an 800% premium for green energy so you can feel good, then feel really good.

Won't change the facts that the predictions of catastrophic climate change are not happening as predicted, the famous models don't work and natural climate variation is really the Big Kahuna in all the multiple factors that drive the chaotic energy distribution system we call climate.

But know that  it is over, the environmentalists are already moving on to the next Great Hairy Scary fund raising scam, the vast majority of the public no longer give a rat's patooty worth of thought about Global Warming, I Mean Climate Change, sorry I mean Global Climate Disruption.

It is over now, all that is left is for some of the fraud and criminal charges to work their way forward. Al Gore will be a footnote in history as a weirdo-whacko who got rich on the scam and future generations will wonder who so many people could be so gullible, so stupid to believe microscopic changes in one gas in our atmosphere - .008% change, could drive the entire climate system.


But hey, believe what you want if it makes you happy.  Just don't expect anyone with a modicum of thinking ability to agree with you.


Don't worry, be happy,  take in a long deep breath and slowly exhale some planet killing CO2


----------



## jhk87 (3 Nov 2010)

As per the earlier post, still looking for a discussion by adults. And really, you're not addressing the point, are you?


----------



## GAP (3 Nov 2010)

I do believe I just saw my first internet "pout"..... :


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I do believe I just saw my first internet "pout"..... :



Yup . . .   I can "feel" that pout, the face turning blue happening from here.  But I guess every exhale that doesn't happen doesn't emit CO2 and therefore saves us from melting Ice Caps and 6 foot sea level increases flooding Manhattan.

So I guess we should be , thankful for the pout.  Someone is saving the planet.  

If only I knew where to send my hair shirt . .  . I would share.


----------



## GR66 (3 Nov 2010)

I'm certainly no climate scientist but my gut tells me that it only makes sense that the major changes we humans have made to the environment (through deforestation for agriculture, urbanization, engineering of waterways, air and water pollution, burning of carbon fuel sources, harvesting of the oceans, etc.) must be having some effect(s) on the planet.  

However that certainly doesn't mean that our actions are the only (or even the primary?) factor affecting our climate.  That system is so complex that I don't think it would every be possible for anyone to PROVE (or DISPROVE) a direct cause and effect for any single (or small number) of variables on the system.  

This is where I think that the climate change "supporters" have taken the wrong approach.  They are asking society (Western Industrial Society in particular) to make massive and expensive changes to how we live without a clear cause/effect that can be pointed to.  Where will we see the benefits of what we have done to combat climate change?  The time frames are far too long, the effects of any changes too unclear, and the personal benefits compared to the personal sacrifices too out of sync to grab the imagination of a society that is so focused on itself to focus on such an ethereal concept as climate change.

Energy is expensive.  Focus on the direct and measurable benefits (societal and economic) of becoming a country that uses its energy in the most efficient manner possible.  We will spend less on energy making our companies more competitive in the global market, we will have more energy available to export (and earn profit from), and we will develop industries and technologies for maximizing energy efficiency/minimizing energy use that will be desired by other countries.  And you know what?  We'll put less greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere as a result.  The effect is the same but the approach is different.  Don't spend money on inefficient and uneconomical alternate sources of energy for their own sake.  Set market incentives to encourage efficiency (not just in energy but in every aspect of the economy) and companies will find the methods and technologies to fill the needs of industries that are striving to remain competitive.

The result will be a stronger economy (from lower per capita energy, labour and resource inputs and lower waste outputs) as well as a cleaner environment (with lower carbon and waste emissions).

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2010)

GR66 . . .  excellent summary.

When we look back on this episode, we'll ponder the opportunity costs of the $Trillion global public policy actions taken in pursuit of the quasi religious beliefs in low carbon economic activities.

All that research money flowing into climate science means all that money not flowing into Cancer research or finding a cure for Parkinson's disease or on finding how to make nuclear fusion work or ???.

This is the real tragedy of the great scam perpetrated by the global environmental movement in their pursuit of environmental correctness & purity.


----------



## jhk87 (3 Nov 2010)

Or, you know, we could listen to the majority of the scientific community instead of saying "well, from what I see."

This incessant use of simplistic rhetoric, repeated _ad nauseum,_ is in fact a sign of a very immature and pretty pointless discussion.

Pout or not, it's like talking to a group of angry Marxist high school students. I'm out.


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Nov 2010)

OK, take your toys and go home then.

Seriously, we have tried discussing it seriously but you seem to have taken the point of view that it is your way or nothing. Better wake up to the ways of the world, my friend, people are allowed to disagree on opinions and what passes for facts is another issue. 

I think a few of us on here have tried to point out there are credible sources on both sides of the argument. 

How is that for a "grown up" conversation with Marxist high school students?


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2010)

Well bye-bye then . . .  do come back when you can handle the situation better.

And we were just starting to have some fun . . .


----------



## Haletown (3 Nov 2010)

Well too bad we lost jhk87 . .  just when things were getting interesting.

This might be too much for 87's comprehension, but for the rest of us . . .

Judith Curry is hitting homers again 

"So were the scientists innocent victims and pawns in all this?  Were they just hardworking scientists doing their best to address the impossible expectations of the policy makers?  Well, many of them were.  However, at the heart of the IPCC is a cadre of scientists whose careers have been made by the IPCC.  These scientists have used the IPCC to jump the normal meritocracy process by which scientists achieve influence over the politics of science and policy.  Not only has this brought some relatively unknown, inexperienced  and possibly dubious people into positions of influence, but these people become vested in protecting the IPCC, which has become central to their own career and legitimizes playing power politics with their expertise.

The advantages of dogma

When I refer to the IPCC dogma, it is the religious importance that the IPCC holds for this cadre of scientists; they will tolerate no dissent, and seek to trample and discredit anyone who challenges the IPCC. "

rtr @  http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/03/reversing-the-direction-of-the-positive-feedback-loop/

Pretty devastating assessment.  A perfect description of  screamers like Mike "Dr. Hockey Stick" Mann  who saw where the money was, switched from physics to climatology with really studying climatology and as a very, very, very junior professor pushed his Hockey Stick paper into IPCC prominence.  He tainted the entire IPCC with that little scam.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Or, you know, we could listen to the majority of the scientific community instead of saying "well, from what I see."
> 
> This incessant use of simplistic rhetoric, repeated _ad nauseum,_ is in fact a sign of a very immature and pretty pointless discussion.
> 
> Pout or not, it's like talking to a group of angry Marxist high school students. I'm out.



Here's some simplistic rhetoric, that I guarantee won't be repeated ad nauseum. Curb your attitude or get punted. You have proven nothing of substance that already hasn't been discussed. If you can't agree to disagree like an adult, instead of acting like a spolied petulant child, I'll have no problem helping you out the door.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Nov 2010)

An interesting video on
Livestock production and Global warming. 
Planetary Emergency
I'm a Beef eater.

Also
another video to watch:
NASA Global Warming Facts: 2009
Global Warming Facts


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2010)

One little point that supporters of windmills fail to mention is that a back-up power supply is needed for when the wind fails. This means for every megawatt of potential wind turbine energy installed, there must also be a megawatt of thermal power on tap.

Since the back up power needs to be available instantly, this means the back up system is a series of gas turbine generators running on "hot idle" 24/7, ready to be throttled up the moment the wind shifts or changes. Imagine the amount of "greenhouse gas" that is being produced by "Green" energy...


----------



## Haletown (4 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One little point that supporters of windmills fail to mention is that a back-up power supply is needed for when the wind fails. This means for every megawatt of potential wind turbine energy installed, there must also be a megawatt of thermal power on tap.
> 
> Since the back up power needs to be available instantly, this means the back up system is a series of gas turbine generators running on "hot idle" 24/7, ready to be throttled up the moment the wind shifts or changes. Imagine the amount of "greenhouse gas" that is being produced by "Green" energy...



Same for Solar.

So unfortunate that solar doesn't produce anything during that pesky "night time" or "cloudy" period.  The engineers are working on a solution we are told so "don't worry"

So unfortunate that windmills don't produce anything when the wind doesn't blow - although they don't kill birds & bats either, so there is some good news.

Ontario is so screwed pursuing greenie power.  Dulton's attempt to buy himself a green legacy, like Chretien supporting Kyoto (the treaty not the dog), that his real political legacy will be that he was sucked in by the great Hairy-Scary Global Warming Armageddon Con Job.

Some legacy.


----------



## Redeye (4 Nov 2010)

Dalton's an idiot for not realizing that base load power cannot come from solar or wind - they're great to have to feed into the system when they are producing, but what Ontario actually needs if they want green power is more nuclear.  Dragging their heels on Darlington-2 (and/or Bruce Power's interest in building in Nanticoke, where a lot of the skilled folks needed for a generating station already live because of Nanticoke TGS) is going to bite them hard.  Yes, nukes are expensive, but they are green power that's reliable and always available, and they need to get on with it.


----------



## Haletown (4 Nov 2010)

Dulton should have supported nuclear - open market nuclear not just a protectionist AECL nuclear, but is a whipping boy for the greenie envirojihadis and they despise nuclear.

They wouldn't support him if he actually had the best interests of Ontario at heart instead pandering to the envirocrazies.

On the other hand if I had stock in the companies making those stand-by gas turbines . . .  I'd be laughing on the way to the bank and praising Dulton's gift of stupidity.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (4 Nov 2010)

Unfortunately they're backing down on installing the stand-by turbines due to NIMBY's. One just got cancelled in Oakville.


----------



## YZT580 (4 Nov 2010)

Same topic but slightly different solution, the October edition of Canadian Trucker featured an article regarding green energy.  It seems that a Canadian trucker has devised a method for converting the draught from a rig into electricity.  100 vehicles (18 wheelers) per hour passing through a 1 km dedicated lane would produce enough electricity to power a reasonably sized city and all without being visually disruptive.  Certainly would be better than these windmill monstrosities that are popping up all over southern Ontario.  cost is 24 million per kilometer.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

Is it windmills you are against, or windmill farms?  There are a lot of remote locations that would be perfect for windmill generators, where hardly anyone would notice them, but instead we are plunking them down in densely populated areas.


As for the Rigs generating electricity, how fast do they have to be travelling to get 100 per hour through a 1 km stretch of "collection devices" to work efficiently?


----------



## Haletown (4 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is it windmills you are against, or windmill farms?  There are a lot of remote locations that would be perfect for windmill generators, where hardly anyone would notice them, but instead we are plunking them down in densely populated areas.



Nothing against windmills . .  but against heavily subsidized windmills producing very heavily subsidized electricity.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Nov 2010)

Ah!  The "Romantic" in you is showing.      ;D


----------



## YZT580 (4 Nov 2010)

According to the article, normal speeds 80km and up.  There is sufficient volume around Toronto, Montreal, and the other major cities to provide the generating capacity.  Requires a dedicated lane for trucks.

Windmills are great where other forms of generating capacity is not readily available or where fuel supplies are expensive to import and store but they are not reliable.  Either alternative sources of power must be provided as well or the users must be prepared to go without electricty during calm periods.  Wind farms are a needless waste of land and raw materiels and extremely costly.  As England, Spain, California and Germany have all discovered they won't work without enormous subsidies.  Remove the subsidies and the companies soon go out of business or charge production costs to the consumer and watch your industrial customers re-locate to another country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2010)

If the Liebrals in Ontario were serious, they'd have the coal plant that they just shut down demolished right away, so they can't be used again.

Nope. They know they are going to be needed, so they just mothballed them.

When they get kicked out next year, and the PC takes over, realizing the province has been had and the coal plants have to come back on line ( at extreme cost to the taxpayer)  the Liebrals will then try sieze the opportunity to blame the pollution and extra cost on the PC gov't.

Sound familiar? It just keeps going round and round. It's amazing how much people's memories fail after eight years.


----------



## safetysOff (5 Nov 2010)

Here's some info on the current energy contribution that windmills make in Canada.  Apparently only 1.1% of the total energy going into the grid.

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/index_e.php

So according to this, one of these beasts supplies energy to 500 homes.  So a whole whack of em would be needed if this was the way to go.  

http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/lifestyle/waterfront/images/BackgrounderPWGS.pdf

Why not scrap coal and get a combination of hydro electric, wind, solar and nuclear?  Ohh yea, what the heck happened to that whole nuclear fad anyways?


----------



## GR66 (5 Nov 2010)

Increasing our energy efficiency is an obvious solution that we really haven't had the collective willpower to follow yet.  We need to keep building more capacity just to keep pace with our growth.  

We also seem to be ignoring the idea of energy storage.  If we could efficiently store the energy produced during non-peak times (from Hydro, Solar, Wind and even Nuclear) then our overall production capacity wouldn't have to be so high to cover peak usage times.  

Like any massive system there is alot of inertia to overcome in making real, outside the box changes.


----------



## Redeye (5 Nov 2010)

There is research into the storage issue, but there's not been much large scale progress as I understand it.  



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> Increasing our energy efficiency is an obvious solution that we really haven't had the collective willpower to follow yet.  We need to keep building more capacity just to keep pace with our growth.
> 
> We also seem to be ignoring the idea of energy storage.  If we could efficiently store the energy produced during non-peak times (from Hydro, Solar, Wind and even Nuclear) then our overall production capacity wouldn't have to be so high to cover peak usage times.
> 
> Like any massive system there is alot of inertia to overcome in making real, outside the box changes.


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2010)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> According to the article, normal speeds 80km and up.  There is sufficient volume around Toronto, Montreal, and the other major cities to provide the generating capacity.  Requires a dedicated lane for trucks.



The article reads a bit like a stock promoter ad copy .  not saying it isn't all true but I'm skeptical of all the claims.  Like the windmill promoters who always quote the maximum theoretical output as if that is what their products will produce while they know from field data that the real output of most windmills is about 20% of the Sticker number.


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2010)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Increasing our energy efficiency is an obvious solution that we really haven't had the collective willpower to follow yet.  We need to keep building more capacity just to keep pace with our growth.
> 
> We also seem to be ignoring the idea of energy storage.  If we could efficiently store the energy produced during non-peak times (from Hydro, Solar, Wind and even Nuclear) then our overall production capacity wouldn't have to be so high to cover peak usage times.
> 
> Like any massive system there is alot of inertia to overcome in making real, outside the box changes.



Storage costs money and that just adds to the cost to produce electricity.

Except in the case of Hydro.   A dam is needed to create the headwater drop and the same dam is the basis of the "storage device".  I recall a story about Ontario Hydro's Niagara Falls installation throttles back the water flow at night when demand is down and "stores" the "electricity" in a non-kinetic form that can be converted to electricity in peak times.


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2010)

Very good summary of the crap that was/is used by the envirowhackos to push their greenie energy cult.  How Dulton was lead down the green garden path like a giant sucker.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_windconference.pdf

McKitrick is one half of the M&M team that was responsible for breaking the Hockey Stick & beating up on the Team Mann.

Coal makes sense after all.


----------



## Redeye (5 Nov 2010)

I was going to put something about that in but couldn't remember the details - as I recall they actually use their baseload to run pumps to pump water back into the reservoirs behind the dams to drop again making for more power.  If I remember right from the article I read about it (been a while), the real cost of electricity at night is essentially negative because the base load is not used fully, which is why they can run the pumps.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Storage costs money and that just adds to the cost to produce electricity.
> 
> Except in the case of Hydro.   A dam is needed to create the headwater drop and the same dam is the basis of the "storage device".  I recall a story about Ontario Hydro's Niagara Falls installation throttles back the water flow at night when demand is down and "stores" the "electricity" in a non-kinetic form that can be converted to electricity in peak times.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2010)

A 29 page thread with technologies, facts figures and "real" numbers exists here.

The reason most of these technologies are not used is because they are extremely marginal, or have giant technical issues to overcome (or both). Unless they have an effective marketing team that can extract government subsidies, they will probably always remain marginal or niche players, much like wind energy _actually_ is.

Building or rebuilding nuclear powerplants is the only practical and effective "Green" solution in both senses of the word, but a powerful lobby exists to oppose nuclear energy in any form (even new inherently safe systems powered by Thorium salts, or "pebble" based high temperature gas cooled reactors). For the present, I would strongly advocate conservation and efficiency measures, mostly for you, the consumer and taxpayer, to save money and protect your wealth.


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2010)

its Friday, so everyone, Sing Along    

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=player_embedded#!

Singing is good for the soul.


----------



## Haletown (5 Nov 2010)

Al gore better lay in a good supply of antacids . . . . this one is gonna really rile up his guts.

Scientific American goes Full Denialist



http://tinyurl.com/27eaook


----------



## RangerRay (6 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A 29 page thread with technologies, facts figures and "real" numbers exists here.
> 
> The reason most of these technologies are not used is because they are extremely marginal, or have giant technical issues to overcome (or both). Unless they have an effective marketing team that can extract government subsidies, they will probably always remain marginal or niche players, much like wind energy _actually_ is.
> 
> Building or rebuilding nuclear powerplants is the only practical and effective "Green" solution in both senses of the word, but a powerful lobby exists to oppose nuclear energy in any form (even new inherently safe systems powered by Thorium salts, or "pebble" based high temperature gas cooled reactors). For the present, I would strongly advocate conservation and efficiency measures, mostly for you, the consumer and taxpayer, to save money and protect your wealth.



I'm sure I had read somewhere that nuclear energy also requires heavy government subsidies.  It was an article in the National Post on the conservative argument against nuclear power.

Otherwise, I quite agree.  It is the cleanest and most efficient form of energy available with the smallest footprint.


----------



## DBA (7 Nov 2010)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I'm sure I had read somewhere that nuclear energy also requires heavy government subsidies.  It was an article in the National Post on the conservative argument against nuclear power.
> 
> Otherwise, I quite agree.  It is the cleanest and most efficient form of energy available with the smallest footprint.



With the current coal and natural gas prices in North America nothing else is competitive. Not wind. Not solar. Not all the other schemes. All only become viable with subsidies some of which are very long term. An example would be Ontario Power Authority's Standard Offer Program for Solar PV Energy which pays 42 cents a kw/h which is a huge subsidy and will be given out for 20 years.


----------



## Haletown (7 Nov 2010)

saw this at SDA earlier today . . .

$535 million and no Green Jobs . . .  Obama channeling his inner Dulton maybe ?

Hot Air:

The Obama administration made Solyndra, a solar-power manufacturing company, a symbol of its “green jobs” push in the Porkulus program. Barack Obama himself toured the factory, as did Barbara Boxer. Taxpayers ended up sinking $535 million into building Solyndra a new facility that promised to add jobs in the clean-energy sector. Instead, now that Solyndra has its new facility, it’s closing another older facility and will lay off dozens of employees and cancel the contracts for 150 more contract workers:

Solyndra Inc., the high-flying solar panel maker once touted by President Barack Obama as a model for a green energy future, said Wednesday it has scuttled its factory expansion in Fremont, a move that will stop the company’s plans to hire 1,000 workers.

Solyndra said it will also close an existing factory in the East Bay. That will leave the company with one Fremont factory, a new plant visible from Interstate 880.

All this for only $535,000,000 taxpayer dollars 

http://tinyurl.com/2aojd6b


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2010)

Climate alarmists show their true colours:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064423/on-the-anniversary-of-climategate-the-watermelons-show-their-true-colours/



> James Delingpole
> James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.
> 
> *On the anniversary of Climategate the Watermelons show their true colours*
> ...


----------



## GAP (21 Nov 2010)

Experts claim 2006 climate report plagiarized
Article Link
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.

Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.

The charges of plagiarism don't negate one of the basic premises of the report — that climate scientists used poor statistics in two widely noted papers.

But the allegations come as some in Congress call for more investigations of climate scientists like the one that produced the Wegman report.

"It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others' integrity when you don't conform to the basic rules of scholarship," Virginia Tech plagiarism expert Skip Garner says.

U.N. CONFERENCE:Negotiators give talks another try

Led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, the 2006 report criticized the statistics and scholarship of scientists who found the last century the warmest in 1,000 years.

"The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists," says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. "And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists."

But in March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate "clear plagiarism" of one of his textbooks.

Bradley says he learned of the copying from a year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey's analysis concludes that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." Copying others' text or ideas without crediting them violates universities' standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics.

Allegations under review

"The matter is under investigation," says GMU spokesman Dan Walsch by e-mail. In a phone interview, Wegman said he could not comment at the university's request. In an earlier e-mail Wegman sent to Joseph Kunc of the University of Southern California, however, he called the plagiarism charges "wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality."

The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:

• "Actually fairly shocking," says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. "My own preliminary appraisal would be 'guilty as charged.' "


More on link


----------



## jhk87 (29 Nov 2010)

> Watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. This is the theme of my forthcoming book on the controlling,  poisonously misanthropic and aggressively socialistic instincts of the modern environmental movement. So how very generous that two of that movement’s leading lights should have chosen the anniversary of Climategate to prove my point entirely.



Conservative commentators comparing everyone who doesn't agree with them to some sort of insidious Communist infiltration group shows some pretty frank colours on its own. It reeks of McCarthyism  - political opportunism, paranoia about what cannot be seen and cannot really be proved and an "enemy" that is created from thin air.

NASA disagrees with you? They're co-opted.
The scientific organisations (ie, national academies) with the largest membership, and most accountable internal operations? Questionable.
Governments (Environment Canada, etc.) ? Questionable.
Polls showing the vast majority of scientists? Questionable.

*Not* questionable are pajamas media, the individual scientists quoted or select journalistic pieces. It makes this discussion a pointless self-congradulaory talk-shop with assertions backed by circular logic.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Conservative commentators comparing everyone who doesn't agree with them to some sort of insidious Communist infiltration group shows some pretty frank colours on its own. It reeks of McCarthyism  - political opportunism, paranoia about what cannot be seen and cannot really be proved and an "enemy" that is created from thin air.



No worse than the lefty loonie tunes that want to kill everyone that isn't willing to forsake technology and slide back to the years before fire. Or the ones that want me to pay India (one of the major producers of green house gases) carbon credits for driving my car :

Global warming will cease being a problem when the scientists that proclaim it and Al Gore retire with their ill gotten gains. It's a self licking ice cream cone.


----------



## jhk87 (1 Dec 2010)

Thanks for making my point.


----------



## 2 Cdo (1 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Thanks for making my point.



You had a point?  His comparison to a watermelon was 100% bang on. The environmental movement is no longer about the environment but about income redistribution.


----------



## jhk87 (2 Dec 2010)

You're right. Vague allegories linking anything to some ongoing Communist plot aren't bombastic and unproductive at all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> You're right. Vague allegories linking anything to some ongoing Communist plot aren't bombastic and unproductive at all.



Thanks for critiquing and clarifying the point(s) of your own posts.


----------



## jhk87 (2 Dec 2010)

My posts have generally espoused the problems with trusting blogs and heavily biased media organisation versus credible and accountable scientific bodies, not some sort of "plot." To be fair, I did mention Joe McC, but it was supposed to be illustrative of the witch-hunt mindset that many sceptics seem to have fallen into. Simply writing off those who disagree with you (regardless of experience and training) as "red" or conspiratorial, especially when it's regarding large organisations with extensive accountability mechanisms, is folly. Simply shouting louder doesn't make one correct.

Besides, the idea that it's all about income redistribution is more than a bit misleading. There are many approaches being advocated   - from improved industrial design to cap and trade (which I disagree with) to carbon capping and pollution taxing, and to some, (intentional) geoengineering, hardly the red commie plot that would see the UN take over the world.


----------



## 2 Cdo (2 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> My posts have generally espoused the problems with trusting blogs and heavily biased media organisation versus credible and accountable scientific bodies, not some sort of "plot." To be fair, I did mention Joe McC, but it was supposed to be illustrative of the witch-hunt mindset that many sceptics seem to have fallen into. Simply writing off those who disagree with you (regardless of experience and training) as "red" or conspiratorial, especially when it's regarding large organisations with extensive accountability mechanisms, is folly. Simply shouting louder doesn't make one correct.
> 
> Besides, the idea that it's all about income redistribution is more than a bit misleading. There are many approaches being advocated   - from improved industrial design to cap and trade (which I disagree with) to carbon capping and pollution taxing, and to some, (intentional) geoengineering, hardly the red commie plot that would see the UN take over the world.



If it is truly about the environment and not income redistribution by whatever means, then why are some countries exempt from carbon penalties? Is their carbon burning more efficiently and cleaner than ours?

If you want to address pollution then I'm all for it. If you want me to pay for "carbon credits" so China can build more coal fired hydro plants kindly go jump in the nearest lake.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2010)

If you want allegory...

On one hand we have the witch hunt (skeptics), and on the other the inquisition (zealots). 

In the end it will be the common man that gets burned at the stake.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Dec 2010)

Forgive me, but weren't both the "witch hunts" and the "inquisition" creatures of the State?

It seems to me that currently many states are on the side of the hunters and inquisitors in pursuit of the heretic deniers.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2010)

True enough, but I was making the point that each side of the argument was as bad as the other, and that the guy in the middle will ultimately loose. 

Just the same, I agree with your observation that it's we heretics that are the ones being hunted by the state.


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2010)

Cancún climate change summit: Japan refuses to extend Kyoto protocol
Article Link

Talks threatened with breakdown after forthright Japanese refusal to extend Kyoto emissions commitments

The delicately balanced global climate talks in Cancún suffered a serious setback last night when Japan categorically stated its opposition to extending the Kyoto protocol – the binding international treaty that commits most of the world's richest countries to making emission cuts.

The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Japan in 1997 by major emitting countries, who committed themselves to cut emissions by an average 5% on 1990 figures by 2012.

However the US congress refused to ratify it and remains outside the protocol.

The brief statement, made by Jun Arima, an official in the government's economics trade and industry department, in an open session, was the strongest yet made against the protocol by one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

He said: "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances."

The move came out of the blue for other delegations at the conference.

"For Japan to come out with a statement like that at the beginning of the talks is significant," said one British official. "The forthrightness of the statement took people by surprise."

If it proves to be a new, formal position rather than a negotiating tactic, it could provoke a walk-out by some developing countries and threaten a breakdown in the talks. Last night diplomats were urgently trying to clarify the position.

The move provoked alarm among the G77, the grouping of developing countries who regard the Kyoto protocol as the world's only binding agreement on climate change cuts.


More on link


----------



## jhk87 (3 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> True enough, but I was making the point that each side of the argument was as bad as the other, and that the guy in the middle will ultimately loose.
> 
> Just the same, I agree with your observation that it's we heretics that are the ones being hunted by the state.



"Hunted by the state" and "burned at the stake?" I hardly think so. And no-one has really addressed the idea of source self-checks, internal accountability mechanisms, and the "everyone but me is compromised" position being taken by many a sceptic.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2010)

Given the long term deflationary economy of Japan, opting out of Kyoto was the sensible thing to do. Why burden yourself with extra (and totally unnecessary) costs? When the money is going to be used to either fill the pockets of third world kleptocrats or subsidize foreign competition, then paying Kyoto Danegeld is even stupider. "When you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane".

So now we have two nations opting out, as well as nations like Canada, which only pay lip service (although there are still internal costs to pay as various agencies demand tax dollars for these "causes"). If all goes well, there will be deadlock in Cancun (funny how these conferences take place in posh resorts) and we will be spared the blackmail. Any bets on what the *next* global crisis demanding international intervention and the transfer of billions of dollars of wealth from the West will be?


----------



## jhk87 (3 Dec 2010)

Yeah, you're right. This remind of those ungrateful Czechs asking or help in 1938.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right. This remind of those ungrateful Czechs asking or help in 1938.



Errr...Pardon?


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right. This remind of those ungrateful Czechs asking or help in 1938.



Nice oblique invocation of Godwin's Law.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2010)

The last global warming conference ever?
Rex Murphy, National Post · Saturday, Dec. 4, 2010
Article Link

This global-warming/climate-change stuff is a great racket. Over in England right now, they're locked in the jaws of a very early freeze-up. The roads are iced, the plows overworked, and people are angry. But there's a precious subset of the English population that are not enduring the frigid and premature torments of a northern winter. They're the climate-change activists, bureaucrats, politicians, puppeteers and NGOs -- the class of professional alarmists who've been banging on about global warming for close on two decades now. This bunch has exempted itself from the rigors of English November, traded their sackcloth and ashes for sun-wear and tropical breezes.

They're toasting their pasty, righteous, caterwauling epidermi on the golden hot sands of Cancun, Mexico, flopped out amid the bikinis and barbeques while they attempt to spell out a future of rationing and want for all the rest of us. Flown there on taxpayer or foundation money, meeting up with all their buddies from the bust that was Copenhagen, the grim, grey priesthood of "sustainable" living are convening in one of the great sybaritic strips of the entire Western world. The monks are in the cathouse.

But hey, if you're going to do Armageddon -- do it in Cancun. The apocalypse at the all-you-can-eat buffet. Parasailing to Armageddon.

Does not one of the great minds decoding next century's weather see the brain-splitting contradiction of holding a conference warning of the imminent threat of global warming in a venue that mainly exists because people fly there to get warmer? That's right, people spend money to fly to Cancun mainly because it's warmer there than where they live. In essence, Cancun is what the global warming crowd are, otherwise, warning us about.

Perhaps at some level of instinct they do know. Perhaps they know that this show of theirs is on its last legs, the jig is up, the great game is over. After the unsuccessful 2009 Copenhagen conference, they had to have realized that even Al Gore and all Al Gore's grim little men would never be able to put the whole rickety, tendentious machine back together again. After Copenhagen, and especially after Climategate, even the true believers must have lost heart. Witness this year's confabulation. Notice who's not there?

Last year, even the Golden One, Barack Obama, swept dramatically into Denmark. It was the venue for all the A-list politicians. Prime ministers and presidents were everywhere. This year, the world's leaders have stayed away. Even the press, whose Cancun presence is down considerably compared to Copenhagen, smells the decay of a cause.

Some countries have made it clear that they no longer are even pretending to play the global-warming abatement game. "Japan will not inscribe its target under the Kyoto protocol on any conditions or under any circumstances," declared Jun Arima, deputy director-general for environmental affairs at Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. Given that his was the country where the Kyoto Protocol was signed, it's a powerful blow to the Gore-ish forces. Perhaps Japan will get one of those cute Fossil of the Day Awards that Canada so excels at collecting.

Could this be the last global warming conference? It's possible. The environmentalists and the activists have had a tin ear and a surplus of righteousness from the beginning. But there's something extravagantly out of key, even for them, in holding their great "Save the Planet" revival at Cancun -- up to now famous for Spring Break and as a hangout for louche Hollywood types and cleavage researchers. It signals they've lost the will to pretend. And with Japan having walked away from the whole idea of Kyoto, it's hard to see how they'll work up the steam for another holiday next year.
end


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Yeah, you're right. This remind of those ungrateful Czechs asking or help in 1938.



And this would remind you how "skeptical" Churchill was of Herr Hitler.

Skeptics are always the minority because only a few can see past the smoke & mirrors of popular opinion.


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2010)

Donna hits another inside the park home run . . .  

http://tinyurl.com/29lgycm

Does make you wonder where the mass media was, all those investigative "journalists" who are always on the look out for conflicts of interest, shady dealings & doings, outrageous breaches of established rules, flaunting of established procedures & outright fraud funded by taxpayers and performed by scientists, bureaucrats and legions of public teat sucking do-gooder NGO's.


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2010)

and then not to be outdone, JoNova bats one for the Aussie women . . .

http://tinyurl.com/2aylh8o

WikiLeaks swings both ways it seems.

The best one is the Saudi's asking the US for financial assistance in return for their support . . .   big brass ones out there in the Kingdom.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2010)

There is some, modest, hope for sanity according to Norman Spector in this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/spector-vision/on-climate-change-canada-finally-comes-clean/article1825385/ 


> On climate change, Canada (finally) comes clean
> 
> NORMAN SPECTOR
> 
> ...




It must be remembered that the _Kyoto Protocol_ was a gigantic European *scam*. The Europeans had have a huge environmental problem – especially the Russian _legacy_ in Eastern Europe. The costs of cleaning the environment, are and will remain huge – putting Europe at a competitive disadvantrage _viz a viz_ America and China. A simple international _environmental_ programnme would not do the trick: America is way ahead of Europe on most environmental measures and China, while taking the environment *more* seriously, will not play. Hence, “global warming.” There was a spectre that might force America and Japan to obey self imposed economic restraints roughly equivalent to what Europe would have to impose upon itself anyway. Canada and a few others, including Japan, signed on but America did not. Most of the signatories, including many of the European signatories, never tried to actually implement any of the Kyoto goals. 

Kyoto failed but Wall Street and Washington managed, damned nearly, to sink the USA anyway.

So now Canada, along with Japan and Russia (who woulda thunk it?) can now lead the world into a better climate _accord_ – more talk, far less spending and fewer massive, pointless conferences in warm, sunny places.


----------



## Haletown (4 Dec 2010)

Kyoto has been brain dead for years, now they have just removed the life support.

I doubt very much there will be a replacement.  The international environmental industry has disgraced itself by pushing lies and propaganda all gussied up as science and nobody will believe a word they say for a long time.

The mistrust level is too high, the AGW Scam too outrageous and the UN too corrupt for anything like Kyoto to happen again.

Now would be a good time to start a counterattack and demand "meaningful" reform of the UN and make our funding dependent on cleaning up the Cess Pool at Turtle Bay.

Now that would be fun.


----------



## jhk87 (4 Dec 2010)

Obviously, sceptics deserve automatic respect. Let`s begin teaching the controversy surrounding that idiotic theory of evolution that was forwarded by a series of elitist experts.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2010)

Boy, they sure are getting stirred up, cause the rich nations may not keep giving.....

Cancún climate talks in danger of collapse over Kyoto continuation
 John Vidal, Environment editor The Guardian, Saturday 4 December 2010 
Article Link

The UN climate talks in Cancún were in danger of collapse last night after many Latin American countries said that they would leave if a crucial negotiating document, due to be released tomorrow, did not continue to commit rich countries to emissions cuts under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba) group of nine Latin American countries – who claim they are backed by African, Arab countries and other developing nations – said they were not prepared to see an end to the treaty that legally requires all of its signatories to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

They challenged the Mexican presidency of the UN summit to prepare a negotiating text including a commitment by rich countries to set fresh targets for a second period of Kyoto beyond 2012.

The Guardian understands that if the new text includes a reference to a continuation of the Kyoto protocol, the talks will continue. But if it omits the wording and opts only to support negotiations based on the weaker Copenhagen accord agreed last year, then developing countries are likely to stop the talks.

Mexico will publish its text on Saturday evening in preparation for the arrival of ministers from 193 countries for the high-level talks on Monday. The energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne will arrive then, leading the UK delegation.

The potential crisis was provoked by Japan stating earlier this week that it would not sign up to a second period of the Kyoto Protocol.

Other countries, including Russia, Canada and Australia are thought to agree but have yet to say publicly that they will not make further pledges.

Kyoto is considered iconic to developing countries because it is the only legal agreement that binds rich countries to emissions cuts. It is feared that wealthy countries, led by the US, which has not ratified the treaty, want an agreement that will commit them only loosely to targets.

"We will not support any situation where these countries get away with this and make no commitments. We want concrete commitments for Kyoto. A handful of countries have no right to do this," said Claudia Salerno, Venezuela's special climate envoy.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Obviously, sceptics deserve automatic respect. Let`s begin teaching the controversy surrounding that idiotic theory of evolution that was forwarded by a series of elitist experts.




The climate *is* changing, no one denies that; it has been changing, for good or ill - depending upon one's point of view - ever since there was a climate. We are not helping ourselves by e.g. pouring chemicals into the atmosphere that e.g. weaken the ozone layer and so on. I have no problem with initiatives, local and global, that aim to make the planet a cleaner, safer place - that includes dealing, as far as we can, with carbon emissions. (And, by the way, I am a proponent of a carbon tax as the only effective way to change behavior (yours and mine) which, I am convinced, is the only effective way to reduce carbon emissions.) My problem was and is with the Kyoto process and with Copenhagen and Cancun and so on. Freak shows and media events are not a solution to anything.


----------



## MPwannabe (5 Dec 2010)

More on Climate Change!

2010 set to be Canada's warmest year

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/12/02/climate-change-cancun-wmo.html

The year 2010 is expected to be one of the three warmest years worldwide since the collection of reliable climate data began — and Canada's on track to record its hottest year yet.

The data released Thursday by the UN's weather agency, the World Meteorological Organization, provides further evidence of a warming trend that has been seen for many years. Scientists blame a steady rise in man-made greenhouse gases, which have been building up in the atmosphere, trapping heat in.

During the first 10 months of 2010, the global combined sea surface and land surface air temperature was 0.55 degrees C above the 1961–1990 annual average of 14 degrees C.
A wild caribou roams the tundra in Nunavut. The Canadian Arctic has been warmer than usual in 2010. A wild caribou roams the tundra in Nunavut. The Canadian Arctic has been warmer than usual in 2010. (Nathan Denette/Canadian Press)

So far, the WMO says 2010’s nominal temperature value is the highest on record, placing it slightly ahead of two other warmer-than-average years,1998 and 2005.

The final ranking of 2010 won't be known until data from November and December are examined early next year. But measurements from the first 25 days of November suggest global temperatures continue to track record levels.

"Canada had its warmest winter on record, with national temperatures 4 degrees C above the long-term average," said the WMO.

"Winter temperatures were 6 degrees C or more above normal in parts of [Canada's] North."

The organization added that Canada also had its warmest spring on record, as well as its driest winter ever. As an example, it noted the poor snow conditions at the Winter Oympics in Vancouver and Whistler.
Warmest decade on record

The WMO also says this decade just wrapping up has been the warmest ever recorded, with global temperatures averaging 0.46 degrees C above the 1961-1990 average.

While surface air temperatures were above normal in most parts of the world, Northern Canada was the scene of one of the most extreme temperature anomalies.

The WMO says mean annual temperatures across much of the eastern Canadian Arctic and sub-Arctic were 3 degrees C or more above normal in 2010.

"Arctic sea-ice extent was again well below normal in 2010," the WMO said. In September, Arctic sea ice covered just 4.6 million square kilometres, it said. That's more than two million square kilometres below the long-term average.

"The autumn 2010 freeze-up has also been abnormally slow, with the ice cover as of [Nov. 28] being the lowest on record for the time of year. The Canadian sector had its lowest summer ice extent on record," it said.

The other major extreme warm anomaly this year took place most of the northern half of Africa and south Asia, extending as far east as the western half of China, where annual temperatures one to three degrees C above normal occurred over much of the area.

The weather data is part of a preliminary report on global climate change released by the WMO at the latest round of climate talks now underway in Cancun.

The meetings in Mexico are the first major UN climate conference since last year's Copenhagen Summit, which fell short of making much progress in curbing greenhouse gases. That summit revealed a large rift between industrialized nations, emerging economic powers like China and developing countries.

Climate change talks are ultimately aimed at replacing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which requires 35 industrial nations to cut global warming causing emissions by five per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.

While Canada was one of the first countries to ratify the protocol, the government announced in 2007 it would not meet the protocol's 2012 targets. The U.S. was one of the few countries to refuse to ratify Kyoto at all.


----------



## Haletown (5 Dec 2010)

more things to add to the proof of global warming list revealed to us plebs at the Bib Cancun AGW conflab . . .  

The big problem is, the scientist said, is that the public are really stupid. They think just because Dr David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit said in the Independent in 2000 that soon there’d be no snow because of global warming, when what he actually meant was that soon there’d be lots of snow and that this would be “proof” of global warming. The interviewer just missed out the word “proof” that’s all because journalists are lazy that way.

Then the scientist issued a cut-out-and-keep guide of Signs That Show Man Made Global Warming Is Definitely Still Happening And That Cancun Won’t Be An Almighty Flop.

1. Warm weather

2. Cold weather

3. In-between weather.

4. Dark skies at night

5. Light skies in the morning

6. An unpleasant moist/damp/wet sensation when it rains

7. Ice appearing when the temperature drops below zero

8. Clouds rolling across sky in all sorts of funny shapes, some days like cotton wool, other days in streaks, and on some days not there at all.

9. Ursine subarboreal toilet activity

10. Strong new evidence of ultramontane sympathies at the Vatican


Dellers has the full story

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100066594/signs-that-show-man-made-global-warming-is-definitely-still-happening/


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Dec 2010)

MPwannabe said:
			
		

> More on Climate Change!
> 
> 2010 set to be Canada's warmest year
> 
> ...



Just a couple of notes on the attached.....

There was a study done in looking at the weather data collection sites and in particular in Canada there has been a trend of shifting the sites further south while maintaining the "averaging" of the sites where collection is taking place.  This obviously heavily skews "Average Temperature" for a huge surface area which skews the overall data which skews any conclusions they're trying to draw.

The climatolgists still have not adjusted for urban heat sinks and the encroachment of large denisities of concrete and pavement around weather data sites.  Anyone who has walked in downtown Toronto on an evening as opposed to being in the country can immediately tell you that urban sprawl captures and retains far more heat than countryside so when measuring average temperatures....this heat sink contribution needs to factored out.

Although Arctic ice coverage may have fallen slightly, Antartic ice coverages has actually expanded....If these were reputable scientists that disclosure would be part of the release.  As it's not, you can immediately tell that this is a propaganda release with the intent of furthering the alarm and guaranteeing that there will be more all expenses paid trips for climatologists and bureaucrats to sunny destinations like Cancun and Bali.

Of note, does no one on the alarmist side of the equation find it hypocritical that if the advocates of manmade global warming actually believed their own progmnistications, that perhaps instead of gatthering in tourist hotspots like Bali and Cancun that are responsible for millions of pounds of carbon dioxide release per year as aircraft feed their tourism industries, that they might instead not just teleconference?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2010)

Of course, Cancun is better than this:

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2010/12/05/author-claims-we-re-in-the-grip-of-a-mini-ice-age-79310-27768699/



> *Author claims we're in the grip of a mini ice age*
> Dec 5 2010 by Mike Kelly, Sunday Sun
> 
> AFTER nearly two weeks of snow and sub zero temperatures rivaling those of Siberia, the old joke about global warming being a good thing has had a new lease of life. So what has happened to doom-laden predictions of the world heating up as glaciers melt? Mike Kelly reports.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2010)

We are in the wrong jobs.....

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/12/05/lawrence-solomon-the-7-billion-carbon-scam/



> *Lawrence Solomon: The $7-billion carbon scam*
> Comments Twitter LinkedIn Digg Buzz Email
> Lawrence Solomon  December 5, 2010 – 12:50 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Dec 2010)

Author claims we're in the grip of a mini ice age
Article Link
Dec 5 2010 by Mike Kelly, Sunday Sun

AFTER nearly two weeks of snow and sub zero temperatures rivaling those of Siberia, the old joke about global warming being a good thing has had a new lease of life. So what has happened to doom-laden predictions of the world heating up as glaciers melt? Mike Kelly reports.
A satellite image of the UK taken during last year's harsh winter

FIRST the good news. These bitter winters aren’t going to last forever. The bad news is that they will go on for the next 30 years as we have entered a mini ice age.

So says author Gavin Cooke in his book Frozen Britain. He began writing it in 2008 and it was published last year when experts were scratching their heads at the cause of the bitter winter of 2009/10 which brought England to a standstill. Some said it was a one-off event, with experts predicting snowfall becoming increasingly rare.

Now, 12 months on, the current sub zero spell makes last year look just a bit chilly. Just like kids enjoying ‘snow days’ off school, Gavin ought to be delighted with the cold snap. After all, he can justifiably say ‘I told you so’. But he’s as glum as the rest of us.

“I’m getting sick of it myself,” he said.

When Gavin, 48, of Monkseaton, North Tyneside, began writing the book the acclaimed documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by former US Vice President Al Gore about global warming, was still fresh in the memory. It detailed how carbon emissions were contributing towards the melting of the polar ice caps causing the world to heat up.

Like Gore, Gavin’s interest in climate change went back to college when he studied energy and environment at what was then Newcastle Polytechnic.

He said: “The more I’ve looked into it the more fascinating it has become.”

He is quick to admit that he hasn’t got the scientific background of those who have spent a lifetime studying climate change. What he has brought to the table is his enthusiasm for the subject, his tracking of the arguments and a desire to make sense of a blizzard of information, so to speak.

To simplify, the basis of his theory seems to be sunspot activity, or rather the lack of it. Sunspots are dark, cooler patches on the sun’s surface that come and go in cycles.

They were absent in the 17th century – a period called the “Maunder Minimum” named after the scientist, Edward Maunder, who spotted it. Crucially, it has been observed that the periods when the sun’s activity is high and low are related to warm and cool climatic periods. The weak sun in the 17th century coincided with the so-called Little Ice Age. The Sun took a dip between 1790 and 1830 and the earth also cooled a little. It was weak during the cold Iron Age, and active during the warm Bronze Age.
More on page 2 at link


----------



## 57Chevy (6 Dec 2010)

Climate change causing more violent wildfires: study

Climate change is causing wildfires in the North to burn more violently, which could cause global warming to snowball as it feeds off its own byproducts, according to research released Monday led by an assistant professor at the University of Guelph.

The "runaway scenario" hinges on the fact that the fires are pumping significantly more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than previously thought, said Merritt Turetsky, who teaches in the university’s department of integrative biology.

The increased gases result in more warming which, in turn, leads to fiercer fires and, again, more gases, she explained.

The team of researchers published their findings of this damaging and potentially widespread effect of climate change as delegations from nearly 200 countries gather in Cancun, Mexico to draft a legally-binding environmental treaty with a focus on curbing global warming.

"Just a few degrees of warming of the Earth’s surface is going to have really fundamental shifts for Canadians, like increased droughts in the summer, longer snow-free seasons, and changes in agriculture," Turetsky said. "People hear a lot about climate change, but if they take it more seriously, if they understand it can impact their lives directly, I think politicians will get the idea that they need to start reflecting those societal concerns."

The impacts of global warming are felt particularly sternly in the North, she said, explaining that the higher volume of greenhouse gas emitted from fires is a consequence of the thawing of the northern soil, known as permafrost.

Carbon has been accumulating in the northern permafrost and peatland soils for thousands of years. About half of the world’s soil carbon is locked in that ground.

"The ecosystems are burning more severely, initiating the permafrost thaw and making a lot more carbon available for burning in the future," Turetsky said.

This study is another drop in much larger and growing body of proof that climate change is having dire effects in northern regions, the researchers said.

And although it’s not impossible to break the cycle these researchers uncovered, it’s unlikely, Turetsky said.

"Given the current structure of the boreal forest, it’s not likely," she said. "For anything to change the track of this runaway train, the boreal forest would have to act very differently than it does today."

But the cycle won’t go on indefinitely, said Eric Kasischke, a professor of biogeography at the University of Maryland who started this research project in the early 1990s.

The runaway scenario will probably continue for several decades and eventually lead to a complete shift in forest type, which will also lead to fewer fires, he said.

But such a shift will have a cascading effect on all living organisms in the North, he warned.

"The shift can destroy the habitat for the caribou, for example. So those populations are likely to drop, and moose populations are likely to increase, because they like the shrubs that come back after the severe fires," Kasischke said.

"And eventually it will affect people living in the higher northern areas, as they’re forced to shift their resources and refocus their hunting habits."

To collect the data for this study, which will be published in Nature Geosciences, researchers visited almost 200 sites in Alaska shortly after fires had been extinguished, and measured the amount of biomass that had burnt.

The group is undertaking similar studies in the Canadian boreal forests.
article link
                          (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## Haletown (8 Dec 2010)

The core of the global warming scam . . .

"One of the most disturbing things we learned from Climategate is that academic peer-review can be startlingly superficial. Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (the source of the Climategate e-mails), told a UK parliamentary committee in March that, in all his years of publishing papers in reputable journals such as Nature and Science, no one has ever asked to examine his raw data or his computer code.

In drug trials, raw data and computer codes are inspected as a matter of course. A new kind of aspirin receives orders of magnitude more scrutiny than does the sort of research routinely cited by the IPCC. This means that governments are making trillion-dollar climate decisions based on IPCC reports that rely on data no one has ever double-checked."

Wonderful . . .  $trillions of dollars in economic decisions and nobody bothers to check the data or even think it is necessary to check the data.

Or worse, doesn't want their data checked because they know how thin gruel it really is.

Now that is how you run a scam !

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-powerful-new-research-tool/


----------



## Haletown (8 Dec 2010)

The Moonbats & Gorebots slurping tequila jello shots down in Cancun have convinced themselves the globe is going to de-carbonize.  Ya, and the Leafs will win the cup.

Then reality bites and it is like their worst hangover  . . .

"U.S. domestic production for the year will be 140,000 barrels a day higher than last year (which was 410,000 barrels a day higher than 2008). Although the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says U.S. production will decline next year, who knows?

Could these numbers reflect the beginning of the end for U.S. dependence on Mideast oil? Well, in fact, they could be. As Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes optimistically asserted the other day, the whole world is “awash in energy.”

Mr. Forbes isn’t the only one to notice. As an article last month in The New York Times observed: “Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.” Further still: “Another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia.”"


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/north-america-the-new-energy-kingdom/article1828896/


----------



## Haletown (8 Dec 2010)

the de-marketing of Alberta's Oil industry.

American imperialism lives !

Vivian has been doing some amazing research the sell-out of our environmental movement to the bidding of rich Americans pushing a greenie agenda.

watch the video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WIjHYyIOgk&feature=player_embedded#!



Vivian blogs here.

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/i


----------



## jhk87 (9 Dec 2010)

Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system. I do wonder if there is a similar level of self-checks and accountability mechanisms at "nofrakkingconsensus"?


----------



## Haletown (10 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system.



Uh huh.   I have a bridge for sale, a nice lovely bridge, just for you.

Good price, almost free today.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2010)

Coffee all over the keyboard!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/



> *Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy*
> Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts
> 
> Oh dear, some of these folks aren’t the brightest CFL’s in the room.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (10 Dec 2010)

Penn & Teller did the same gag on a similar group of thin brained wannbe be goody-goody geenies seen to be saving the planet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw


----------



## Journeyman (10 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system.


Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.


----------



## Haletown (10 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.



They put up a webcam so we can all see the huge piles of snow in the CRU parking lot that has resulted from and absolutely proves Global Warming is real, accelerating, killing polar bears, puppy dogs and fluffy kittens.

Now if only we could get a webcam at the North Pole so we could see all that open water.


----------



## jhk87 (10 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Uh huh.   I have a bridge for sale, a nice lovely bridge, just for you.
> 
> Good price, almost free today.



Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.



Before asking for citations, proof, etc, perhaps you should provide all the ones you've been asked for first.


----------



## Haletown (10 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.



Bluster?  Can't you even recognize mockery when you are being goosed?

If you think or know something is wrong with Donna's work then tell us . . yer a smart dude so it should be easy for a goody Believer to find the errors.

And please, no more simplistic attempts to change the debate with grade 2 schoolyard "challenges"  . . . this topic is for adults.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2010)

The whole point of the ruckus was that EA did not allow their data to be examined externally thereby forcing people to accept their word at face value.  

The alternative proposition is that statements are made, hypotheses are proposed and evidence adduced and thus people are free to accept or reject the information available on their own appreciation of the relative merits.

"Self-checking" is an admirable trait, if you don't want to be embarassed. If you don't mind being embarassed then it is not strictly speaking "necessary".  

On the other hand "self-checking" can never be a substitute for open discourse - especially when we are talking about a publicly funded institution, using publicly available (and funded) data and offering prescriptions to government. 

I don't really mind if any of the blogs get it wrong.  They are offering an opinion for free.  EA, on the other hand, are charging a mint for their opinions and potentially going to cost me and my grandkids gazillions more if the government ever acts on their suggestions.

Interestingly the blogs seem more willing to describe the assumptions on which their conclusions are based.....right or wrong.

So EA can "self-check" to its heart's content...... I still will want the data to be available so that their assumptions can be challenged....just like mine are.


----------



## jhk87 (11 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Before asking for citations, proof, etc, perhaps you should provide all the ones you've been asked for first.



http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/


----------



## jhk87 (11 Dec 2010)

Call it whatever you want - goosing, ducking,or anything else - what kind of checks to these sceptic blogs and websites that are being foisted up here as sources have? None. And this challenge has not been addressed.


----------



## Haletown (11 Dec 2010)

So after two weeks in Cancun, suffering under day after day of record setting cold temperatures, 20,000 delegates agreed to agree that what they agreed to last year in Copenhagen was progress and they have declared  Victory !!

Excellent progress in the war against global warming.  Excellent.

Cue the laugh track.

The real laughs will now happen when all the 3rd world rent seekers start fighting over the$100b fund that was set up last year.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> And this challenge has not been addressed.


Nor has mine.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Call it whatever you want - goosing, ducking,or anything else - what kind of checks to these sceptic blogs and websites that are being foisted up here as sources have? None. And this challenge has not been addressed.



You are the check.  UEA is the check.  The IPCC is the check.   It is a debate.


----------



## Haletown (11 Dec 2010)

If climate science politics were a hockey game…oh, wait


I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out.
-Rodney Dangerfield (1921 – 2004)

…not surprisingly, the United Nations’ 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, is failing, with Mother Nature helping to dampen warming fears as an early winter sets in across the Northern Hemisphere.

Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning. If this were a hockey game, the first period would have just ended with a couple of quick goals by climate realists.

But alarmists built up a 5-0 lead while realists were still learning to play. The score is now 5-2, with most of the game yet to go. While it is appropriate for realists to revel in their late-period success, it is vastly premature to celebrate.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/11/if-climate-science-politics-were-a-hockey-game-oh-wait/#more-29235


Great video . . .  Don Cherry would approve.


----------



## jhk87 (11 Dec 2010)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You are the check.  UEA is the check.  The IPCC is the check.   It is a debate.



This seems like far less of a debate and more of a shouting match reinforced by silly youtube links.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Dec 2010)

more like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwirWWnzJKM


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Dec 2010)

More like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2010)

No it isn't.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Dec 2010)

This just goes to show that the UN delegates at the climate conference in Cancun haven't got a clue.

*UN delegates sign petition to ban water*

Many of the delegates at the UN climate conference in Cancun, Mexico, have signed a petition to ban dihydrous monoxide, a key ingredient in climate change, acid rain and a chemical that is fatal if inhaled.

It's also vital to all life on Earth and is pumped into homes as a basic service. Dihydrous monoxide is the chemical term for water.

A group of college students called Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, circulated the fake petition at the conference this week.

"It was designed to show that if official UN delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything," the group wrote on its website.

"Almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all-too dangerous substance."

More at link


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2010)

You're a little late Moe:

Reply #1424 on: December 10, 2010, 08:56:23


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You're a little late Moe:
> 
> Reply #1424 on: December 10, 2010, 08:56:23



D'oh!  SHows you how interested I am in climate "change".


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2010)

Making fun of the global warming thingy is too easy . .  it is a very target rich environment.

Very hard to keep up with the latest laughs &  keep aware of their latest buffoonery.

Although I don't usually make fun of religion, the whole gaia worship fad  is just to tempting.  

Some people actually believe Avatar is a documentary !  Go figure


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2010)

it just keeps rolling in  . . .   ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-F8EO3qOVk&feature=player_embedded


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Some people actually believe Avatar is a documentary !  Go figure


Funny you mention that, because in Avatar 2, Earth comes back and rains nuclear death upon that planet, and scrapes together all the unobtainium it wants.  And there's nothing that those blue monkeys could do about it ;D


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Funny you mention that, because in Avatar 2, Earth comes back and rains nuclear death upon that planet, and scrapes together all the unobtainium it wants.  And there's nothing that those blue monkeys could do about it ;D



Wow; I'm ordering the Blu-Ray today! 

You've restored my faith in James Cameron's ability to make movies  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wow; I'm ordering the Blu-Ray today!
> 
> You've restored my faith in James Cameron's ability to make movies  ;D ;D ;D


It's actually only five minutes long.  I'm not sure if Sir James is involved ;D



(Now I await the sting of PMs asking me for a link to a non-existant movie) ;D


----------



## TheHead (15 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Making fun of the global warming thingy is too easy . .  it is a very target rich environment.
> 
> Very hard to keep up with the latest laughs &  keep aware of their latest buffoonery.
> 
> ...




  And who exactly believes Avatar is a documentary?


----------



## HavokFour (15 Dec 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> And who exactly believes Avatar is a documentary?



http://nicholasmead.com/2010/05/02/avatar-a-good-documentary-for-kids/

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=224902539692

Just to name a few. I'd pull up the discussions I found on some PETA sites, but they give me hives.


----------



## TheHead (15 Dec 2010)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> http://nicholasmead.com/2010/05/02/avatar-a-good-documentary-for-kids/
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=224902539692
> 
> Just to name a few. I'd pull up the discussions I found on some PETA sites, but they give me hives.





Ahh well there is a big difference between docudrama and documentary.   I can't look at the facebook link at work though I'll take a look at it later.


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Dec 2010)

I got your global warming right here;


----------



## Journeyman (15 Dec 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Ahh well there is a big difference between docudrama and documentary.


Ahhhh, perhaps similar to the difference between the IPCC's discredited science saying global warming is entirely my fault because I don't drive a SmartCar or a Segway.....and the historically-evident, inevitable swings in global warming trends.


----------



## TheHead (15 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, perhaps similar to the difference between the IPCC's discredited science saying global warming is entirely my fault because I don't drive a SmartCar or a Segway.....and the historically-evident, inevitable swings in global warming trends.



  Could be.   I don't pretend to know all the science or myths behind global warming.


----------



## Haletown (15 Dec 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> And who exactly believes Avatar is a documentary?



The same people who think An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary.

And their friends


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2010)

Revised, now that I've simmered down from a debate elsewhere.

Here's actually a great link condensing the Fox News' efforts to claim "ClimateGate" was a scandal when in fact, the scientific community remains pretty clear and not less than three independent investigations have made clear that anthropogenic climate change is real, it is a threat, and it must be dealt with in some manner.  It seems FauxNews is getting hit with its own leaks scandal.  Good.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012150004

Nothing bothers me more than people missing the fact that the East Anglia "scandal" was nothing of the sort, and that there's some willingness by people to simply disregard what seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence that something is happening, and that we'd better put our minds to doing something about it.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Dec 2010)

Ad Hominem attacks lend nothing to the discussion. If you disagree with a viewpoint, you can at least be polite in your discussion. Calling those with other viewpoints names only demonstrates an inability to support one's argument with rational discourse.


And no, I'm not a fan or supporter of Fox News.


----------



## Haletown (15 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> "ClimateGate" was a scandal when in fact, the scientific community remains pretty clear and not less than three independent investigations have made clear that anthropogenic climate change is real



You've been conned buddy.

Not one of the EA CRU Investigations looked into  any of the science or data or results of the "science" revealed by Climategate.  They did some good lunches however.

Not one. Not the first, not the second or the last.  They were government "bury the problem" inquiries, no science or science evaluation involved.

And if you think MediaMatters is a neutral organization sans agenda . . .  want to buy a bridge?


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2010)

Buddy, even if you exclude EVERYTHING that "Climategate" was about - all the CRU's evidence, there's still massive amounts of evidence out there.

Arguing that climate change isn't real is like arguing for creationism, a pretty good way to wind up the laughing stock of the scientific community.

And yeah, MMFA has a well-known editorial slant - as does EVERY media outlet, blog, etc.  But they also provide all the source material.  And there's plenty of other sources.  I like this one because it pulls together lots.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> You've been conned buddy.
> 
> Not one of the EA CRU Investigations looked into  any of the science or data or results of the "science" revealed by Climategate.  They did some good lunches however.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (15 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Ad Hominem attacks lend nothing to the discussion. If you disagree with a viewpoint, you can at least be polite in your discussion. Calling those with other viewpoints names only demonstrates an inability to support one's argument with rational discourse.
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not a fan or supporter of Fox News.



Revised accordingly.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Dec 2010)

Imagine the horror of these guys laughing at you:







I think that the scepticism is healthy.  Especially when sceptics are "dismissed" so casually.  I don't think the issue of "climate change" is such that people don't see changes; however, let me illustrate one example.  Hurricane Katrina is often put forth as an example of the effects of anthropromorphic climate change because New Orleans was flooded.  Oddly, it was the after effects of Katrina that caused that damage, not the hurricane itself.  As well, the disaster was more due to faulty civil engineering than anything else.  After all, doesn't it lie below sea level?  But sceptics are pointed at and laughed at with such vigour that it bothers me.  So, instead of showing how we (humans) are causing the climate to change, shady data is presented.  The East Anglia emails only raise more questions.


Having said all this, it makes perfect sense to reduce or eliminate (if possible) pollutants from entering our environment.


----------



## Haletown (15 Dec 2010)

OK . . .  in summary 

Climate changes . . . it is supposed to change. Climate is a dynamic chaotic energy transfer system.

Dynamic + chaotic = change.  Change is good & normal.

Change is to Climate what Wet is to Water.

Humans impact Climate – yes we always have impacted climate.  So do beavers and termites

Yes scientists agree humans impact climate.  That’s a no brainer.

They don’t agree on two points – the impact of miniscule changes in the atmosphere’s composition and the second part of the AGW theory that says  CO2 causes positive feedback loops – loops that are theoretical, have yet to be measured and likely don’t exist.

So far the AGW theory has resulted numerous climate models that have been proven to not yield accurate results – when they hindcast them, the results do not reflect reality. The GCM’s don’t work at predicting the future.

The atmosphere warms up and cools down – always has, hopefully always will.  We have just come through a 30+ year scheduled warming cycle phase.  The change in temperature is not  unusual in its rate or duration . . .  totally normal.

The oceans are not rising rapidly, the polar ice caps are not dramatically melting– I checked the NSIDC yesterday and low & behold the ice coverage is over 1 Million Km2 above the average – go figure.  Tropical storm/Hurricane activity – number, intensity and Ace are way down – 60 year lows – somebody please tell Al Gore to fix his movie.


It has been a great public relations ride for the eco greenies –  those photoshopped pictures of cuddly drowning polar bears worked wonders to raise money from the gullible and they did a fantastic job at organizing governments into jumping on the bandwagon.  How could anyone be against “saving the planet”.

The unfortunate part of any con job is when reality imposes itself on the wild & crazy eco hysterical claims. That is what is happening now – reality diverging from the forecast of doom & gloom.

But you can believe whatever you want . . .


----------



## TheHead (15 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The same people who think An Inconvenient Truth is a documentary.
> 
> And their friends




      Ahh I see you're just making shit up now.


----------



## Haletown (15 Dec 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Ahh I see you're just making crap up now.



I prefer to think of it as educated speculation.  Herds tend to stick together.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2010)

If you go upthread a few pages you can read some of the actual "Climategate" emails.

Emails planning boycotts of Science journals which demanded methodology and raw data along with the papers the AGW crew were submitting. 
Emails on how to transfer large sums of money from "carbon exchanges" without attracting tax. 
Emails suggesting ignoring legal demands to produce evidence in the form of raw data and methodology.

There are other posts where the various actors specifically state their intentions likehere, or simply reveal themselves to be hypocrites of the first order (Al Gore telling us to reduce carbon emissions from one of his three mansions while being ferried around in a private jet) or totally ignorant of science at all (Cancun delegates signing petitions to ban "Dihydrogen Oxide").

It is things like the "Hockey stick" graph which are "made up crap", and the response demanded by the AGW/Global warming/Climate change crowd which has little to do with climate or science at all and everything to do with getting funding and influence, and pushing a particular and destructive set of policies on the Western world.

Climate is indeed changing (just ask the Scottish wine makers who had a profitable business until the 1400's), mankind will adjust as we have done in the past. Schemes to transfer wealth from the productive to the unproductive on a global scale will simply reduce and retard the ability to make those adjustments, and vastly increase any suffering caused by natural climate changes.


----------



## Redeye (16 Dec 2010)

The reality is that every model I've read seems to predict that positive feedback loop (ie accelerating change at an accelerating rate), as well as other significant non-climate related problems of unrestrained CO2 emissions like ocean acidification.   See, carbon dioxide dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, screwing with pH levels and thus the chemistry of the ocean.  That causes problems with trophics, you start screwing with life at the bottom of the food chain, and well, I shouldn't need to explain anything else, this is pretty much Grade 9 science.

The thing I don't get is why some people get all up in arms about the concept of ecological stewardship.  That we have dramatically altered the planet is undeniable, and that the repercussions of doing so are potentially very severe is equally obvious.  One wonders when we'll wind up like the guy on Easter Island cutting down the last tree.  As the quotation, attributed to various people, goes, "Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught... Only then will you find that you cannot eat money."

And more interestingly, there's simply a lot of money to be made in the process of altering our consumption patterns to be sustainable.  The technological development potential is huge.  I'm in the process of planning to build a house, and the technologies I am looking at to incorporate into my design will add to my building costs potentially but in the long run (and not even that long, really, a matter of a few of years in most cases), the money they will save me makes them completely worth it.  Things like ICF construction, drain heat recovery systems, all fascinating to me, and good investments if they keep my costs of home ownership down and happen to reduce the amount of fossil fuels that I consume.  Same with my choice of car (a diesel engine, I wish some of the diesel-electric hybrids sold in Europe were available here).  In Nova Scotia where I live I don't know if a plug-in hybrid would be a good option given that virtually all our power comes from coal, oil, and gas, but once I see how they pan out for reliability it's also something I'd give a serious look.

The massive amount of money being pumped into trying to claim that CO2 isn't a problem by those who stand to lose if we shift our consumption habits is what seems to be distorting the discussion.  Look at the effort to vilify "The Story Of Stuff", a rather simple video about sustainability which I cannot seem to find anything factually incorrect about... it's just "inconvenient" to suggest that we can't go on consuming resources forever when they are finite.  And the fact that people still talk about "Climategate" as though it meant anything is just showing the power of that lobbying effort.

Capitalism and environmental stewardship can coexist - but the reality is that regulation must force them to for the time being though I think over time the free market will accomplish much of what's needed as people learn more sustainability and realize that the choices are actually workable (or better).


----------



## Haletown (16 Dec 2010)

Donna does lyrics . . .

1
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me a climate bible with integrity.

2
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

3
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

4
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

5
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

6
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

7
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

8
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

9
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

10
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

11
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-11 dirty pools
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

12
On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me
-12 lumps of coal
-11 dirty pools
-10 student experts
-9 pine tree cones
-8 cut-off dates
-7 pressure groups
-6 pal reviews
-of 5 hockey sticks
-4 big reports
-3 working groups
-2 flying pigs
-and a climate bible with integrity.

I’m no vocalist, but would be thrilled if someone cared to record an MP3 or make a video. Let me know about it and I’ll post and/or link to it (e-mail me: Donna AT noconsensus.org).


----------



## Haletown (16 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The reality is that every model I've read seems to predict that positive feedback loop (ie accelerating change at an accelerating rate)



ALL the models predict positive feedback loops.  Warming caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is an old theory . . been around since the mid 1800's. When the current round of fear & hysteria popped up in the mid 80's someone pointed out that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't have a linear effect - it is logarithmic , so they dreamed up the Part 2 of the AGW theory - Positive Feedback Loops.  

The problem the Warmistas have is that they can't find the predicted Positive Feedback . . because they don'texist.  This is why the dozen+ or so General Circulation Models don't actually predict the future - we know this - the models have been hindcasted and when we run actual numbers through the computers they "predict" something that didn't and won't happen.


So if you want to base Public Policy - and the spending of hundreds of billions of public dollars trying to limit CO2 production  instead of spending it on better hospitals and schools, that is your right.

Not something I think is a good use of scarce tax resources, not something that has a positive Opportunity Cost, but then I have been watching this public relations scam for years and have made moves to protect myself from the resulting public policy stupidity.

It is a both fascinating and amusing to watch this event rise up in the public debate, take hold and now struggle to maintain its hold on the public.  It is really over, but the Warmistas have such a huge vested interest in the scam  that they will continue to fight desperate rear guard actions to save their reputations and their perceived political power.

The tragedy is the damage being down to the credibility of the real Environmental movement which will not be trusted in the future after this con is slowly revealed.  

Once an eco-grifter, always an eco-grifter?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Dec 2010)

For Redeye, 

For the record I started out 5 or 6 years ago on your side of the argument.  The problem was that there were questions that were asked in some debates that made me think....and then I went and did further due diligence to research what I was being told.  I'm not going to try to change your mind directly as I think that's a waste of time.  Unfortunately this debate has become much more theological than rational with people associating with alarmism in particular as a type of personal brand (I'm for Global Warming, therefore I'm a good environmentalist, therefore I'm a good person).  

What I would do is challenge you to spend some time on the sceptic sites.  If your hypothesis is true, it will always stand up to alternate models and counterarguemnts.  Since I've moved the to skeptic side of the debate I regularly frequent the alarmists sites just to look for new information that overrides my current model....primarily because I believe this to be the most intellectually healthy way to assess anything.

In any case, ball is in your court....hope to hear back in a couple of weeks how you did check out the skeptic sites, looked at their primary arguments (in particular the urban heat sink impact on surface sites, and the southern shift of surface sites for data collection, and why the computer models being touted as accurate are not backtestable - that is that results are not at all what the models have been predicting, etc.) and have comfortably countered all those arguments.

Best wishes on your intellectual adventure....


Cheers, Matthew.   

P.S.  Just as a little further background, although I disagree with Manmade Climate Change, I absolutely am an environmentalist.  My frustration with so-called Climate Change action is that I think it steals funds away from projects that are so much important (heavy metals in our water and air, and the denuding of both our forests and oceans).  Governments I believe are currently playing with budgets measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars....Small example:  Imagine how much rainforest or other critical ecosystem that could be purchased and protected as a National Parks FOREVER with even a fraction of that money?  How much land could we reforest?  You can do your own math....but regardless of anything else, make sure you do assess the opportunity costs and specifically "What else could we be doing with that money and is it more environmentally friendly in the long run for the planet?".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2010)

Everybody here is way too intense. I really don't give a fuck.

My stance is..........when I can grow bananas in my backyard, I'll be happy.


----------



## Haletown (17 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everybody here is way too intense. I really don't give a frig.
> 
> My stance is..........when I can grow bananas in my backyard, I'll be happy.



I'm with you man . . .  banana trees in the backyard to provide shade for my outdoor beer fridge.


----------



## jhk87 (17 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> OK . . .  in summary
> 
> Climate changes . . . it is supposed to change. Climate is a dynamic chaotic energy transfer system.
> 
> ...



This is the problem precisely. You have your line of reasoning. People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.

I do find it interesting, though, that you of all people derided  _ad hominem_ attacks, and then go on the offensive against, well, anyone who disagrees with you on a personal level.



> ALL the models predict positive feedback loops.  Warming caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere is an old theory . . been around since the mid 1800's. When the current round of fear & hysteria popped up in the mid 80's someone pointed out that adding CO2 to the atmosphere doesn't have a linear effect - it is logarithmic , so they dreamed up the Part 2 of the AGW theory - Positive Feedback Loops.



Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain, and scientific organisation tend to b very conservative. Around the 1980s, enough evidence had ammassed to support a boom in research. This is a normal scientific process.

We are seeing positive feedback loops in effect - even now, some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is no coincidence that Russia is having record wildfires.

Also, if you claim that the scientific community - nearly all of it - is biased, then why don't you take claims from think-tanks and industry with a similar sceptical attittude?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> This is the problem precisely. You have your line of reasoning. People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.



Go look in the mirror :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain,



How egotistical.
If "our understanding" was that certain today I hardly think we would have a thread 59 pages long, and counting, on a website that really exists for a whole another topic.


----------



## Haletown (17 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Go look in the mirror :



Amen bro . . .  can't say we didn't try but I haven't the time or patience to help any Warmistas any more.

Have to go do my Christmas shopping.  

Sure hope Santa can get his sled airborne what with all the melted North Pole & stuff.  

Maybe he's using pontoons now ?


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Dec 2010)

May I suggest a book that at least raises some questions about the veracity of the data? Try _The Hockey Stick Illusion. Climategate and the Corruption of Science_ by A. W. Montford. 

Warning - its title indicates its point of view. Having said that, it takes a reasoned approach. It also is very hard going in places when the author dissects the statistics behind the analysis. Bascially he asserts that some basic rules of statistics have been broken, knowingly or not, and this has skewed the results in favour of the manmade global warming thesis. 

If nothing else, it raises some points regarding the scientific method employed by the climate science community.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe [sic] about it than you do, disagree. They, in turn, are branded as wrong, corrupt or worse.


Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to _ad hominum_ reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification. 
In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

Thus far, you've repeatedly dodged the request and posted irrelevantly that "some of the southern permafrost is softening, and it is _no coincidence_ that Russia is having record wildfires."

* No one is arguing against the world getting warmer * 

The point is how much of it is naturally cyclic (there's a reason Greenland was named _Green_land) and how much is my personal fault because I own a Jeep and a Harley? IPCC has been unable to produce credible evidence to support the latter proposition's gloom & doom to justify legislation that my lifestyle and taxable income must suffer. 

You are more than free to wring your hands and gnash your teeth. 
But if you have no evidence beyond the discredited IPCC (see the clarification requested three-times), relying instead upon unsubstantiated supposition ("it's no coincidence....), 
* ....then keep your hands out of my wallet.  *


ps:


> Actually, the reason that the theories weren't taken seriously in the early 19th century was because our understanding was not certain,


 _Actually_.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue


----------



## jhk87 (17 Dec 2010)

When have I ever called cliamte sceptics a corrupt cabal? This habit of one-liners which deflect any sort of challenge to the sceptical line of reasoning on this thread really has to stop if it will be of benefit to anyone.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far mroe about it than you do, disagree.



Let me fix that for you :

"People who, in all reasonable likelihood, know far more about it than you do, *cannot even agree amongst themselves*."

The falacy of the whole crisis has been show clearly enough. "Climategate" was just the final nail.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to _ad hominum_ reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
> In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
> Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.
> 
> ...



Actually, the problem is because of the following we can't actually tell if the world is warming:
1.  Weather Stations being located in increasingly urban areas where concrete jungle acts as heat sink for solar radiation (vs previous years when data gathering occurred in more rural areas free of such a heat sink effect).
2.  Shifting of weather stations to the south and yet still "averaging".  Saw recent GISS temperature map that had eliminated the most northerly station and instead has used 1,200 km smoothing to 'extrapolate' the warmer southern temperatures north (and when you think about the size of the land mass that impacts, its impossible to beleive that doesn't skew the numbers up).
3.  Outright manipulation of temperature data by some weather services (won't comment if this is out of self-interest as they like the travel to places like Bali and Cancun, or out of Machiavellian belief that the ends justify the means in terms of "Saving the Environment", or a combination of both). 

Bottom Line:  I'm not confident the planet actually is warming....only that where the alarmists are choosing to measure is getting warmer if you take the data they're providing at face value (which is something they at this point haven't earned).  It would be a very interesting statistical analysis to compare only the rural gathering stations to eliminate the urban heat sink factor as see what we have then.

Until then, I'll focus on protecting rainforest and other critical ecosystem....I should add that I find the motives of the alarmists highly dubious when with the hundreds of billions of dollars they are trying to command they say not-a-word about the rampant deforestation that is taking place.....


Matthew.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2010)

I posted:


> I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
> In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
> Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.




You responded:


			
				jhk87 said:
			
		

> When have I ever called cliamte sceptics a corrupt cabal? This habit of one-liners which deflect any sort of challenge to the sceptical line of reasoning on this thread really has to stop if it will be of benefit to anyone.



You are what we call "a troll." You make declarative statements, and when asked for clarification, you waffle. (At this stage, I felt "obfusticate" had too many sylables).

You are clearly of the camp, "if I repeat something often enough, it will become fact"


Oh, and Cdn Blackshirt apparently doesn't believe the earth is warming. I do.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Dec 2010)

I didn't say I didn't believe it was warming....I said that after doing a lot of digging I don't believe in the data being provided to us which says that the planet is warming (inferring I'd like an unconflicted 3rd party to start collecting and distributing it).

As an example, as air traffic increased in the last 20 years, what bias do you think is being collected by the following station [note: I just remembered seeing this photo earlier and it's not quite as terrible as it looks....that's more a parking mat as opposed to a runway....can post different shots if others would prefer or they can do their own assessments at www.surfacestations.org]


----------



## jhk87 (17 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I posted:
> 
> You responded:
> You are what we call "a troll." You make declarative statements, and when asked for clarification, you waffle. (At this stage, I felt "obfusticate" had too many sylables).
> ...




Actually, I posted the link to the Inter-Academy Council's IPCC review site. Besides making accusations of torlling and asking the same question over and over, what are you doing?


----------



## Haletown (17 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, I posted the link to the Inter-Academy Council's IPCC review site. Besides making accusations of torlling and asking the same question over and over, what are you doing?



Do you mean the infamous Inter-Academy Council  that spends huge $bucks, operates in secret and just like the Team at CRU and elsewhere refuses to release their data ?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/missing-documents-unfulfilled-promises/

Maybe it is a different Council Inter-Academy Council.


You seem to be  very trusting of "authority"  . . .   if I made a reference to Pigs, Milk & Apples would you understand ?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ps: _Actually_.....you do understand that the early 19th century spanned 1800-1820ish -- global warming wasn't really an issue



This your point JM? - The Year Without Summer

And there's nothing in my wallet for him to pick....the power of plastic.


----------



## jhk87 (18 Dec 2010)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> How egotistical.
> If "our understanding" was that certain today I hardly think we would have a thread 59 pages long, and counting, on a website that really exists for a whole another topic.



There are also forums and books and citizens' groups devoted to debating the theory of evolution. It hardly means there's a problem with the theory of evolution.


----------



## jhk87 (18 Dec 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not wishing to be branded as one resorting to _ad hominum_ reasoning, I have asked you (now THREE times) simply for clarification.
> In response to YOUR claim of tangible improvements to IPCC, I've asked:
> Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.
> 
> ...



Actually, any time any other evidence has been brought forward, it has been ignored or countered with a sceptic blog. See previous posts.


----------



## jhk87 (18 Dec 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Do you mean the infamous Inter-Academy Council  that spends huge $bucks, operates in secret and just like the Team at CRU and elsewhere refuses to release their data ?
> 
> http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/missing-documents-unfulfilled-promises/
> 
> ...



I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.

Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.


----------



## Haletown (18 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.



Please tell us why you think Donna's website is biased . . .  she puts out facts, not opinions

The fact that all those "impartial" scientists have hung their careers on the global warming bandwagon is a reason for them to support their cause. . . .  no hairy scary global warming and no more R&D money shoveled off the truck for them,  no more trips to Bali & Cancun and no more flattering, fawning press telling us & them how they are saving the world. Scientists are humans too, subject to the foibles of ego and they crave fame & glory just like everyone else.


They profit from the AGW hysteria, Donna doesn't get paid to do it . . .  so who's the honest broker in the debate.   Same same for Steve McIntyre and a host of others who have  an honest interest in the topic and refuse to stop thinking because Al Gore says "the debate is over".  

Scientists and scientific consensus have been wrong before . . . think about " the earth is flat" or "the sun revolves around the earth" or more recently "ulcers are caused by stress".  

The question if you would understand a reference to pigs, milk & apples was asked in all honesty to find out if you did understand how people with a political agenda use the  authority of science to stop discussion.  Deference to authority is a well used political control mechanism and my question was put forward as just that  - a question to see if you were aware.  

Since you get the Orwell reference, do you think there is a possibility, a probability, it could be going in with respect to the global warming issue?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> I generally take experts seriously, as apparently, you take outrageously biased websites very seriously. Especially when the experts have years of education and a career in their field to worry about. Those making poartisan websites hardly have the same level of accountability. This has been the point. What sort of accountability does nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv have? None. This is the point that has been dodged and dodged and dodged.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to use Orwell references in an attempt to be demeaning, don't accuse others of trolling.



Since, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple fora, these "experts" are hiding and manipulating data and pushing for one and only one interpretation of their position (and working very hard to demonize equally qualified scientists who happen to disagree with the interpretation fo the data or the hypothesis [I one spent a very fascinating afternoon with Dr Chris Essex, who not only outlined how much Climate change alarmists manipulated the data, but also many personal anecdotes on how he, personally was the recipient of tactics like being blackballed form attending or presenting at conferences, pressure applied against his employer, disinvited from TV shows where he was to present etc.]), perhaps these experts are using their credentials for a different purpose.

Like the man said, "follow the money" and the alarmist's motivations spring into sharp focus. A checksum of sorts can be made in medicine, during the Nixon Administration a "War on Cancer" was declared, and suddenly a mad rush was on to demonstrate that any and all research projects really did have a direct bearing on cancer. Flash forward to the 80's and the same thing happened with AIDs.

Now since it is trivially easy to debunk AGW and other climate alarmist positions (for example, the temperature of Mars is rising and falling in close synchronization with that of the Earth, so unless you can prove NASA has sent millions of SUV's to explore Mars we really don't have to go any farther), then it is up to you to interpret the actions and motivations of the climate alarmists. Since you are apparently willing to simply follow "expert opinion" without question, and use ad homienem attacks rather than examine and present arguments based on the facts, I will leave you at this point. Reality is catching up with climate alarmists and they are fast becoming irrelevant in the current political climate anyway (heh).

If you want to enter a debate and take action for the long term good of Canada and the world, focus on economics. If you want to take personal action in that arena (or protect yourself from foolish politicians and greedy bureaucrats), clear you personal debts.


----------



## Haletown (18 Dec 2010)

Ok, I wasn't going to do this but in the spirit of Christmas I am inspired to share some background info related to the this Global Warming Super Thread.  Just for the entertainment value, to illustrate the quality of debate, the intellectual vacuity  and the maturity of the responses the thread has provided.  

The MilPoints are a non issue, the pettiness of the attempted insults are very revealing.  


Couple of day ago, I received an email from milnet.ca:

Subject Milnet.ca: TheHead thought Haletown was Grinchy (-100 MP)

"Subject: Re: The Global Warming Super Thread
Link: http://forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/32987/post-1000377.html#msg1000377
Amount: -100 MilPoints
Notes: Oh there has been nothing educated from any of the shit you spew."

and again today . . .

Subject: Milnet.ca: TheHead thought Haletown was Inappropriate (-100 MP)
"Subject: Re: The Global Warming Super Thread
Link: http://forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/32987/post-1001154.html#msg1001154
Amount: -100 MilPoints
Notes: Once again you post like a whiney child with insults and no substance.  Nice opinion piece. "


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Dec 2010)

I'm getting pretty tired of this "My experts are right and yours are all ass clowns" rhetoric, the obfuscation and the just plain stubbornness to even glance sideways at someone else's opinion. After all these pages there is not even one iota of compromise. All the crap, from both sides has been covered more than a couple of times, and nothing new has been forthcoming for quite awhile.

Time for everyone to take a rest.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Dec 2010)

There has been a couple of requests to reopen this thread to post a couple of relevent articles.

*Here's the only warning. *  

If we get back into arguing the same old same old, with no new info. If you want to be sanctimonious and write off the other side as clowns because they don't agree with you or generally we get in to the same  :argument: as has been happening too frequently, we'll lock it again.

_*If it gets locked again, it won't get reopened as easily next time, and the offender causing the lock goes to warning*_ 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There has been a couple of requests to reopen this thread to post a couple of relevent articles.
> 
> *Here's the only warning. *
> 
> ...



My vote for the record:  Ban the offenders.  

The thread has exceptionally more value than most of the Off-Topic Stuff discussed as it is a current political, scientific and economics issue commanding budgets that approach military spending in some cases.

Many thanks for the staff's consideration....


Matthew.


----------



## Sapplicant (24 Dec 2010)

Real vs. Fake. Which christmas tree is better for the environment.


Personally, I'm on the side of the real trees. As long as there's still a market, you know for sure there's gonna be many, many, many acres of land set aside for growing trees. If global warming and greenhouse gasses truly are a threat, then this is the kind of operation that not only covers it's own "carbon footprint", but might help to cover up others as well. Unless every just burns their trees after christmas, instead of mulching them  > 


Merry Christmas everyone  :christmas happy:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm on the side of the real trees. As long as there's still a market, you know for sure there's gonna be many, many, many acres of land set aside for growing trees. If global warming and greenhouse gasses truly are a threat, then this is the kind of operation that not only covers it's own "carbon footprint", but might help to cover up others as well. Unless every just burns their trees after christmas, instead of mulching them  >
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas everyone  :christmas happy:



Yup. Just be reaaaaalllllll careful with them. 
I wonder how many carbon credits one of these is worth  

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


----------



## Sapplicant (25 Dec 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wonder how many carbon credits one of these is worth
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPyrJbKJpIY



Well, look at it this way...

That house won't be using anymore AC, heating, power for appliances, etc...
And, if the cars were in the garage....

Plus, when they rebuild, they can have have it built to LEED standards!  ;D


----------



## jhk87 (25 Dec 2010)

Actually, the msot sustainable way is to "rent" a tree, whereby you basically pay  to borrow a tree that's being silvicultured and then reuturn it at the end of the season. This has several advantages, not the least of them being that you avoid having needles everywhere. Personally, I purchased a Norfolk pine - but then again, I live in an apartment anyhow.

For the sake of it, I'll post an article by Preston Manning on the subject of a "green" economy. With any luck this should break the "lie, libel, liberal/ con-servative" mould that seems to engender mud-slinging:

http://www.manningcentre.ca/content/our-quality-life-depends-green-economy

Although I disagree with his  proposed methodology - creating a carbon market isn't really going to work - his central idea, that environmental degradation is bad not just for the environment, but the economy as well, highlights the falsity of the "economy-vs-environment" dichotomy.


----------



## Sapplicant (26 Dec 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> Actually, the msot sustainable way is to "rent" a tree, whereby you basically pay  to borrow a tree that's being silvicultured and then reuturn it at the end of the season. This has several advantages, not the least of them being that you avoid having needles everywhere. Personally, I purchased a Norfolk pine - but then again, I live in an apartment anyhow.
> 
> For the sake of it, I'll post an article by Preston Manning on the subject of a "green" economy. With any luck this should break the "lie, libel, liberal/ Conservative" mould that seems to engender mud-slinging:
> 
> ...



Not to burst your bubble, but most family Christmas trees are either Balsam Fir, or Fraser Fir. The root structure on one of those at 8-10 years old is not going to allow for renting. Also, the most sustainable way would be to plant and cut your own. In fact, planting 2 for every tree you cut takes it a step further.

Yes, for someone in a little apartment, a little pine will do. But, look at the bigger picture, and the main demographic of the consumer.


----------



## shamu (30 Dec 2010)

This is an article that appears in Skeptic Magazine - Vol. 15, 2010.  For those not familiar with Skeptic Magazine it takes a critical, logical view of claims like 9-11 conspiracies, aliens, astrology, big foot, evolution, moon landing hoax, so on. 

This is the article:

http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Dec 2010)

shamu said:
			
		

> This is an article that appears in Skeptic Magazine - Vol. 15, 2010.  For those not familiar with Skeptic Magazine it takes a critical, logical view of claims like 9-11 conspiracies, aliens, astrology, big foot, evolution, moon landing hoax, so on.
> 
> This is the article:
> 
> http://www.davidbrin.com/climate3.htm



Just read it, and his fundamental argument is "Trust the Climate Scientists.  If you do not trust the Climate Scientists, you aren't part of the good guy team like me."

He says nothing to address:
1.  Surface Station locations and the urban heat sink effect on those stations over time (1940's Los Angeles is not the same as 2010 Los Angeles)
2.  The shift of Surface Stations southward, while maintaining averaging which biases the temperature record to the warming side
3.  The inability of climate scientist models to accurately predict anything accurately.  The most specific prediction the UK Met Office, the IPCC and many other climate scientists made to push Europe to arms on the issue was that "with Global Warming, snow in England and Europe would soon be a thing of the past."  The fact, they didn't predict cold winters and record snowfalls (first white Christmas in Atlanta since the 1800's and record cold in Ireland causing pipes to burst) shows how fundamentally flawed their models are.  The fact they are now trying to spin this that "Oh yeah, did we mention that warming causes cooling?" angle is another bald-faced lie driven by their Machiavellian rational.  If they had predicted "Warming would've caused cooling"....they probably would've said so.  The fact is when you go back and look at the quotes, NONE of their models ever foretold the current cold snap should highlight to everyone the credibility of those models (there's a famous quote about the reality that if you program models with 'facts' you know to be true, you only ever get the outcome you expect....in this case I think it's safe to say that they've over-prioritized CO2, and underprioritized solar energy and because of that there models always say the same things....now if we can find models that are making accurate predictions, THEN we need to look at those models an in particular the variables used as they are fare more likely to actually be correct)
4.  If it really is manmade CO2 that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, why is it these Climate Scientists always choose to congregate in tourist hotspots like Cancun and Bali that are dependent upong air travellers (and huge CO2 outputs)?  Why are they not leading the world with group teleconferencing? (or for that matter promoting telecommuting as a key plank in their environmental movement)
5.  If it really is manmade CO2 that is the straw that breaks the camel's back, why aren't any of them proposing carbon taxes at point of sale which would actually impact the ridiculous growth of emissions in China, India, Etc.?

There are many more issues such as their previous advocacy of rainforest destroying Palm Plantations providing "renewable fuels" and the fact that key contributors to the warming data set such s New Zealand's weather service admitting they manipulated the data....

Bottom Line:  Until the Warmists actually start answering those questions, it's the skeptics who are the only ones using scientific method.

So I read your article....your turn to read mine....it's looks specifically at the science of the temperature data.  If you disagree with any of it, please reply and post counterarguments.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/


Many thanks, Matthew.


----------



## shamu (30 Dec 2010)

You're right.

Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat. 

They have all, using scientific process and life times of study, time and time again, come up with the same conclusion;  human caused global warming is a fact.  It's a fact.  This is what they are teaching in your schools, from kindergarten to university.

What is funny as hell is this "conspiracy theory" you speak of. Your #4 is about as nonsensical of an argument as I've ever heard.  It's like these evil scientists are building an evil empire of lies for their own gain; free trips to Cancun. Really?  For example, as stated in the article you just read, FOX News is owned by Saudi princes, Russian oil industry, etc; the only "scientists" they can hire are the one the worked for tobacco; Exxon spends millions on your point of view.  YET IT'S THE SCIENTISTS LYING BECAUSE THEY GET TO GOTO CANCUN.  And they use planes, too!  O M G.  Proof right there.  (I wonder if they used their carbon credits?)

Your point number 5.  I don't know.  I'm not a politician.  Politicians make policies.  The Chicken Little approach to changing the status quo is held by industries; Carbon Credits may not be the best policy and eveyone needs the same rules.  Doesn't change the facts.  

As for your link, who is E.W. Smith?  Makes a lot of leaps and conclusions not based on evidence.  Just a big phooey, a blog, not a published article, not by an accredited source.  No citations or sources.  Not even good enough for a Conrad Black newspaper.

Try reading the articles on this site from the internationally accredited experts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2010)

shamu said:
			
		

> You're right.
> 
> Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat.
> 
> ...



Try slowing down the typing and staying somewhat coherent next time.

I'm also going to point you back to the post I made about reopening this thread, a page or two back. You're treading close to a warning. Clean up your posts and quit being so confrontational.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Dec 2010)

shamu said:
			
		

> You're right.
> 
> Science needs to be tested, scrutinized, over and over.  Solar flares, locations of surface stations next to expanding populations activity creating heat, models, is  to be continually gone over the scientific method.  And repeat.
> 
> ...



As per recceguy, starting off a conversation by trying to demean me or brand me just makes you look silly.  If you want credibility, stick to the science.

RE:  #4 - I'm not saying that it IS proof that Global Warming is false.  I'm contending that if these individuals were intellectually consistant they would recognize the hypocrisy of their destination choices and would instead promote methods/mediums that are CO2 neutral.  The fact they are not doing that should give us pause.

RE:  #5 - Same issue....if the true objective is to reduce CO2 globally (as climate is not impacted based solely upon what Canada or Switzerland do), then the way to reduce CO2 is to try to get an international consensus on a point of sale carbon tax.  Again the fact that this has not been proposed should give us pause, and ask ourselves why?  Because without China reducing its CO2, the rest of the efforts are a joke if you believe the CO2 causation impact that the IPCC is promoting.

Re:  EW Smith and his blog - If you go back to his blog, there are links to majority of the claims made.  Please take a moment to re-read.  I should add that just becaue someone is not on the IPCC, we should not ignore their hypotheses.  If the IPCC science is sound, they should be able to refudiate his hypotheses and those of guys like Piers Corbyn in an open format.  I shoulld add that often the primary bodies do form inaccurate consensus....geo-centric vs helio-centric universe comes to mind.  You need to recognize that at that time, you'd be on the side of the Vatican, and wouldn't have listened to Copernicus, Galileo, etc. because they didn't belong to your clique, and therefore their opinions should've been dismissed.  Just something to consider before you discard all non-IPCC opinions without critical assessment, simply because they are non-IPCC.

Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.

I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Look forward to your future reply....


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Haletown (31 Dec 2010)

Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.

I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece

Look forward to your future reply....


Cheers, Matthew.   
[/quote]

ah yes  . . that IPCC, 

here's how they do math . . . with honesty, integrity and a sense of fair play.

 -or -      how 75 Climate Scientists becomes "97%"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/


Happy New Year guys & gals, Warmistas and Realistas.


----------



## HavokFour (2 Jan 2011)

Just throwing this in here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQWz0nTAhcQ&feature=related


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Re:  The IPCC - You have obviously not much due diligence on the make-up of the IPCC, the membership, the dissenting opinions, and the growing group of scientists (who are not politically affiliated) who are on the skeptic side of the argument.  If nothing else Google Rajendra Pauchuri (Chairman of the IPCC) and do a little light reading.
> 
> I'll get you started:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
> 
> ...



1 - The organisation which run counter to most of the IPCC conclusions, and which are widely sourced by sceptics here, have _none_ of the integrity measures that the IPCC - and, for that matter, the IAC, NAS, and Royal Society have, meaning that it's a rather dirty kettle calling the pot black.

2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> 2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.



Like calling the people here sceptics? And their sources have no integrity? :

You are getting so very close to the edge.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## YZT580 (5 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> 1 - The organisation which run counter to most of the IPCC conclusions, and which are widely sourced by sceptics here, have _none_ of the integrity measures that the IPCC - and, for that matter, the IAC, NAS, and Royal Society have, meaning that it's a rather dirty kettle calling the pot black.
> 
> 2 - Let's try to keep the language sensible. Warmers and sceptics are fine, but one side trying to claim "realist" or using "denier," with its very loaded connotations, is just going to cause more grief than neccesary for the admins.



None of the organisations you have listed would stand up to close scrutiny.  Hockey sticks and disappearing warm periods come to mind as I say that.  There is too much money at stake to garner a straight answer from anyone.  Whether you are an atheist or religious in belief you have to admire the sheer irony (for the atheists) of the weather conditions over the last several years.  For the religious folks, God certainly has demonstrated that He has a wicked sense of humour.  Every time  there has been an attempt by the British parliament to debate the issue, it has snowed.  In Cancun, they set new temperature low records.  The MET in England has forecasted mild winters for the past three years and several folks have said that snow was a thing of the past.  

Is the weather getting warmer or colder?  I don't know and neither does anyone else.   We are talking fractions of a degree over 10 years.  Common sense says that the error factor in measuring global temperatures is greater than that.  But someone has sure made a killing financially over the whole issue.  Millions were made on the carbon markets before they closed and further millions have been stolen from the European markets through market manipulations and ponzi schemes.  B.C. has legislated against tankers to eliminate the potential for Alberta to export through the north of the province yet U.S. tankers are free to move through the same waters from Alaska south.  The advertising supporting that move was paid for by U.S. organisations.   

Take away the profits and the political controls and see if anyone still says that global warming will kill you.  I doubt it.


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Jan 2011)

Photo:
The eternal darkness that blankets the high Arctic three months a year is becoming brighter every year and, according to one observer, it's the result of global warming.

Article:
Global warming shines a light on the dark Arctic winter

                       (Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Like calling the people here sceptics? And their sources have no integrity? :
> 
> You are getting so very close to the edge.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



I have hardly made accusations of mass conspiracy or massive, Al Gore-like frauds. I've merely pointed out that some of the organisations quoted have very few self-check mechanisms. I really don't see how this is counter to Milnet.ca policies, and have recently got a note praising my neutrality with regards to your quoted post. 



> None of the organisations you have listed would stand up to close scrutiny. ... There is too much money at stake to garner a straight answer from anyone.



Of all organisations, the NAS, and AAAS have extneral checks, including professional credibility. Given that there are no national academcies in the sceptic camp and much of the quoted material from sceptics here has been from blogs or think-tanks awash in indutry money, I reiterate that it's a very dirty pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2011)

The appeal to authority isn't a guarantee of reliable reporting, especially if other motives are in play. Take this example, where a medical doctor committed fraud and used the prestigious journal "The Lancet" to provide authoritative cover:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1



> *Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds*
> By the CNN Wire Staff
> January 5, 2011 8:14 p.m. EST
> 
> ...


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

I don't mean to appeal to authority, I'm merely pointing out that the supposed lack of credibility and accountability in many climate scientists is not effectively answered by strongly opinionated sites, blogs, and think-tanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2011)

I'm a _global warming_ skeptic; I believe the climate is changing; I believe it has been changing ever since there was a climate. I am pretty sure that we, humans, play some part in changing the climate but I am not persuaded that we should or can retreat to a 17th century agrarian economy to solve the problem.

That being said, I agree with jhk87: as suspect as the _big science_ community's motives may be the and as dishonest as some of the climate change gurus may be, the anti-change gang and the _blogosphere_ provide even less scientific evidence and most skeptics have neither credentials nor credibility to back up their claims.

Frankly, most of the stuff I read from the _blogosphere_, on most topics, sounds like juvenile ranting and raving. That includes some of the stuff here on Army.ca.


----------



## Scott (5 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> I really don't see how this is counter to Milnet.ca policies, *and have recently got a note praising my neutrality with regards to your quoted post. *



Got your PM complaining about bias and responded to it before I saw the gem in bold. Now I am more than a little focused on the gem in bold.

I challenge you, right here in the open, to send this person a note and ask them to send same to me via PM. I'll then ask you to supply me with a forwarded copy of said note. 

Time and time again we get guys playing this card and I am sick of it. 

So, clock is ticking.


----------



## jhk87 (5 Jan 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm a _global warming_ skeptic; I believe the climate is changing; I believe it has been changing ever since there was a climate. I am pretty sure that we, humans, play some part in changing the climate but I am not persuaded that we should or can retreat to a 17th century agrarian economy to solve the problem.
> 
> That being said, I agree with jhk87: as suspect as the _big science_ community's motives may be the and as dishonest as some of the climate change gurus may be, the anti-change gang and the _blogosphere_ provide even less scientific evidence and most skeptics have neither credentials nor credibility to back up their claims.
> 
> Frankly, most of the stuff I read from the _blogosphere_, on most topics, sounds like juvenile ranting and raving. That includes some of the stuff here on Army.ca.



The idea of "Big Science" as having a motive is implausible, and the "17th-century agarian economy" is a strawman.


----------



## hugh19 (5 Jan 2011)

Funding is a huge motive.


----------



## HavokFour (5 Jan 2011)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Photo:
> The eternal darkness that blankets the high Arctic three months a year is becoming brighter every year and, according to one observer, it's the result of global warming.
> 
> Article:
> ...



I'm no expert, but wouldn't that be due to an orbital change?


----------



## 57Chevy (5 Jan 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'm no expert, but wouldn't that be due to an orbital change?


I am no expert either, but the explanation is pretty clear.
If it was due to orbital change (I think) it would be continually present 
From the article:
Quote
Basically, the warmer layer of air over the Arctic is acting as a conduit for light from the south.
"It's the refraction of light where the warm air and the cold air meet that is creating this brightness," Davidson explained.
The bigger the temperature differences, the longer the light travels and shines, he noted.
"It's a slow but gradual process that doesn't seem to want to stop," Davidson said. "It's astounding, there's no other word for it."
_____________________________
IMO the global climate is changing due to such a great deal of reasons that trying to pinpoint the exact cause is impossible.


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Jan 2011)

Nature is capable of destroying us. We are not capable of destroying nature. Even if a worldwide nuclear holocaust occurred, a couple thousand years down the line, the world wouldn't even notice we were gone. We may be able to make very, very small contributions to climate change, but just look at what volcanoes are capable of. Like the "Year Without a Summer", or the Toba Catastrophe. We should worry more about how our society is destroying itself rather than how our society is destroying the world because, as I said before, we're just not nearly as awesome as nature. Awesome in the "awe inspiring" sense, not the coolness sense.

We're giving ourselves a lot more credit than we deserve in terms of worrying about global warming. The "great garbage patches" in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans deserve FAR more attention than global warming.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jan 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Like the "Year Without a Summer",


1992.  I remember it well.  I had one week of warm weather, and that was when I went to Germany on my leave.  I got back to Canada, sometime mid-July, and the high temps were in the low 20s, if that.  And that was when I was stationed in London, ON.


----------



## Sapplicant (5 Jan 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 1992.  I remember it well.  I had one week of warm weather, and that was when I went to Germany on my leave.  I got back to Canada, sometime mid-July, and the high temps were in the low 20s, if that.  And that was when I was stationed in London, ON.



I was referring to the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which messed up the summer of 1816.

You're referring to another great example of this effect, which was caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Thanks for reminding me, I'd forgotten about that one. Especially since I was only turning 7 at the time.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2011)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> The idea of "Big Science" as having a motive is implausible, and the "17th-century agarian economy" is a strawman.





Perhaps not, but _science_, big or small, got behind this story and ran with it.






Source: http://parkhowell.com/green-advertising-and-marketing/a-floating-island-of-garbage-twice-the-size-of-texas


But, as it happens, that’s all it was: just a story, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Daily Telegraph_ via the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/incredible+shrinking+Pacific+Garbage+Patch/4070732/story.html


> The incredible shrinking Pacific Garbage Patch
> 
> BY RICHARD ALLEYNE, THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
> 
> ...




Now, all that plastic, even if the _island_ is only 1% the size of Texas, is a problem, as is climate change, for some people, anyway, but the hyperbole didn’t help – in fact it harms the case of _science_ that tries to change our behavior, especially whne the change might be for the better.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> I'm no expert, but wouldn't that be due to an orbital change?



I'm no expert either, but perhaps it's due to volcanic activity. Look at this timeline for example:

Volcanic Eruption Timeline

Perhaps an increase in volcanic dust is causing the light to scatter.


----------



## Sapplicant (6 Jan 2011)

shamu said:
			
		

> They have all, using scientific process and life times of study, time and time again, come up with the same conclusion;  human caused global warming is a fact.  It's a fact.  This is what they are teaching in your schools, from kindergarten to university.




In 1492, the world was flat. It was a fact. This was taught as a fact. 

There are many, many other examples over time of facts that were once taught later being discovered to be fiction. This just happened to be the most obvious. Who's to say that it won't happen again?


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jan 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> In 1492, the world was flat. It was a fact. This was taught as a fact.


Not quite true.  Seafarers knew that the earth was curved.  So too did all those living near a coast.  They knew that when ships approached, the first they saw was the mast, followed by the rest of it, etc.  Eratosthenes even calculated the circumference of the Earth.  Now, the following quote is from Wikipedia, but I too studied this in university, along with some other stuff.  Anyway, have a read:


> Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth without leaving Egypt. Eratosthenes knew that on the summer solstice at local noon in the Ancient Egyptian city of Swenet (known in Greek as Syene, and in the modern day as Aswan) on the Tropic of Cancer, the sun would appear at the zenith, directly overhead. He also knew, from measurement, that in his hometown of Alexandria, the angle of elevation of the sun would be 1/50 of a full circle (7°12') south of the zenith at the same time. Assuming that Alexandria was due north of Syene he concluded that the meridian arc distance from Alexandria to Syene must be 1/50 of the total circumference of the earth. His estimated distance between the cities was 5000 stadia (about 500 geographical miles or 800 km) by estimating the time that he had taken to travel from Syene to Alexandria by camel. He rounded the result to a final value of 700 stadia per degree, which implies a circumference of 252,000 stadia. The exact size of the stadion he used is frequently argued. The common Attic stadion was about 185 m, which would imply a circumference of 46,620 km, i.e. 16.3% too large. However, if we assume that Eratosthenes used the "Egyptian stadion" of about 157.5 m, his measurement turns out to be 39,690 km, *an error of less than 1%.*


(My emphasis in there regarding his accuracy).

Anyway, Columbus was trying to find a shortcut to Asia by heading west from Europe, not trying to prove that the earth was flat or round.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Jan 2011)

Just saying'........

http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2011/01/06/16792676.html
Maryland’s 2 million dead fish caused by cold water

By WENDELL MARSH, Reuters
Last Updated: January 6, 2011 8:50pm

WASHINGTON - The death of two million fish that washed up on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland appears to have been caused by a sudden drop in temperature, the state’s Environment Department told Reuters on Thursday.

The mass kill is the latest in a string of bird and fish deaths around the world. Around 5,000 birds fell out of the Arkansas sky over the New Year’s weekend and many dead fish were also found in a different part of the state.
Since then, reports of smaller-scale die-offs have been reported in Europe, Brazil, and Asia, causing many to speculate about the cause of the kills.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the Chesapeake deaths, the Maryland Department of Environment said.
“The cause of this appears to be the rapid temperature drop combined with the large population of the juvenile spot fish,” spokesman Jay Apperson told Reuters on Thursday.

The coldest December in 25 years caused cold water stress to the already overpopulated species, the department said in a statement.

There have been many such incidents in the past with 2,900 kills afflicting all fish species between 1984 and 2009 according to the department. The largest ever die-off was around 15 million in January, 1976.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in North America.


----------



## DBA (7 Jan 2011)

There is a phenomenon in science called "confirmation bias" where an experiment/analysis/study is worked on until it produces results that align with what is expected and then less effort is applied to confirm that this final result aligning with what is expected is actually true. There are more things involved in climate variability than CO2 levels and the current practice of tying just about any climate variability to "global warming" should give anybody pause. A example would be the Met Office in the UK and the predictions for this winter where a mild winter was predicted in line with global warming but in fact it's been record breaking cold weather. 

To gain insight we have to examine with as much effort and care the things we accept as true as those we believe are false. We often fail to recognize the same faulty reasoning patterns in our own arguments that we point out in others. We post things we believe are true as "facts" without references or double checking while calling out the exact same behavior in others because we don't agree with them.

Myself it sure seems like global warming has morphed for a lot of people into yet another "Doomsday cult" where their positions aren't arrived at by reason and logic but by listening to deceitful rhetoric of those who have decided the issue is settled. Hate to pick on Al Gore but when he pointed to a graph showing a correlation between CO2 and temperate and said it was "proof" of global warming I knew it was unscientific garbage as a fundamental rule of statistics is: correlation does not suggest causation. It's not proof, it's not an indication, and it' doesn't imply causation it only shows a correlation between the two variables plotted. By making such an argument Al Gore left people more ignorant and open to faulty reasoning. So if they see a graph plotting say Autism vs vaccinations and there seems to be some correlation they are much more likely to think in error that is some form of proof for causation.


----------



## Sapplicant (7 Jan 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The coldest December in 25 years.



I wonder if the April 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland, among other volcanoes, combined with a lull in solar activity, had anything to do with it? Bit of a stretch, and I'm no scientist, but it IS a possibility, no?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jan 2011)

A little light reading on Wind Farms in cold weather in the UK....



> You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows
> By Richard Littlejohn
> Created 9:55 PM on 27th December 2010
> 
> ...



Additionally, the BBC has just launched a Freedom of Information Act requesting all the Met Office paperwork, and Cabinet documents re: this winter as what the Met originally published to the public (showing average temperatures of >2 degrees higher than historical averages), and what they are now claiming they advised Cabinet in private, are exact opposites.


M.


----------



## GAP (11 Jan 2011)

And to add to the wonderful politically correct confusion, there's this..........

Carbon injected underground now leaking, Saskatchewan farmer's study says
By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press Posted: 01/11/2011
Article Link

A Saskatchewan farm couple whose land lies over the world's largest carbon capture and storage project says greenhouse gases that were supposed to have been injected permanently underground are leaking out, killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken-up soda pop.

Cameron and Jane Kerr, who own nine quarter-sections of land above the Weyburn oilfield in eastern Saskatchewan, released a consultant's report Tuesday that claims to link high concentrations of carbon dioxide in their soil to the 8,000 tonnes of the gas injected underground every day by energy giant Cenovus in its attempt to enhance oil recovery and fight climate change.

"We knew, obviously, there was something wrong," said Jane Kerr.

Cameron Kerr, 64, said he has farmed in the area all his life and never had any problems until 2003, when he agreed to dig a gravel quarry.

That gravel was for a road to a plant owned by EnCana — now Cenovus — which had begun three years earlier to inject massive amounts of carbon dioxide underground to force more oil out of the aging field.

Cenovus has injected more than 13 million tonnes of the gas underground. The project has become a global hotspot for research into carbon capture and storage, a technology that many consider one of the best hopes for keeping greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere.

By 2005, Cameron Kerr had begun noticing problems in a pair of ponds which had formed at the bottom of the quarry. They developed algae blooms, clots of foam and several colours of scum — red, yellow and silver-blue. Sometimes, the ponds bubbled. Small animals — cats, rabbits, goats — were regularly found dead a few metres away.

Then there were the explosions.

"At night we could hear this sort of bang like a cannon going off," said Jane Kerr, 58. "We'd go out and check the gravel pit and, in the walls, it (had) blown a hole in the side and there would be all this foaming coming out of this hole."

"Just like you shook up a bottle of Coke and had your finger over it and let it spray," added her husband.

The water, said Jane Kerr, came out of the ground carbonated.

"It would fizz and foam."
More on link


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Jan 2011)

How true.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2011)

More stuff that puts nails in the coffins of climate change alarmists. If they really knew and understood the science, then why are they keeping two sets of books (like a crooked accountant) and only releasing the predictions that fit the "narrative":

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/29/the-uk-met-office-oops/



> *The UK Met Office: “Oops!”*
> 
> Meteorology is the engineering of climate science: while climate scientists try to understand the underlying processes that determine climate, meteorologists are expected to use that understanding to predict the short term variation in climate — what we call “weather”.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Feb 2011)

*Al Gore claims global warming caused this week's historic blizzard*

By: Lynn R. Mitchell 02/03/11 6:05 PM

Listening to Al Gore explain that the current round of turbulent winter weather is really an off-shoot of global warming brings a grin to the faces of many while others just shake their heads in disbelief.

Consisting of ice, record snow fall, bitter temperatures, and blizzard conditions of historic proportions, one-third of America was affected this week in a 2,000-mile swath of Old Man Winter's fury as frigid and deadly conditions stretched south into Mexico and north to Maine. How could global warming be real with all this winter weather?

Fox News reported that Gore had an explanation:

    "As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particular question for some time now, and they say increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming," Gore write in a blog post. The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president was responding to a question posed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, who wondered on air why global warming was such an urgent science policy priority when the New York City area had become a “tundra” this winter.

Now comes word that a Greenpeace member fears Gore may have done untold damage to the environmental movement. Fred Pearce at Short Sharp Science attended a three-day conference in Portugal last week consisting of 28 bloggers, climate scientists, and what he called "professional contrarians" who gnawed over the looming issue of climate. He revealed:

    The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism.

Interestingly enough, no meeting of the minds was made at the conference as it was decided that the make-up of those attending was "too lopsided in favour of the sceptical camp."

Meanwhile, Fox News reported that meteorologist Art Horn noted a long history of devastating weather over the generations that had nothing to do with global warming:

    “The last 2,000 years is full of incredible weather events that dwarf what we see today,” said Horn. “Nature isn't cooperating with the global warming camp and theory.”

    He points to a New York Times story from the 1970s, which said the planet was getting so cold that humanity was in danger of starving to death. The article argued that the world’s weather would soon be so frigid that it could no longer permit the cultivation of crops for food. The Times’ headline on August 8, 1974, was simple enough: “Climate changes Endanger World’s Food Output.”

    “First we were told the world was cooling. Then it was getting hotter,” Dan Gainor, a spokesman for the Media Research Center, tells FoxNews.com. “Then cooling again. Then hotter. Now it’s just climate change -- so they can’t be wrong no matter what change occurs.”

Is all that evidence enough to change Gore's mind as the winter of 2011 continues and he moves forward with selling his idea of global warming by its new name, climate change?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opinion-zone/2011/02/al-gore-claims-global-warming-caused-weeks-historic-blizzard#ixzz1CwlhAs4x


----------



## Redeye (11 Feb 2011)

Why is it so complicated for people to see that climate and weather are not synonymous?  Part of what a number of climate change models have predicted are extreme patterns of weather in all forms.  That said, other things cause that.  But frankly, I consider the Examiner about as reliable as pajamasmedia (not at all), and once Bill O'Reilly can explain tides to me maybe I'll care about anything he anything he says about science.

I'm as willing to look at evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a myth as any skeptic - but the evidence has to be decent.  There remains as much evidence that it's a myth as there is evidence against evolution, or against the earth being spherical: none of any significance that I've seen.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Al Gore claims global warming caused this week's historic blizzard*
> 
> By: Lynn R. Mitchell 02/03/11 6:05 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (11 Feb 2011)

"President Obama has done the impossible. He’s proven that someone can deserve a Nobel Prize less than Al Gore!"

'nuff said.


----------



## Haletown (13 Feb 2011)

A very interesting examination of climate data and energy use . . .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/12/david-archibald-on-climate-and-energy-security/#more-33809

The global warming end game is happening.  The Rex Murphy eulogy for Gore & Olbermann is Rex at his best.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/12/rex-murphy-gore-and-olbermann-which-one-is-gilligan/#ixzz1DlvzZa1M


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2011)

More pushback:

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9853/Another-victory-for-science-House-votes-244179-to-kill-US-funding-of-UN-IPCC-It-no-longer-wishes-to-have-the-IPCC-prepare-its-comprehensive-international-climate-science-assessments



> *Another victory for science!*
> 
> House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of UN IPCC! 'It no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments' Visit Site
> 
> Defund IPCC 'amendment was sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who read aloud on the floor from the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists! (Written by Climate Depot's Morano) -- Luetkemeyer: Americans 'should not have to continue to foot the bill for an (IPPC) organization to keep producing corrupt findings'


----------



## Haletown (14 Mar 2011)

So when all the Crew involved in the "Hide the Decline" ruckus,  told us it was just a statistical methodology, a mathematical trick, they were telling us the graphs they produced were still valid.

Oh ya?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=player_embedded


It is about time other scientists called these guys out, spoke the truth.


----------



## kstart (14 Mar 2011)

I've avoided this thread, but some reading on the 'philosophy of science', can be worthwhile, foundational understanding.  Science typically relies on "controlled experiments", that's not possible when measure the fullness of ecological variables-- it can't all be accounted for and mitigated against.   So recognizing the limitations of science is an important perspective to have.

I'm a bit keyed up with some worry over the devastation occuring in Japan-- huge environmental calamnity of epic proprotions.  I've been hearing stories (yet to be fully confimed, and still the survival situation is important, food, water, sanitation, shelter, etc.), but about the meltage of the nuclear fuel rods-- that scares the heck of me, I hope it's not true, radioactive material will continue to eat away, even at the 7 inch steel container-- it'll keep eating it for 30 years possibly.  It's just scary material, slow deaths, cancers, genetic deformities, it can keep killing long after the "event".  

I know a former Greenspeace spokesperson switched over to being a proponent of Nuclear Energy as a cleaner source vs. oil/gas, etc.

Anyway, I did mention this in another thread, but found some better links re: "Atomospheric Energy Systems", not unlike geothermal re: the principles of heat storage for use in colder seasons.  But it does look promising and effective.  

The studies were conducted in Ontario:  In Ontario, 68% of our household electricity import goes towards heating our homes and water, and as well cooling them through the hot months, it's called Atmospheric Energy collector systems:

No C02's clean energy, works in areas where geothermal storage is difficult.

Reduction by 68% can significantly reduce reliance on electricity from oil/gas/coal/nuclear, so IMO it's worth employing, very practical to do so:

An Example:  http://volkerthomsen.com/sustainablity-retro-fit-thomsen-house-i/ 

The systems can be modified to also heat whole blocks of homes, and/or Industrial buildings for maximum use.

http://atmospheric-energy.pbworks.com/f/cost_issues.pdf 

Combine with solar, wind, etc, or new technologies-- totally self-sustaining energy systems.  Not a slave or dependent on market prices for energy.  Mitigates against what will eventually be total depletion of world's oil supply (some say that's in 40 years from now).   But look at the hassels of importing it, doing business with less favourable countries.  Self-sustaining-- that's major empowerment, help with basic needs.  It can heat homes, and water, and as well store cool air, for air conditioning through the summer months.  I think it's fascinating.  Especially beneficial to those of us living in colder temperature zones (where we can freeze to death, without heat).

It can put a good dent in energy reliance from other sources.  From a capitalist perspective, green industry to benefit new generation starters.  More to export than import re: energy resources.  But it's not like oil or other commodities, which flux with market force, it can stimulate local industry and production, and that is beneficial for economic  (because there's stagnation for new generation, and shrinking middle class-- and that's not healthy for a democracy, IMO).

Anyway, thought I'd throw that out there.  I like win-win situations, people win, environment wins, present and future generations win.  Protection of sovereingnty over one's own resources, and democracy.  "Winning" ( CH)


----------



## Haletown (18 Mar 2011)

The infamous "hide the decline" has been obfuscated beyond comprehension by the various whitewash inquiries and the Warmistas had hoped it was dead & gone.

Now Richard Muller, the guy heading up the new impartial review of the data has spoken. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&

The blink comparison at 3:45 plus shows the changes in the visual impact of the graphs that resulted from the "trick" the various Hockey Team Crew used.  

Imagine if some scientists developing new medicines used such deceptive practices and got caught?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2011)

A summary of both the hows and the whys:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-new-weathermen/?print=1



> *The New Weathermen*
> 
> Posted By David Solway On April 12, 2011 @ 12:00 am In "Green" tech,Culture,Culture Bytes,Environment,Science & Technology,TV,US News,economy | 7 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2011)

George Orwell predicted the Memory hole, but not Google Cache:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-cover-up/



> The UN ‘disappears’ 50 million climate refugees, then botches the cover-up
> By Anthony Watts   4:56 PM 04/16/2011
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Apr 2011)

A potential test for jobs vs climate change is headed for the courts:

New climate change case headed to U.S. Supreme Court

The Associated Press

Date: Sunday Apr. 17, 2011 2:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration and environmental interests generally agree that global warming is a threat that must be dealt with.

But they're on opposite sides of a Supreme Court case over the ability of states and groups such as the Audubon Society that want to sue large electric utilities and force power plants in 20 states to cut their emissions...


...Comer said the key point is that judges should not make environmental policy. "This has important implications for jobs. If you raise energy costs in the U.S., does that lead industry jobs to go elsewhere and if it does, do you get the same emissions, just from another country?" Comer said. "These judgments are properly made by elected officials." 


More at link.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2011)

And the UN's incentive for supporting and promoting this:

http://volokh.com/2011/04/17/understanding-the-uns-incentives-in-the-missing-climate-refugees-kerfuffle/



> *Understanding the UN’s Incentives in the Missing Climate Refugees Kerfuffle*
> Kenneth Anderson • April 17, 2011 10:55 pm
> 
> A quick further comment to Jonathan’s post below on the missing 50 million climate change refugees that were supposed to be migrating across the globe by 2010 and, if I read the update correctly, are now supposed to materialize by 2020.  We are used to reading such stories as the politicization of science and its corruption by the politics of the UN, funders, and, to be sure, the desire of some scientists to switch professions from research to policy.  We hear about it because it is correct.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2011)

More players in the game get flushed out:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8469883/Lobbyists-who-cleared-Climategate-academics-funded-by-taxpayers-and-the-BBC.html?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4db49c388fa309eb%2C0



> *Lobbyists who cleared 'Climategate' academics funded by taxpayers and the BBC*
> 
> A shadowy lobby group which pushes the case that global warming is a real threat is being funded by the taxpayer and assisted by the BBC.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (6 May 2011)

Things to do with a majority government . . .

"Get out of Kyoto while it’s still possible"


http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/04/get-out-of-kyoto-while-it%E2%80%99s-still-possible/


----------



## dinicthus (7 May 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Things to do with a majority government . . .
> "Get out of Kyoto while it’s still possible"
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/04/get-out-of-kyoto-while-it%E2%80%99s-still-possible/



Amen. Along with anything else that hands over our sovereignty to anyone.

You want to have a say in what goes on in Canada? Try being born here, and/or become a citizen. Until then, Kyoto your frikkin' nuclear reactors into not warming any part of the globe, especially the part that is directly under them.


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

Instapundit on Rapture Day (21 May 2011) on the perils of real climate change and some potential long term effects:

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/



> SUMMER RAINS BRING CEREAL DISEASE FEARS:
> 
> Also: New Resistant Strains of Disease Could Wipe Out Global Wheat Fields. “At a meeting of the International Wheat Stripe Rust Symposium last week in Aleppo Syria, scientists said unless serious and urgent measures were taken to combat the rust, it would adversely reduce wheat production in the world.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 May 2011)

Heh:

http://thewaytheballbounces.blogspot.com/2011/05/at-last-clear-scientific-evidence-of.html



> *At Last: Clear Scientific Evidence Of Global Warming*
> Scientific studies on climate helped establish...
> 
> Global warming believers rejoice. AGW deniers, eat dirt.
> ...



Of course the Viking hordes roaming Sweden in their giant Volvo SUV's must have been the cause of this global warming episode....

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/05/26/lawrence-solomon-more-evidence-it-used-to-be-really-hot-out-there/



> *Lawrence Solomon: More evidence it used to be really hot out there*
> 
> Lawrence Solomon  May 26, 2011 – 11:10 AM ET | Last Updated: May 26, 2011 2:22 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (27 May 2011)

It has always been the biggest clue to the corruption of the IPCC . . .   they found it so convenient, so easy to just disappear the MWP.   Tony Soprano would appreciate how they got rid of evidence that was damaging to their Cause.


Only took them 10 years to realize that without hysterical fear mongering combined with data water boarding and statistical jiggery-pockery they couldn't keep the Gravy Train rolling, couldn't keep the media's attention, couldn't keep the R&D funds rolling in, couldn't  inflict their environmental Gaia loving beliefs on the society they despise so much.


http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/lord-turnbull.pdf

Page 7


----------



## HavokFour (30 May 2011)

*Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022*​
Article



> BERLIN — Germany's governing coalition said Monday it will shut down all the country's nuclear power plants by 2022. The decision, prompted by Japan's nuclear disaster, will make Germany the first major industrialized nation to go nuclear-free in years.
> 
> It also completes a remarkable about-face for Chancellor Angela Merkel's center-right government, which only late last year had pushed through a plan to extend the life span of the country's 17 reactors — with the last scheduled to go offline in 2036.
> 
> ...



Nothing bad can come from this, right guys? Right?!  :


----------



## Haletown (30 May 2011)

No worries  . . . Germany has lots of cheap coal and the recent discovery of massive fracable gas fields in Poland just means a fuel switch.

In even better news,  the adults in the room are taking back the conversation.

"Saturday, 28 May 2011 16:58 Agence France-Presse

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.

 . . . .   

*But the leaders of Russian, Japan and Canada confirmed they would not join a new Kyoto agreement,* the diplomats said.

They argued that the Kyoto format did not require developing countries, including China, the world’s No. 1 carbon emitter, to make targeted emission cuts.

At last Thursday’s G8 dinner the US President, Barack Obama, confirmed Washington would not join an updated Kyoto Protocol, the diplomats said."



That "popping" sound you hear is David Suzuki's head exploding and Lizzie May having an apoplectic fit.

Such wonderful news.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2011)

Real science:

http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2011/06/anthony-watts-surface-station-research.html



> *Anthony Watts' surface station research paper*
> 
> Geez, how'd I miss this - Anthony Watts' long awaited research paper on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been accepted for publication.  Details on the project and paper here. The abstract concludes with:
> 
> ... According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend.


----------



## Haletown (5 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Real science:
> 
> http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2011/06/anthony-watts-surface-station-research.html





In Climatology, "real" science is when you publish a paper then refuse to release your data or methodology so other scientists can try and replicate your results.  

In Climatology, "real"science is when you have thousands of tree ring samples in the Yamal region, but choose to use one, only one tree's data to "prove" global warming . . .  because other thousands of trees didn't have the "right" data.

In Climatology, "real" science is when you say the IPCC only uses peer reviewed papers and then people check and find in some chapters up to 70% of the scientific references are actually from Greenpeace fund raising campaigns, letter to the editors from Greenpeace members and various other pieces of greenie agitprop.


So thank you Anthony Watt for doing something that is really real.


----------



## Haletown (8 Jun 2011)

Don't recall CBC/CTV et al covering this Conference . . . 

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/07/climate-isnt-up-for-debate/

"Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits)." . .


----------



## Redeye (8 Jun 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Don't recall CBC/CTV et al covering this Conference . . .
> 
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/06/07/climate-isnt-up-for-debate/
> 
> "Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits)." . .



Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?

It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.


----------



## MJP (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?
> 
> It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.



Not a geological issue?  I beg to differ considering they as a discipline study the history of the earth and the long term changes and effects that it has on the climate (among many other things).  They have a long range approach that is sadly lacking in today's (non)concensous approach to climate change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ...  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?
> ...




We had better start asking the economists. The climate is changing - has been changing for as long as there has been a climate. Some changes have been very beneficial to our species, others may be less so. When, not if, the climate changes in a manner which is less than beneficial for us then we will have to make adjustments - and adjustments have costs (and, potentially) benefits. It seems pretty clear, to me, that, since we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere, we need to plot ways to mitigate the deleterious effects and to plan for living with new energy sources. The development of e.g. new technologies is, largely the business of scientists and engineers but the business of planning is, in large measure, the domain of economists.

Maybe we would be better with fewer _ecologists_ and _climatologists_ and more engineers and economists.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2011)

Hear, Hear Argyll.

Nomads follow the water.  When the water relocates the nomads relocate with it.  But ever since those nomads buried Gobekli Tepe, around 10,000 years ago, and started building cities, the cost of relocation became increasingly high.  This made it justifiable to spend fortunes on diverting rivers and bringing water to the people rather than having people move to the water.  The trend has continued so that now it is prohibitively costly to contemplate moving San Diego (short of water) to Inuvik (lots of water).

In addition to consulting engineers, economists and geologists, the climatologists might also want to take note of archaeologists, anthropologists and astrophysicists - all of whom perceive evidence of change and seek suitable explanations - including workable models from climatologists.  Unfortunately for many of the climatologists their models don't seem to hold up well when fed data that describes the past. 

There isn't a profession on the planet that isn't influenced by the weather and takes note of it in their planning......and that includes the oldest one.


----------



## Haletown (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?
> 
> It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.



Two points for your consideration.

1.  You do realize that the entire basis of all the AGW fear mongering is based on claims that the climate historically was stable and it is only in the recent years that climate change has become extreme?  

2.  I'm guessing you do not have a background in Geology, Geomorphology, Glaciology, Limnology or any other Earth Science otherwise you too would know that climate is a well studied geologic process component.  Paleogeology is core component of climate studies and is well represented in the literature, public  and academic debate and the IPCC reports.


Al Gore flunked out of Divinity School, David Suzuki is a Zoologist, Michael Stern is an Economist, Michale Moore is a Physicist . . .   all Great Gods & Gurus of the global warming scam and not a Meteorology or Climatology course among the lot.

So maybe you might want to reconsider what these learned men of Geology have to say.  Rocks have a lot of historical records in them, including a lot to tell us about past climate conditions.


----------



## Redeye (8 Jun 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We had better start asking the economists. The climate is changing - has been changing for as long as there has been a climate. Some changes have been very beneficial to our species, others may be less so. When, not if, the climate changes in a manner which is less than beneficial for us then we will have to make adjustments - and adjustments have costs (and, potentially) benefits. It seems pretty clear, to me, that, since we are not going to stop burning fossil fuels or pumping chemicals into the atmosphere, we need to plot ways to mitigate the deleterious effects and to plan for living with new energy sources. The development of e.g. new technologies is, largely the business of scientists and engineers but the business of planning is, in large measure, the domain of economists.



Yes - however, the entire basis of the bollocks spouted about climate change is that the status quo is just fine - that we don't in fact need to start really worrying about new sources of energy, or impacts on food production, migration patterns, freshwater access, etc.  The fact is that the tiny majority of people who dispute climate change is a real problem and that we are, in fact, making it worse are just dupes of industries who aren't prepared to deal with the very real impacts.  Why aren't they?  I guess they think it's not their problem, it won't impact them in their lifetimes or something... in reality, I don't especially care I guess, when I die that's it - I don't have kids and don't plan to so I've really got no rational reason to worry beyond my lifespan, except for the that that there may be problems in much shorter terms.

There's an interesting variation on Pascal's Wager that applies well here - either we assume the worst and get on with ideas to get ready and wind up pleasantly surprised if it's all wrong - or we keep making excuses not to get on with those changes, and find ourselves worse off the longer we wait.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sorry, since climate isn't a geological issue, remind me why anyone should particularly care what their opinion on it is?  Who will we ask next?  Economists?  Accountatnts?
> 
> It reminds me of someone presenting a list of a bunch of scientists who think evolution isn't real.  They weren't happy when I noticed that very, very few if any of them were biologists.



I guess volcanos, ice fields and ocean currents have nothing to do with the climate after all, so I guess geologists can stop studying those too. After all, geologists don't know anything about cause and effect when those, and other natual earthly things, may cause climate change. :


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Yes - however, the entire basis of the bollocks spouted about climate change is that the status quo is just fine - that we don't in fact need to start really worrying about new sources of energy, or impacts on food production, migration patterns, freshwater access, etc.  The fact is that the tiny majority of people who dispute climate change is a real problem and that we are, in fact, making it worse are just dupes of industries who aren't prepared to deal with the very real impacts.  Why aren't they?  I guess they think it's not their problem, it won't impact them in their lifetimes or something... in reality, I don't especially care I guess, when I die that's it - I don't have kids and don't plan to so I've really got no rational reason to worry beyond my lifespan, except for the that that there may be problems in much shorter terms.
> 
> There's an interesting variation on Pascal's Wager that applies well here - either we assume the worst and get on with ideas to get ready and wind up pleasantly surprised if it's all wrong - or we keep making excuses not to get on with those changes, and find ourselves worse off the longer we wait.




I have no problem with people telling me that the climate is changing: I am sure they are right. I do have a problem with many, many, many scientists telling me *why* climate change is happening. I doubt most of them are qualified to make that judgement. I object even more to people telling us that if we don't throw aside our 21st century way of life we will kill the planet. If they have useful ideas about e.g. plentiful, portable, clean alternative energy then let them advocate its use; if not they might want to stick to their knitting, with which I already agree.

I also agree that we use and misuse too much energy and we ought to penalize (tax) ineffective energy use (gasoline in static applications, for example) and highly polluting energy use (coal).


----------



## Haletown (8 Jun 2011)

Do ya ever wonder why, according to the AGW Believers, that everything that results from global warming due to mankind's deeds is Bad, Bad, Bad?

Isn't there anything that could be deemed good?  Maybe the extended growing season for wheat in Canada or the increased growth and yield level of plants due a to the additional carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere?

Or  are the only claimed changes bad because big, bad hairy-scary stories motivate people to make the changes the Enviro-Zealots have decided we must make to satisfy their Gaia deity, provides endless easy stories for the media to re-print from Greenpeace press releases and is  great fodder for Enviro Fund Raising schemes and scams based on photoshopped pictures of polar bears snoozing on icebergs?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jun 2011)

Haletown, Kirkhill and Edward have said it well.

The climate is changing.  That is what a climate does.  I do not feel the evidence is sufficiently strong to conclude that burning carbon is the source of that change.  I find it much more likely that the real driver of climate on Earth is the Sun.  

And I am not about to give up the benefits of modern western industrial life to serve the ideology of Greenpeace.


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Jun 2011)

Some empirical evidence that the climate is, has been, and always will be, changing.







These are ice core samples taken from the Vostok station in Antarctica, dating back nearly half a million years. Our 'records' of civilization go back, what, 20 thousand years? I don't believe that we are capable of 'killing the planet' through anthropogenic climate change. I do, however, believe that the planet/universe is entirely capable of killing all/most of us. There are many, many other core samples which tell a similar story. Take from it what you will, yadda, yadda, I'm not a scientist but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2011)

The spectacle of Al Gore jetting around to speak about "global warming" or the masses of climate change activists and bureaucrats going to Cancun Mexico to discuss how to spend taxpayer dollars should be more than enough to tell you how much *they* believe in man made causes of climate change. Perhaps I might be willing to listen just a little if they start practicing what they demand others do. Of course, fudging or hiding data, manipulating "peer review" and other shenanigans have already poisioned the well as far as their credibility is concerned. 

The video of a recent massive solar eruption shows a real problem we should be concerned about. If the energy released by tht eruption had struck the Earth, massive electrical disruption would have damaged everything from cellphones to the electrical grid. There is a cause to get behind, protecting the electrical and electronic underpinnings of modern civilization from natural disaster.


----------



## Haletown (9 Jun 2011)

In other  "well of course the UN is honest and has no corruption" news . . . 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

"Dr. Gray's mission, in his new role as cofounder of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, is to stop the IPCC from spreading climate-change propaganda that undermines the integrity of science.

"The whole process is a swindle," he states, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming."


and in a related  meme   "I can't wait to read her book when it is finished"

"You gotta love the UN. The 31-member IPCC bureau includes representatives from undemocratic and unsavoury countries such as Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Malaysia, Madagascar and the Maldives. Soon, these countries may be deciding the fate of billions of UN-administered climate change funds."


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/08/the-ipcc-as-un-funding-mechanism/


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Do ya ever wonder why, according to the AGW Believers, that everything that results from global warming due to mankind's deeds is Bad, Bad, Bad?
> 
> Isn't there anything that could be deemed good?  Maybe the extended growing season for wheat in Canada or the increased growth and yield level of plants due a to the additional carbon dioxide plant food in the atmosphere?



The problem is we can't look at Canada in isolation - sure, an extended growing season here would be just fine, so would a few extra weeks at summer, but if crop yields globally fall to the point that food production can't meet the needs of the whole planet, that's still going to impact us - there will be waves of migration to deal with, socio-economic factors, all sorts of things - the repercussions, potentially, are very, very serious.

And I'm not sure CO2 air concentrations have any positive impact on crop yields, can't say I've ever heard of anything like that.

You also seem to fail to understand that it's not just some small bunch of hippie zeolots worried about the problem - it's most people I suspect to some degree, and I think most would likely be happy to discover that fairly small changes could impact the situation, and overall make them better off anyhow.  Guess what?  Switching to LED or CFL lights saves a ton of money.  Driving a more fuel efficient car or commuting more efficiently does to, leaving you more disposable income to spend on whatever you want.

I don't support the idea that we somehow have to take some giant step backward to deal with the problem - in fact, most of the things I've done in my own life out of concern an interest have been steps forward.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Or  are the only claimed changes bad because big, bad hairy-scary stories motivate people to make the changes the Enviro-Zealots have decided we must make to satisfy their Gaia deity, provides endless easy stories for the media to re-print from Greenpeace press releases and is  great fodder for Enviro Fund Raising schemes and scams based on photoshopped pictures of polar bears snoozing on icebergs?



And this is when your argument degenerates to the point that you sound as ridiculous as those you would attack.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> In other  "well of course the UN is honest and has no corruption" news . . .
> 
> http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32
> 
> ...




See here for:

*ROLE*

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human- induced climate change ...

It doesn't matter how "objective, open and transparent" the IPCC's work is (or is not), unless and until it considers all causes of climate change its work is worthless.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jun 2011)

Redeye,

You are linking energy efficiency (a good thing- who can argue against saving money?) with climate change (climates change- always have, always will.  And contrary to your belief, the evidence that mankind
 has anything to do With this current round of change in just not that strong- certainly not as strong as many activists would have us believe).

Believe it or not, I have an open mind about all of this, but whenever I see groups or individuals calling for the shut down of the oil sands in Alberta in the name of "saving the planet"- whatever that is supposed to mean (a move that would put hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians out of work and beggar the economy),  I cannot help but notice underlying agendas that have nothing to do climate change and have no basis in science other than trumpeting the cry that we must "do something".

Tell you what, we should down the oil sands, right after the ownership of all private automobiles in vancouver, montreal and toronto is ordered.  After all, it is for the good of the planet, right?


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2011)

CO2

Trees grow faster  Nature/Telegraph

Plants grow bigger FAO


----------



## Haletown (9 Jun 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> CO2
> 
> Trees grow faster  Nature/Telegraph
> 
> Plants grow bigger FAO



Adding CO2 to greenhouses has been common practice since whenever . . . usually the vented flue gas from the building heating system.

Very profitable for the greenhouses.


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye,
> 
> You are linking energy efficiency (a good thing- who can argue against saving money?) with climate change (climates change- always have, always will.  And contrary to your belief, the evidence that mankind
> has anything to do With this current round of change in just not that strong- certainly not as strong as many activists would have us believe).



The two are generally linked, since the burning of fossil fuels is fingered as the problem, and why do we burn fossil fuels?  For energy.  So, if follows, that if we use energy more efficiently, we burn less fuel, generate less emissions, etc etc etc.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, I have an open mind about all of this, but whenever I see groups or individuals calling for the shut down of the oil sands in Alberta in the name of "saving the planet"- whatever that is supposed to mean (a move that would put hundreds of thousands if not millions of Canadians out of work and beggar the economy),  I cannot help but notice underlying agendas that have nothing to do climate change and have no basis in science other than trumpeting the cry that we must "do something".



That's why any response or effort has to be reasonable.  Shutting down the tar sands for example, without actually impacting demand for oil, won't really do that much, and it shouldn't be hard to convince someone who actually has an open mind and thinks a bit of that - the oil's going to come from somewhere, ultimately, unless we find ways to use less of it (and frankly, that's something we don't have that much of a choice about in the long term - eventually, at some point, the price will rise dramatically, as all the cheaply available oil gets used up).  That said, there are a host of other environmental issues related to the tar sands that make it problematic to some people, it's not just climate change that makes tar sands raise hackles.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Jun 2011)

Redeye,

It is oil sand, not tar sand.  The sand has been bound to heavy oil, not tar. Tar is extracted from coal.

Terminology, I'm sure you agree, matters.

Tell me, have you ever visited an oil sand operation? Do you know anything about the environmental impact of oil sands other than what you have read, or watched on TV?  I'm not looking to insult you if say no, i'm just trying find out where to baseline this discussion.


----------



## KJK (9 Jun 2011)

OK Redeye,

Bearing in mind that I have worked at a commercial SAGD oil sands operation and am currently working on a SAGD pilot start up please tell me about these 'environmental concerns' that you are referring to.

KJK

Edit - spelling


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> OK Redeye,
> 
> Bearing in mind that I have worked at a commercial SAGD oil sands operation and am currently working on a SAGD pilot start up please tell me about these 'environmental concerns' that you are referring to.
> 
> ...



Water consumption, tailings handing (remember the Syncrude tailings ponds killing a bunch of ducks), the source of the energy (heat and steam) used in extraction, transportation of the products (ie pipeline leaks), etc.  Some risks, of course, have to be assumed, and steps can be taken to mitigate them of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I'm not one of the people arguing that oilsands production should be shut down - not in the least - but I don't like the idea of glossing over the environmental impact either.


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tell me, have you ever visited an oil sand operation? Do you know anything about the environmental impact of oil sands other than what you have read, or watched on TV?  I'm not looking to insult you if say no, i'm just trying find out where to baseline this discussion.



Haven't been - have relatives, friends, clients who've worked in the industry - and read lots on it - positive, negative, neutral - I'm by no means claiming to be an expert, not a dogmatic anti-oil person - I'm not that at all.


----------



## KJK (9 Jun 2011)

Water Consumption - Sierra Club talking points. We don't use fresh water for our operations, we use brackish (saline) water. It comes from deep underground, usually from aquifers below the formation the oil is in. The well that my pilot plant is using is 450 meters deep and has a TDS of 2500ppm and 7mg/L of extractable oil and grease. Not exactly drinking water. Exceptions to this rule are Syncrude, Suncor and maybe Shell who can get their water from the Athabasca River and pilot projects that MAY be allowed to use fresh water. The 1st two mentioned have been running since the 1960s and are mines not SAGD. They are grandfathered just like any other commercial operation would be. SAGD operational requirements are generally around 90% water recycle ratio and are usually higher. Why spend money to bring in something that you need that already have and can recycle? New technology such as wedge wells will help reduce the water consumption as well.

Tailings Ponds - Sierra Club again. SAGD operations don't have and don't need tailings ponds. There are only 4 operations in Alberta that have them: Syncrude, Suncor Main Plant, Shell and CNRL Horizon. If you see a pond at a SAGD facility it is usually a runoff pond since that cannot be released into the environment without a battery of tests.

Steam is generated by natural gas. All plants except pilot projects must scrub the SO2 from the produced gas before burning it. Anyone who has driven Hwy 63 has seen the steady stream of Westcan trucks hauling molten sulphur to Agrium to be made into fertilizer.

Transportation of Dilbit - I personally don't like spills but I would far rather clean up bitumen than light or intermediate weigh crude. 

Case point - One of my coworkers who has 35 years in the industry has an interesting story about cleaning up bitumen. He had never worked with it until the morning he was sent out to clean up a small spill (about 400 sq feet). It was winter, about -20C and when he arrived at the spill site everybody was standing around looking at the spill. He wanted to start work right away and was surprised when the foreman told him to wait 30 more minutes. After 30 minutes the foreman goes over and pokes the bitumen and says "Let's go". They used hook knives to cut the bitumen into strips, rolled it up like a carpet and threw it into the loader bucket. Problem solved and mess cleaned up, total time 3 hours. 

Obviously no spill is a good thing but if that had been light crude it would have been a lot larger mess and a lot longer clean up time. I think it is no worse and probably much safer to transport than light crude. As soon as it cools off it stops moving.

SAGD - Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/pdfs/FS_SAGD.pdf

KJK

Edit -add link, spelling and punctuation


----------



## KJK (9 Jun 2011)

This is the SAGD plant I was working at last year. I think it looks pretty nice for being the environmental disaster the greenies claim it is.

KJK


----------



## Redeye (9 Jun 2011)

KJK said:
			
		

> (various informative points)
> 
> SAGD - Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
> 
> ...



Thanks for the information, really appreciate you putting the time into doing that - and that's a lot of why I'm not terribly anti-oilsands, because I know there's been lots of technological improvements - and there will be many more.  For now, we need the oil, it's going to come from somewhere, and if it's going to fuel our economy to produce it, that's great for the most part.  Most of what I've seen being most negatively portraying the industry targets older operations like Syncrude.

The pipelines take dilbit to upgraders as I understand it - what's then piped south?  There's been a lot of controversy lately about the Keystone XL pipeline and I'm curious as to what makes it any worse than any of the countless other pipelines around, I suspect it's got more to do with it being new than anything else.


----------



## KJK (9 Jun 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Thanks for the information, really appreciate you putting the time into doing that - and that's a lot of why I'm not terribly anti-oilsands, because I know there's been lots of technological improvements - and there will be many more.  For now, we need the oil, it's going to come from somewhere, and if it's going to fuel our economy to produce it, that's great for the most part.  Most of what I've seen being most negatively portraying the industry targets older operations like Syncrude.
> 
> The pipelines take dilbit to upgraders as I understand it - what's then piped south?  There's been a lot of controversy lately about the Keystone XL pipeline and I'm curious as to what makes it any worse than any of the countless other pipelines around, I suspect it's got more to do with it being new than anything else.



I'm not familiar enough with the Keystone XL to say what exactly it is transporting. There are a couple of different products that go south.

Dilbit can go south, Cenovus is partnered with Conoco Phillips refineries in Borger, TX and Wood River IL. They send straight dilbit to them since they have upgraders on site to allow them to use dilbit. Connacher bought a small refinery in Montana and converted it to use their dilbit. 

Syncrude and Suncor and CNRL upgrade their product on site resulting in an extremely high quality synthetic crude some of which is piped south as many refineries down there can use it straight or blend it with regular crude.

More synthetic crude is mixed with light crude, bitumen and heavy/super heavy crude into a blend called Western Canada Select which sells on the exchange just like Brent or West Texas Intermediate.

We don't have anywhere near enough upgrading capacity in Canada and I wish they would build more. However environmental laws are such that it is nearly impossible to make a business case for an new upgrader when an old US refinery can be purchased for very little and converted to run the heavier blends. This complaint was voiced by a number of operators at a big meeting with the VPs of Cenovus last fall and this is what we were told. Conventional heavy crude is also run through Canadian upgraders which magnifies the problem.

KJK


----------



## Haletown (15 Jun 2011)

So the vaunted IPCC, the Keeper of the Truth about climate change gets caught again breaking its own cardinal rule of only using peer reviewed literature.

"It is totally unacceptable that IPCC should have had a Greenpeace employee as a Lead Author of the critical Chapter 10, that the Greenpeace employee, as an IPCC Lead Author, should (like Michael Mann and Keith Briffa in comparable situations) have been responsible for assessing his own work and that, with such inadequate and non-independent ‘due diligence’, IPCC should have featured the Greenpeace scenario in its press release on renewables."

http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/14/ipcc-wg3-and-the-greenpeace-karaoke/


Why we continue to flush our taxpayers $$ down the UN/IPCC hole is a mystery.

Fraud is still fraud, especially when the holier-than-thou IPPC does it.

People should be in jail, not just fired.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jun 2011)

A suitable punishment might be sticking them outside to freeze to death:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/print.html



> *Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade*Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'
> 
> By Lewis Page
> 
> ...



For newer members, short growing seasons generally lead to crop failure, famine, war and revolution. You _will_ live in interesting times.


----------



## HavokFour (15 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A suitable punishment might be sticking them outside to freeze to death:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/print.html
> 
> For newer members, short growing seasons generally lead to crop failure, famine, war and revolution. You _will_ live in interesting times.



To add on to Thucydides post, the original release can be found here. Pictures and text included.

http://www.nso.edu/press/SolarActivityDrop.html

EDIT: I decided to rip, capture, and archive the entire thing in case certain politicians get any wise ideas.


----------



## Northalbertan (16 Jun 2011)

Redeye, I have been involved in the oil industry in Alberta for around 20 yrs.  For most of that time I have worked on or supervised the service rigs that keep the wells pumping.  I can honestly tell you that the image that the green peacers etc portray us in is almost complete BS.  We have zero tolerance for wellbore fluids hitting the ground.  As in zero, none, nothing.  Not just oil, but the produced water that was mentioned earlier.  We put matting down around wellheads prior to working on them that would absorb any fluids spilled upon them.  If we find a spot on the ground larger than a dime it is cleaned up.  

I have worked all over SK and AB and it is the same anywhere.  Yes a lot of this is because of the poor public image the oil industry has and that's ok.  I like running a clean, safe show for my guys, the companies I work for and the environment, I don't care what motivates the oil companies to pay for it.  They have little difficulty in running environmentally friendly jobsites.  It is less expensive in the long run.  If you dirty a site up you still have to pay to clean it up when you abandon the well and reclaim the lease, so we keep them clean throughout their life.  We don't even allow rain water to run off of our leases unless it has been tested first.

I am speaking for myself of course but with government regulations and the fines involved I think you'll find that pretty much everyone is compliant.  If you want more info feel free to PM me.  

NA


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A suitable punishment might be sticking them outside to freeze to death:
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/print.html



Now read the soft pedal approach from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/15/science-sunspots-solar-cycle.html

The closing paragraphs for contrast:



> Skeptics of man-made global warming from the burning of fossil fuels have often pointed to solar radiation as a possible cause of a warming Earth, but they are in the minority among scientists. The Earth has warmed as solar activity has decreased.
> 
> Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, said there could be small temperature effects, but they are far weaker than the strength of man-made global warming from carbon dioxide and methane. He noted that in 2010, when solar activity was mostly absent, Earth tied for its hottest year in more than a century of record-keeping.


----------



## HavokFour (16 Jun 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Now read the soft pedal approach from the CBC:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/06/15/science-sunspots-solar-cycle.html
> 
> The closing paragraphs for contrast:



I think I'll trust NASA and the US Airforce over some guy from the University of Victoria.


----------



## Haletown (26 Jun 2011)

Last week, we were inundated in all the major media outlets carried the Big Story . . .  the oceans are dying, blah, blah, blah.

Experts we were told, scientists, just telling us the truth, blah, blah, blah,

As per Enviro-SOP, they conned the MSM again, fed them a line, a group of mostly Enviro Activists who wouldn't know the truth if it whupped them upside the head "created"
 a "scientific report" and did "science by Press Release" knowing the media won't do any basic investigation and just re-broadcast their mesage.

But some people check.

Donna does.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/06/24/the-activists-the-media-and-the-public/

CBC pays David Suzuki and the rest of his Fruit Fly generation to fill our airwaves with Greenie Propaganda.

But they will never put Donna on the air.

Goes against their code of doing anything dishonest to further their eco religious beliefs.


----------



## Haletown (27 Jun 2011)

Al Gore, Divinity School dropout and environmental fraudster.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/06/24/the-failure-of-al-gore-part-one/


----------



## toyotatundra (10 Jul 2011)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/australia-to-hit-nations-500-worst-polluters-with-tax-companies-to-pay-25-per-ton-of-carbon.html



> Australia will force its 500 worst polluters to pay 23 Australian dollars ($25) for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit, with the government promising to compensate households hit with higher power bills under a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions unveiled Sunday.
> 
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon dioxide emissions. Australia is one of the world's worst greenhouse gas polluters, due to its heavy reliance on coal for electricity.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2011)

I wonder what Australians will do when manufacturing industries close shop and head to India or China (which have no "carbon tax"), or electrical generation is curtailed in order to reduce the exposure to "carbon taxes".

Unintended consequences are so much fun.....


----------



## Haletown (11 Jul 2011)

Australia is a  perfect example of what we just avoided in Canada in the last election.

A socialist coalition government that depends for its survival on the support of a couple of Green Party MP's/Senators.  A classic case of the green tail wagging the socialist dog.

Good summary of the situation . . .

http://tinyurl.com/64yq4ck.

The real political battle will now play out.  This isn't law yet and the Opposition now has an opportunity to fix the government on a single clear issue to go to the next polls on.

It's like a gift from Gaia to a smart opposition.


----------



## RangerRay (12 Jul 2011)

"Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon dioxide emissions."

Yeah, Gordon Campbell told us the same lie too.


----------



## Sapplicant (19 Jul 2011)

So msn had a nice story that came off as attributing the stage collapse during Cheap Trick's set at Bluesfest to climate change. Interview with David Phillips. I don't have a computer, so I am unable to fetch a link, but, seek and ye shall find. The important thing is that Bun-E's alright, Tommy's alright, Robin's alright, and Rick as well, is alright. They're all alright.


----------



## Haletown (19 Jul 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> "Prime Minister Julia Gillard sought to reassure wary Australians that the deeply unpopular carbon tax will only cause a minority of households to pay more and insisted it is critical to helping the country lower its massive carbon dioxide emissions."
> 
> Yeah, Gordon Campbell told us the same lie too.



And Gillard is now channeling her inner Gordo and plumbing new lows in political popularity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/carbon-tax-makes-gillard-australias-least-wanted-2315895.html


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2011)

Science only if it supports your side?

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/19/why-did-cern-gag-its-scientists/



> *Why Did CERN Gag Its Scientists?*
> 
> That there is a gag in place is not in dispute. The question is why?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2011)

Wonder how much coverage this gets?

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us



> *New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism*
> By James Taylor | Forbes - Wed, Jul 27, 2011
> 
> NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2011)

Interesting idea as to what triggers ice ages:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128245.000-ironrich-dust-fuelled-4-million-years-of-ice-ages.html?full=true&print=true



> *Iron-rich dust fuelled 4 million years of ice ages*
> 
> DUST is all that's needed to plunge the world into an ice age. When blown into the sea, the iron it contains can fertilise plankton growth on a scale large enough to cause global temperatures to drop. The finding adds support to the idea of staving off climate change by simulating the effects of dust - perhaps by sprinkling the oceans with iron filings.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Aug 2011)

Can we start with the Sea Shepherd?


----------



## Haletown (5 Aug 2011)

more torpedoes into the side of the mighty SS Global Warming Scam.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#more-44593

The podcast is worth listening to

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/


----------



## Haletown (6 Aug 2011)

Hilarious stitch-up from Australia of the global warming "the sky is falling" mantra used to scare people into going all greenie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOEUFKh-SU&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Furniture (6 Aug 2011)

From the BBC yet more research showing that the climate is far more complex than the global warming prophets would have us believe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930

The article basically points out that as temperatures change the global circulation changes, which prevents the ice free arctic senarios from happening.


----------



## Illini (6 Aug 2011)

Consider the fact that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and constitutes ~1.5% of the atmosphere
on average.  This 1.5% is expressed as weight to weight, the standard for chemistry.  In contrast,
environmental zealots show carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere as "PPM" or parts per million.

If you look up the Keeling Curve, you see that atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from ~310 ppm
fifty or sixty years ago to ~380 ppm today.  

The Keeling Curve is designed to move you to action through fear.  My we must reverse this dangerous
upward curve, everyone is supposed to say.  And of course tens of millions of gullible people do just that.

However, if you convert 1.5% water vapor by weight to parts per million, you get something on the order of
23,000.

So you are supposed to believe that ~1 part per million change in 23,000 parts per million is driving climate 
change?

Be sure to calculate the percentage that 1 over 23,000 represents and then tell me where such an insignificant
change makes such monumental, indeed catastrophic changes that we should all stay at home and never travel
anywhere again.

This is what the environmental hypocrites order the rest of us to do by virtue of their demand to "cut carbon dioxide
emissions 80% BY 2050" even as they carry on as usual.   Take Al Gore, please.  Or consider the countless number
of environmental conferences worldwide, attended almost exclusively at taxpayer expense.

Why don't they videoconference, you may ask?  Well why bother, really, when chumps like all of you are paying the
air fare and hotel bill and expensive dinners.

Google environmental conferences and see the extensive list for yourself.

Then next time you see a Sierra magazine, gaze upon their extensive list of foreign vacations, all taken by flying
gas-guzzling jets all over the world.  Get a Sierra Club patch for climbing 25, 50, or 100 peaks, and remember
kids, you don't get to those peaks by hiking to them.


----------



## Haletown (11 Aug 2011)

WARNING!  Do not drink coffee while watching this . . your keyboard will be in jeopardy.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/170f627ee7/stop-the-environment?


----------



## Northalbertan (12 Aug 2011)

:rofl:  Glad you put the warning up.  Hillarious!


----------



## Redeye (15 Aug 2011)

Thanks to Politifact, a fairly good overview of the non-existent controversy:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/


----------



## Furniture (16 Aug 2011)

Asking the IPCC if global warming is man made is similar to asking the Pope if God exists... 

Sensors today are far more exact than they have ever been, and automation has removed the human element from temperature and pressure observations. I can assure you that at +30 or -30 most human observers reading thermometers aren't putting much effort into it. Even less effort if they are making minimum wage and doing observations for a supervisor that really doesn't care about quality control.

I can assure you that the psychrometer motors and thermometers being used today are far more accurate than than the ones being used in 1850, and as pointed out in a previous post many of the climatological sites that are recording higher temperatures are not set up according to standard.


----------



## JBG (21 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Hilarious stitch-up from Australia of the global warming "the sky is falling" mantra used to scare people into going all greenie.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbOEUFKh-SU&feature=player_embedded


Satire doesn't get any better than that.


----------



## Flip (26 Aug 2011)

At long last , and after some delay.......


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793

This could be the end of the AGW political movement.


----------



## Haletown (26 Aug 2011)

Flip said:
			
		

> At long last , and after some delay.......
> 
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/breaking-news-cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-rays-influence-climate-change/#more-45793
> ...



Regardless, the AGW religious movement will linger on much longer.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2011)

Flip said:
			
		

> This could be the end of the AGW political movement.



I wouldn't be so sure just yet:

Climate cycles blamed for driving civil conflicts


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Aug 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be so sure just yet:
> 
> Climate cycles blamed for driving civil conflicts



It seems reasonable to me that the climate (like its shorter term cousin the weather) will influence behaviour.  It also seems reasonable to me that we should be doing what we can to understand both to the extent that we can predict, within defined limits of uncertainty, what is coming down the road.

We should then invest in those activities which will offset the predicted negative effects:  Build dams and distillation systems and pipelines  to supply water , as a for instance.    Or, if circumstances permit and the neighbours don't complain, allow people to move to more salubrious surrounds.

We should also keep "cash on hand" to deal with the known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

We shouldn't waste money on "prevention" when the preventive mechanisms are poorly defined.  That is akin to pushing on a rope and expecting a ship to undock itself as a result.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

Real science in action (and the response of the alarmists is instructive):

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/Science+settled/5315908/story.html



> *Science now settled*
> TwitterEmail
> inShare
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (29 Aug 2011)

gotta love the Australian sense of humour

http://www.mp3.com.au/Forms/ArtistProfile.aspx?ProfileId=282145


hit play button mid upper right side 

and another one to drive the greenies & ecoloonies crazy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWiKvNDTjB4&feature=player_embedded

That guitar player looks just like Mann.

Good Monday so far in the annoy a Warmista category


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wonder how much coverage this gets?
> 
> http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us



Pretty much none. And deservedly so. It was just blown right out of the water as wildly misrepresenting a study - so much that the journal's editor has resigned.  Oops.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109020008


----------



## Haletown (6 Sep 2011)

Oh boy, MediaMatters has decided the study was flawed.  Well that settles it.  Because  MediaMatters doesn't have an agenda, except of course to still believe Obama has an IQ over 90.

If the paper was so flawed, why wasn't it pulled? It has not been pulled from publication. The paper stands.

The normal procedure if a paper is disputed is letters are sent to the Journal, the errors revealed and then the original author has a chance for a rebuttal.

This normal process wasn't followed. Why?

Then counter papers are published and the normal process is to include the original author  as a peer reviewer. The original  paper took two long years of tedious peer review and many attempts to derail it.  The counter paper took three weeks to get through peer review and they didn't ask Dr. Spencer to bee on the Peer Review team.  

Every paper published is challenged and "flaws" are found, but this is a witch hunt.


The real question is why did Wagner resign, who pressured him and why.  His resignation email says he was surprised that some of the peer reviewers were sympathetic to being skeptical of global warming.  Two years it took and he wasn't aware of the reviewers professional records?  Hilarious.

Did Wagner cave to pressure from the Warmongers, threats to be out of the loop, kicked off the AGW Gravy Train, not invited to all the nice meetings in Bali?  

Time will tell.


If the best you can do is MediaMatters you really need to expand your horizons.

Here's Judith Curry on the matter . . . and she's very highly respected and a bit of a Warmer

http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/05/update-on-spencer-braswell-part-ii/#more-4805

Here's Roger Pielke Snr  - and he's one of the most respected Climate Scientists.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/comments-on-the-dessler-2011-grl-paper-cloud-variations-and-the-earths-energy-budget/


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2011)

Please. It's not as though I didn't look beyond that. MMFA's point was that the article was reported as something it clearly was not. I note that Curry doesn't dispute that, her write up is more focused on certain responses to it - stating, clearly, that there's reason to dispute the findings in the original article, and they'll be disputed. The real problem, though, isn't that article, it's the way it was repeatedly misrepresented.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Oh boy, MediaMatters has decided the study was flawed.  Well that settles it.  Because  MediaMatters doesn't have an agenda, except of course to still believe Obama has an IQ over 90.
> 
> If the paper was so flawed, why wasn't it pulled? It has not been pulled from publication. The paper stands.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (6 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Please. It's not as though I didn't look beyond that. MMFA's point was that the article was reported as something it clearly was not. I note that Curry doesn't dispute that, her write up is more focused on certain responses to it - stating, clearly, that there's reason to dispute the findings in the original article, and they'll be disputed. The real problem, though, isn't that article, it's the way it was repeatedly misrepresented.



Then why would Wagner resign?  Because of external misrepresentation? 

Ya right.  Using that logic he should reapply for his job based on the mis-misrepresentation of MediaMatters.


Just another desperate attempt by the usual crew to keep the Great Scam going becausethey know they'll never get another gig like it.

That sound you hear is another wheel coming off the Great AGW Scam Bus.


----------



## Redeye (6 Sep 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> That sound you hear is another wheel coming off the Great AGW Scam Bus.



And yet its widespread popular acceptance as reality remains pretty much unchanged...


----------



## Haletown (6 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> And yet its widespread popular acceptance as reality remains pretty much unchanged...



Right . . . just like Copenhagen/COP15 was widely accepted and highly successful - because the AGW science  has widespread popular acceptance as reality and the Kyoto 2 is going to be ratified.  Because  AGW climate models work perfectly. 

Eugenics in the 1930's  had  widespread popularity and for centuries it was well known that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Until it wasn't anymore.  Lots of things have widespread acceptance and are not true.   Popularity is not science, well maybe at MediMatters.

But if you are comfortable believing in AGW, fill your boots. No worries for me. 

You have given up using all petroleum products, right?  Practice what you preach and all that.   :nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (6 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Pretty much none. And deservedly so. It was just blown right out of the water as wildly misrepresenting a study - so much that the journal's editor has resigned.  Oops.
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109020008



Yeah, MediaMatters seems a touch biased... ironically, most of their articles deal with the bias of Fox News.  Just a touch of pan calling the kettle black.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yeah, MediaMatters seems a touch biased... ironically, most of their articles deal with the bias of Fox News.  Just a touch of pan calling the kettle black.



Media Matters For America's sole purpose in existing is to highlight Fox News' bias, misrepresentation, and generally not being news.  As you might notice, they do it constantly. As David Frum said, "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox."  Fox is an agitprop machine, MMFA's the counterbalance. Anyhow, I wouldn't use them as a primary source on anything, they're just great aggregators.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Right . . . just like Copenhagen/COP15 was widely accepted and highly successful - because the AGW science  has widespread popular acceptance as reality and the Kyoto 2 is going to be ratified.  Because  AGW climate models work perfectly.
> 
> Eugenics in the 1930's  had  widespread popularity and for centuries it was well known that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Until it wasn't anymore.  Lots of things have widespread acceptance and are not true.   Popularity is not science, well maybe at MediMatters.



:facepalm:



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> But if you are comfortable believing in AGW, fill your boots. No worries for me.



It's kind of a Pascal's Wager. If science turns out to be wrong, well, fine. It happens. The steps taken to deal with the program will largely have positive benefits to humanity regardless. But the cost of not doing anything, and finding out it's actually really true (and remember, it's about as controversial as evolution in the scientific community: not at all, overall, just lots of discourse about various facets) is dire.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> You have given up using all petroleum products, right?  Practice what you preach and all that.   :nod:



 :facepalm:

No one's asking anyone to do that. However, I drive a fairly fuel efficient vehicle most of the time (and while tailpipe NOx emissions from motorcycles are worse than cars, they still use less fuel, and that's one vice I won't give up). I use energy efficiently in my home. My rental property has a heat pump, and programmable thermostat that saves a lot of energy for my tenants, and they reap rewards from that because it keeps their costs down. I make choices that ultimately, generally "reduce my carbon footprint", but I do so in large part because of economic motivation. It costs me less money which leaves me more to do other things with. All I want to see happen is further economic incentives to steer people that way, particularly in cases where there are large upfront costs that pay off over time, because our inability to assess present values particularly well often distorts consumption choices.

That's why I don't get the denier set (other than the coal and oil/gas industry, obviously). No one's trying to force anyone to make major, destructive changes to their lives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

But the problem, Redeye, is that Fox News is not alone in being characterized by _"bias, misrepresentation, and generally not being news. _" In fact the _infotainment_ and _propaganda_ segments of American news appear, to me, to be the new mainstream. What we need is an independent - not funded by government or any special interest group - group that corrects the errors and downright lies that are the stock in trade of the left and right wing media. Then I would give a damn about what they say; _Media matters_ is crap because it is every bit as biased and misrepresents the 'news' just as much as _Fox_, and it deserves the same disdain.


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the problem, Redeye, is that Fox News is not alone in being characterized by _"bias, misrepresentation, and generally not being news. _" In fact the _infotainment_ and _propaganda_ segments of American news appear, to me, to be the new mainstream. What we need is an independent - not funded by government or any special interest group - group that corrects the errors and downright lies that are the stock in trade of the left and right wing media. Then I would give a damn about what they say; _Media matters_ is crap because it is every bit as biased and misrepresents the 'news' just as much as _Fox_, and it deserves the same disdain.



May I present factcheck.org and politifact.org?

And just out of curiosity, in the case of the US in particular, would you mind pointing out the "left wing media"? I can't really seem to find them. Certainly not on the scale of Fox et al, to say the least. MSNBC leans slightly left, but not really, and remarkably, the orgs I just listed seem to find a lot less problematic with their reporting (though they do find things, to be sure.)


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2011)

Jerry Pournelle:

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=1837



> *Climate Change*
> 
> The debate continues. My views have not changed: we don’t know enough, and the Climate Modelers continue to act as if we do. When all this began back in the 1980’s I said that the modelers were agreed that there was man-made global warming, and the data collectors did not agree at all. Over time that changed, not be collection of better data, but by the ascendency of the modelers over the people who actually studied climate and climate data. It’s still relatively true: the people who actually study climate are nowhere near as certain that they know what’s going on as the modelers – and the whole thing has got political enough that those who do find results contrary to the consensus are denounced, called Deniers, and are denied places to publish. Contrary opinions tend not to be published – which in these days of the Internet is an exercise in futility. But when contrary views are published the consequences for those who do the peer reviews and actual publishing can be severe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (7 Sep 2011)

The idea that we should spend buckets of money "just in case'  ignores the calculation of the Opportunity Cost of such payments.

In order to pay Wind Turbine and Solar Panel operators 80 cents for what costs 3 cents to produce means the money has to come from other parts of the Public Purse.

So should we defund Hospitals and/or Schools to do the "Just in Case" thingy?


----------



## Redeye (7 Sep 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The idea that we should spend buckets of money "just in case'  ignores the calculation of the Opportunity Cost of such payments.
> 
> In order to pay Wind Turbine and Solar Panel operators 80 cents for what costs 3 cents to produce means the money has to come from other parts of the Public Purse.
> 
> So should we defund Hospitals and/or Schools to do the "Just in Case" thingy?



No. Solutions have to be tempered with a measure of economic consideration, quite obviously.


----------



## Haletown (7 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> No. Solutions have to be tempered with a measure of economic consideration, quite obviously.



Tell that to ratepayers and taxpayers in Dulton's Greenie Dreamie Ontario.


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2011)

The Great Global Warming Con Job & Ponzi Scam . . . .  explained 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU-_y7GYGO0&feature=player_detailpage


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Tell that to ratepayers and taxpayers in Dulton's Greenie Dreamie Ontario.



I'm one of them.

What were you saying, again?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm one of them.
> 
> What were you saying, again?



So am I, and I agree with the previous poster.


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm one of them.
> 
> What were you saying, again?



Hey if you are happy paying up to 25x the real price for your electricity just so you can feel good because it is "green power", well then all happiness to you.

However I think your happiness may not be shared by a lot of folks or businesses in Ontario, or the overall Ontario economy.

Dulton may be able to hide the real costs of electricity for Ontarions by not putting the full green cost on consumer's bills, but he still has pay the Green producers from General Revenue and that is a Deficit Account.  There is only one payer in the end and that is the people of Ontario and if you/they are happy paying for a lot of Greenie Indulgences then pay away.

Your money, your call.


Makes no difference to me, other than the entertainment value.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Hey if you are happy paying up to 25x the real price for your electricity just so you can feel good because it is "green power", well then all happiness to you.
> 
> However I think your happiness may not be shared by a lot of folks or businesses in Ontario, or the overall Ontario economy.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty aware of some of the perverse outcomes of some of those plans. I'd like to see Ontario get on with building new nuclear at Darlington, both for environmental reasons, and because I'd like to see the value of property I own there increase, and more good, high-paying jobs coming to Durham Region is excellent. I'm fine with tax incentives to develop green power - we give them for oil and gas development, after all, but I also think they need to be reasonable.


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm fine with tax incentives to develop green power - we give them for oil and gas development, after all, but I also think they need to be reasonable.



Ahhh that old canard about freebies for  the oil and gas industries . . .  might be true in Greenie Land - it is a good sound bite but just not true.  I h.ear all the time from the likes of Dr. Fruit Fly and the CBC repeats it all the time - but then the CBC isn't into facts that much.

The tax breaks and subsidies for the Oil & Gas exploration industry are pretty much the same ones granted for all industries.  The difference is that Oil & gas are profitable industries and pay EXTRA amounts into the public purse that subsidized  greenie industries don't.



"In this paper, we conclude that oil and gas investments generally bear a higher tax and royalty
burden than do investments in other industries,"

http://www.policyschool.ucalgary.ca/files/publicpolicy/mintz3.pdf


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Sep 2011)

Quote from: Haletown on Yesterday at 11:14:47

    





> Tell that to ratepayers and taxpayers in Dulton's Greenie Dreamie Ontario.




Redeye:


> I'm one of them.



Back in Ontario are you.


----------



## Redeye (8 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Quote from: Haletown on Yesterday at 11:14:47
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, but I own rental properties there, and thus I pay taxes there. I can technically vote in the provincial election if I classify myself as "planning to return", but at this point anyhow, I'm not, so I won't.

To Haletown - the Oil & Gas industries receive specific tax credits related to exploration to allow them to spread prospecting costs. I don't have any issue with them, but they do exist.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2011)

"Green Power" is very marginal at best, being low density, intermittent and high cost. I'm sure Ontario voters will be sending a very strong message about energy pricing in October, and I can see the expensive subsidies being tossed (as well as a lot of other things: _Its the Spending, stupid!_) in order to bring the budget under control.

As noted in the "No Oil" thread, North America is sitting on a cornucopia of hydrocarbon reserves, and technology has advanced to the point even previously "impossible" energy sources like shale oil are within reach, and other technologies like variations of the F-T process to convert gasses into liquid fuels have also reached technological and financial maturity.

To put things in perspective, here are a few items from that thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1029784.html#msg1029784 (comparing the energy density of electrical storage to hydrocarbons)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1050383.html#msg1050383 (we are at the beginning of a hydrocarbon age, not the end)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37017/post-1050548.html#msg1050548 (The maturity of F-T technology)

From another perspective, the availability of inexpensive energy is key to economic growth, both here and in the developing world. Energy usage is a fairly reliable guide to how wealthy a society is; more energy=more wealth. This is the simple explanation as to why the various hair brained Green energy schemes have been so soundly rejected by the public, people know that the more they pay for energy the lower their standards of living will be. This might not stop corrupt politicians and their crony capitalist handmaidens from blowing $500 million on a failed solar energy plant (rinse and repeat for virtually all of the other green energy schemes promoted and subsidized throughout the world), but the public isn't buying.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2011)

More for those who would claim the science is "settled" (although by this point it is like arguing with a religious zelot; regardless of whatever factual information is being brought to the table it will be dismissed out of hand. See the reaction to the Climategate emails, which participents spelled out the scam in their own hands.):





> *Lawrence Solomon: Warmed right over*
> 
> Lawrence Solomon  Sep 16, 2011 – 9:21 PM ET | Last Updated: Sep 16, 2011 10:07 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Sep 2011)

This is just too funny............even if it's not getting warmer it's still getting warmer. :nod:


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/09/19/18708941.html

'Missing' global heat may hide in deep oceans 


The mystery of Earth’s missing heat may have been solved: it could lurk deep in oceans, temporarily masking the climate-warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions, researchers reported. 
Climate scientists have long wondered where this so-called missing heat was going, especially over the last decade, when greenhouse emissions kept increasing but world air temperatures did not rise correspondingly.


More at link.


----------



## HavokFour (2 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> This is just too funny............even if it's not getting warmer it's still getting warmer. :nod:
> 
> 
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2011/09/19/18708941.html
> ...



:facepalm:


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2011)

they need to make up their minds.....

Cold causing record Ozone loss over Arctic: scientists
Article Link
 The Canadian Press

Date: Sunday Oct. 2, 2011 6:43 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Scientists say an unprecedented ozone "hole" opened up above the Arctic last year, caused by an unusually prolonged period of extremely low temperatures.

A NASA-led study says the amount of ozone destroyed was comparable to that seen in some years in the Antarctic, where an ozone "hole" has formed each spring since the mid 1980s.

Scientists from 19 institutions in nine countries, including Canada and the United States, were involved in the research.

They found that at some altitudes, the cold period in the Arctic lasted more than 30 days longer in 2011 than in any previously studied Arctic winter, leading to the unprecedented ozone loss.

This year's ozone loss occurred over an area considerably smaller than that of the Antarctic ozone holes.

That's because the Arctic polar vortex, a persistent large-scale cyclone within which the ozone loss takes place, was about 40 per cent smaller than a typical Antarctic vortex.
end


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2011)

I think this (hole in the Arctic ozone layer) is consistent with established science.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2011)

The inconsistency has to do with the hole being caused by extreme cold, even though we are constantly told that the arctic is being subject to unprecedented warming.....


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think this (hole in the Arctic ozone layer) is consistent with established science.



Interesting that CFCs and aerosols were banned in 1978 due to their impact on Ozone and causing great holes above the arctic and antarctic.

Ban the hairsprays.  Holes magically disappear (from the headlines).

Now the holes are back (in the headlines).  What virgin is to be sacrificed next?

In 1978 the magazines were also full of headlines about "The coming ice-age" - caused by man's inherent vileness.


----------



## Haletown (6 Oct 2011)

Ahhh Wiki Leaks  . . .  so beloved by the leftoid progressives and eco hysterics, swings both ways.

http://tinyurl.com/6zpojte


Harper was and is right, the entire Global Warming-Kyoto-Carbon Credit-Clean Development is a corrupt scam.

Wonder what good could have happened if the $trillions of dollars flushed down the greenie toilet pursuing Eco-Fairies, fdemonizing Carbon Dioxide and pining for the various Enviro Nirvana Pipe Dreams had instead been spent on medical research or other useful social improvement  programs?

Because there is always an opportunity cost, especially for stupid stuff.


----------



## Haletown (13 Oct 2011)

Love him or hate him, Conrad has an eloquent handle on using the English Language . . .

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/conrad-black/global-warming-science_b_1007166.html

In the Huff & Blow no less . . .   Adriana has been kissing green buttocks since whenever so to let this heresy appear in anything she is associated with speaks volumes.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2011)

The same people who brought you Climategate demonstrate their committment to transparency and open communication:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/17/breaking-an-ipcc-backchannel-cloud-was-apparently-established-to-hide-ipcc-deliberations-from-foia/



> *BREAKING: An IPCC backchannel ‘cloud’ was apparently established to hide IPCC deliberations from FOIA./b]Posted on October 17, 2011 by Anthony Watts
> UPDATE: (9:20 PST 10-17) the FOI request has been released, a copy of which is now linked below.
> 
> CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official  correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
> ...


*
*


----------



## Redeye (21 Oct 2011)

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/climate-skepticism-takes-another-hit

Kevin Drum
→ Climate Change, Science, Top Stories
Climate Skeptics Take Another Hit
—By Kevin Drum
| Fri Oct. 21, 2011 3:00 AM PDTPhysicists are notorious for believing that other scientists are mathematically incompetent. And University of California-Berkeley physicist Richard Muller is notorious for believing that conventional wisdom is often wrong. For example, the conventional wisdom about climate change. Muller has criticized Al Gore in the past as an "exaggerator," has spoken warmly of climate skeptic Anthony Watts, and has said that Steve McIntyre's famous takedown of the "hockey stick" climate graph made him "uncomfortable" with the paper the hockey stick was originally based on.

So in 2010 he started up the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project (BEST) to show the world how to do climate analysis right. Who better, after all? "Muller's views on climate have made him a darling of skeptics," said Scientific American, "and newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives, who invited him to testify to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology about his preliminary results." The Koch Foundation, founded by the billionaire oil brothers who have been major funders of the climate-denial machine, gave BEST a $150,000 grant.

But Muller's congressional testimony last March didn't go according to plan. He told them a preliminary analysis suggested that the three main climate models in use today—each of which uses a different estimating technique, and each of which has potential flaws—are all pretty accurate: Global temperatures have gone up considerably over the past century, and the increase has accelerated over the past few decades. Yesterday, BEST confirmed these results and others in its first set of published papers about land temperatures. (Ocean studies will come later.) Using a novel statistical methodology that incorporates more data than other climate models and requires less human judgment about how to handle it (summarized by the Economist here), the BEST team drew several conclusions:

The earth is indeed getting warmer. Global average land temperatures have risen 0.91 degrees Celsius over the past 50 years. This is "on the high end of the existing range of reconstructions." 
The rate of increase on land is accelerating. Warming for the entire 20th century clocks in at 0.73 degrees C per century. But over the most recent 40 years, the globe has warmed at a rate of 2.76 degrees C per century. 
Warming has not abated since 1998. The rise in average temperature over the period 1998-2010 is 2.84 degrees C per century. 
The BEST data significantly reduces the uncertainty of the temperature reconstructions. Their estimate of the temperature increase over the past 50 years has an uncertainty of only 0.04 degrees C, compared to a reported uncertainty of 0.13 degrees C in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. 
Although many of the temperature measuring stations around the world have large individual uncertainties, taken as a whole the data is quite reliable. The difference in reported averages between stations ranked "okay" and stations ranked "poor" is very small. 
The urban heat island effect—i.e., the theory that rising temperatures around cities might be corrupting the global data—is very small. 
In the press release announcing the results, Muller said, "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK." In other words, climate scientists know what they're doing after all.

The BEST report is purely an estimate of planetary warming, and it makes no estimate of how much this warming is due to human activity. So in one sense, its impact is limited since the smarter skeptics have already abandoned the idea that warming is a hoax and now focus their fire solely on the contention that it's man-made. (And the even smarter ones have given up on that, too, and now merely argue that it's economically pointless to try to stop it.) Still, the fact that climate scientists turned out to be careful and thorough in their basic estimates of temperature rise surely enhances their credibility in general. Climategate was always a ridiculous sideshow, and this is just one more nail in its coffin. Climate scientists got the basic data right, and they've almost certainly gotten the human causes right too.

Front page image: ClimateSafety/Flickr


----------



## Haletown (21 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, back in the real world:



 "The BEST report is purely an estimate of planetary warming"

Yup . . the real world of Climate Scientology  . . . 

Makes me want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a global jihad on carbon dioxide.  

There will be even more mirth when the BEST paper is actually released and people can read it . . . .  rather than just a pre-review marketing stuff.


----------



## Haletown (21 Oct 2011)

speaking of the real world . . .  Donna Laframboise rips the IPCC to shreds in her new book.  

The world's best scientists . . .  NOT

Totally transparent . . .  NOT, NOT

All Peer Reviewed Science . . .   NOT, NOT, NOT

Staffed by Greenpeace & WWF agitators   . . .   YES, YES, YES




Excellent way to spend  $5 bucks. . .  kindle or download the .pdf

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

Climate alarmists and their supporters have a real issue with evidence, and react negatively to scientific observations, released documents, emails, etc. which goes against their world view.

As noted early on in this thread, the temperatures of Mars go up and down in synchronization with the Earth's, and people in Scotland could grow grapes and make wine in the age of the Vikings, two very simple factual observations which demolish the entire AGW hypothesis. Watching the alarmists attempt to manipulate data, bully the peer reveiwers, marginalize scientists who examine the data, supress the results of experiments that demonstrate alternative modes of climactic change (the recent CERN experiements which prove that cosmic radiation from deep space govern cloud formation were very enlightening, even more so was the attempt by CERN bureaucrats to prevent the release of these results...). 

This thread alone should be required reading for anyone who is looking for facts to debate the issue (there are 64 pages of posts), sadly, alarmists are not interested in debate or the facts. Still, this information will be useful in the future after the global warming scam has run its course, both as a historical document and to prepare for the next scam.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

The IPCC in full, living colour:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/



> *Peter Foster: A thoroughly political body*
> 
> Peter Foster  Oct 21, 2011 – 9:36 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 21, 2011 9:40 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

Somewhat long post and vid, but an outstanding refutation of another bit of AGW propaganda. Your kids can do this as a science fair experiment:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/replicating-al-gores-climate-101-video-experiment-shows-that-his-high-school-physics-could-never-work-as-advertised/


----------



## Haletown (22 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The IPCC in full, living colour:
> 
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/



I just finished reading it.
Beyond devastating.

Canada should table the book at the UN and demand the entire corrupt pile of crap called the IPCC be disbanded and criminal charges for fraud and theft be laid against hundreds of the senior officials who have been running the scam for so many years.

I'll wait with baited breath for the  CBC to do a story on this book.  Maybe get Dr. Fruit Fly to do the interview.


----------



## Haletown (23 Oct 2011)

comprehensive review of DL's book

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/peter-foster-a-thoroughly-political-body/

"In a meticulously referenced and deservedly praised page-turner, Ms. Laframboise, an accomplished journalist who turned to the skeptical blogosphere, demonstrates how the IPCC is a thoroughly political organization. Far from objectively weighing the best available science, it cherry-picks egregiously to support its main objective: to serve its government masters. Its lead authors are not the world’s leading scientists but frequently wet-behind-the-ears graduates, and/or ardent activists. They are also selected on the basis of gender and country “diversity” rather than expertise. The organization, Ms. Laframboise demonstrates, has also been thoroughly infiltrated by environmental NGOs, in particular the World Wildlife Fund."


read excerpts here

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/


----------



## Haletown (25 Oct 2011)

excellent interview . . .

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/25/the-ipcc-delinquent-teenager-gets-air-time/#more-49926

Like the rest of the UN . . .  the IPCC is a corrupt mess.


----------



## shamu (29 Oct 2011)

The Koch brothers funded an independent, climate change skeptic, Richard Muller, to study and examine climate change.

"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed to closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and UK." - Richard Muller, Founder, Best

This is the 4th independent reassessment I know of, of the IPCC findings/"Climategate", determining the information was accurate and unbiased.

Despite continued ongoing peer reviewed scientific data, we get corporate financed op-ed pieces, C n P'd on here, accepted as journalism and science (of which it is neither).   Now, Jason Johnston, for example, is stated as a "well-credentialled skeptics, including Jason Johnston, an expert in environmental law".  He's a Republican election campaign manager, no science creditials.  Donna Laframboise?  A feminist, no science education, much less expertise.

And it goes on.  Much like arguing with Creationists or astrologists, opting for their own reality.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Oct 2011)

But now the BEST study is being attacked by one of the key scientists who worked on it. The following article from The Mail on Sunday is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague
By David Rose

It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all – the research that, in the words of its director, ‘proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer’.

Professor Richard Muller, of Berkeley University in California, and his colleagues from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures project team (BEST) claimed to have shown that the planet has warmed by almost a degree  centigrade since 1950 and is warming continually. 

Published last week ahead of a major United Nations climate summit in Durban, South Africa, next month, their work was cited around the world as irrefutable evidence that only the most stringent measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can save civilisation as we know it.

It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America. 

The Washington Post said the BEST study had ‘settled the climate change debate’ and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a ‘cynical fraud’.

But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of  trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.

Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no  scientific basis.

Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.

Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.

In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties – a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.

‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.’

However, Prof Muller denied warming was at a standstill. 
‘We see no evidence of it [global warming] having slowed down,’ he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. There was, he added, ‘no levelling off’.
A graph issued by the BEST project also suggests a continuing steep increase.
But a report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.

This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all – though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.

‘This is nowhere near what the  climate models were predicting,’ Prof Curry said. ‘Whatever it is that’s going on here, it doesn’t look like it’s being dominated by CO2.’

Prof Muller also wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal. It was here, under the headline ‘The case against global warming scepticism’, that he proclaimed ‘there were good reasons for doubt until now’.

This, too, went around the world, with The Economist, among many others, stating there was now ‘little room for doubt’.

Such claims left Prof Curry horrified. 

‘Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism,’ she said. ‘To say that is the biggest mistake he [Prof Muller] has made. When I saw he was saying that I just thought, “Oh my God”.’ 

In fact, she added, in the wake of the unexpected global warming standstill, many climate scientists who had previously rejected sceptics’ arguments were now taking them much more seriously. 

They were finally addressing questions such as the influence of clouds, natural temperature cycles and solar radiation – as they should have done, she said, a long time ago.

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its  website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not 
be ‘statistically significant’,  although, he added, it was equally  possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

‘I am baffled as to what he’s trying to do,’ Prof Curry said. 

Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill. 
‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.’

The BEST project, which has been lavishly funded, brings together experts from different fields from top American universities.

It was set up 18 months ago in an effort to devise a new and more accurate way of computing changes in world temperatures by using readings from some 39,000 weather stations on land, instead of adding sea temperatures as well.

Some scientists, Prof Muller included, believe that this should provide a more accurate indication of how the world is responding to carbon dioxide.
The oceans, they argue, warm more slowly and this is why earlier global measurements which also cover the sea – such as those from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University – have found no evidence of warming since the Nineties.

The usual way a high-profile project such as BEST would  publish its results would be in a scientific journal, following a  rigorous ‘peer review’ by other experts in the field.

The more eminent journals that publish climate research, such as Nature And Science, insist there must be no leaks to the media until this review is complete and if such leaks occur, they will automatically reject the research.

Earlier this year, the project completed four research papers. 

As well as trends in world  temperatures, they looked at the extent to which temperature readings can be distorted by urban ‘heat islands’ and the influence of long-term temperature cycles in the oceans. The papers were submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research.

But although Prof Curry is the second named author of all four papers, Prof Muller failed to  consult her before deciding to put them on the internet earlier this month, when the peer review process had barely started, and to issue a detailed press release at the same time.

He also briefed selected  journalists individually. ‘It is not how I would have played it,’ Prof Curry said. ‘I was informed only when I got a group email. I think they have made errors and I distance myself from what they did. 
‘It would have been smart to consult me.’ She said it was unfortunate that although the Journal of Geophysical Research  had allowed Prof Muller to issue the papers, the reviewers were, under the journal’s policy, forbidden from public comment.
Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review  process.’

In Prof Curry’s view, two of the papers were not ready to be  published, in part because they did not properly address the arguments of climate sceptics.
As for the graph disseminated to the media, she said: ‘This is “hide the decline” stuff. Our data show the pause, just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.

‘To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the  statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.’

Prof Muller said she was ‘out of the loop’. He added: ‘I wasn’t even sent the press release before it was issued.’

Prof Muller defended his  behaviour yesterday, saying that all he was doing was ‘returning to traditional peer review’, issuing draft papers to give the whole ‘climate community’ a chance to comment. 
As for the press release, he claimed he was ‘not seeking  publicity’, adding: ‘This is simply a way of getting the media to report this more accurately.’

He said his decision to publish was completely unrelated to the forthcoming United Nations  climate conference.
This, he said, was ‘irrelevant’, insisting that nothing could have been further from his mind than trying to influence it.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cGCTco4X


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

Here are the two graphs cited in the article Old Sweat posted.






Source: Mail Online

It is a bit more than just "fun with numbers." Data interpretation is pretty much central to sound analysis. 

A close look at the top graph shows that the data, although highly _compacted_ because the years 2001-2011 are at the end of a data set that goes from 1800 to 2011, the "level" data is there. The bottom graph just clarifies it. The _trend_ line, measured from, say, 1812 would be shocking; the same trend line from 2001-2011 is reassuring. 

My reading is that Profs. Curry and Muller are debating long term vs near term trends and I, for one, am not sure which matters more.

Here's another chart showing population growth covering _about_ the same period as Prof, Muller's graph:





Source: http://ecology110armine2011sp.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/population-growth-and-its-impacts/

To the degree that warming tracks both population growth in the "developing world" and economic growth in, for example, China and IF we assume that energy production and use contributes to warming then we *might* conclude that the growth rate from 1975 to 2000 tracks "development" and _perhaps_ that we are producing less "warming" _per capita_ and that we have "stalled" warming growth since 2000 because we are better managing energy production and use.





China's economic growth 1949-1999
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/520874.stm


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2011)

As usual the climate fantasists are at it again. 

How did the Koch brothers manage to vary the temperature of Mars to match variations of the Earths temperature? Who travelled back in time to do croft farming in Greenland in the 1100's, then arrange to bury the farms under glaciers? Did George W Bush arrange cosmic events in deep space to shower the Earth with cosmic radiation that controls cloud formation?

The historic record and scientific observations and evidence from many different fields totally negates the AGW arguments, and reveals (just as much as the Climategate emails) that the entire AGW industry is a scam.


----------



## Bass ackwards (9 Nov 2011)

This could be very bad news (IMO) for the Aussies. 
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

*Australia passes landmark carbon price laws*
By James Grubel | Reuters – Mon, Nov 7, 2011

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's parliament passed landmark laws to impose a price on carbon emissions on Tuesday in one of the biggest economic reforms in a decade, giving new impetus to December's global climate talks in South Africa.
The scheme's impact will be felt right across the economy, from miners to LNG producers, airlines and steel makers and is aimed at making firms more energy efficient and push power generation toward gas and renewables.
Australia accounts for just 1.5 percent of global emissions, but is the developed world's highest emitter per capita due to a reliance on coal to generate electricity.
"This is a very positive step for the global effort on climate change. It shows that the world's most emissions-intensive advanced economy is prepared to use a market mechanism to cut carbon emissions in a low-cost way," said Deutsche Bank carbon analyst Tim Jordan.

The vote is a major victory for embattled Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who staked her government's future on what will be the most comprehensive carbon price scheme outside of Europe despite deep hostility from voters and the political opposition.
The scheme is a central plank in the government's fight against climate change and aims to halt the growth of the country's growing greenhouse gas emissions from a resources-led boom and age-old reliance on coal-fired power stations.
It sets a fixed carbon tax of A$23 ($23.78) a tone on the top 500 polluters from July 2012, then moves to an emissions trading scheme from July 2015. Companies involved will need a permit for every tone of carbon they emit.
"Today marks the beginning of Australia's clean energy future. This is an historic moment, this is an historic reform, a reform that is long overdue," Finance Minister Penny Wong told the upper house Senate as she wrapped up the marathon debate.
DECADE OF DEBATE
Australia has been debating a carbon price scheme for a decade and through 37 parliamentary inquiries, with the legislation instrumental in the 2007 fall of former conservative prime minister John Howard and Labor's Kevin Rudd in 2010.
The laws will see Australia join the European Union and New Zealand with national emissions trading schemes. California's starts in 2013, while China and South Korea are working on carbon trading programs. India has a coal tax, while South Africa plans to place carbon caps on its top polluters.

The government hopes securing the carbon price laws will help re-ignite the push for a global agreement to curb emissions and fight global warming ahead of a international talks in Durban in December.
The carbon price will impose a cost on every tone of carbon emitted, giving companies a financial incentive to curb pollution, and will help Australia reach its goal to cut emissions by 5 percent of year 2000 levels by 2020.
Farmers will be exempt from the scheme, but will be able to cash in by selling carbon offsets under separate laws for a carbon farming initiative.
The package of 18 new laws sets up the carbon price as well as billions in compensation for export-exposed industries and local steel makers, as well as personal tax cuts for 90 percent of workers, worth an average A$300 a year.
Emissions-intensive trade exposed industries such as aluminum, zinc refiners and steel makers, will receive 94.5 percent of carbon permits for free for the first three years of the scheme.

CLEAN ENERGY GOLD RUSH
The passing of the bill was greeted with applause from the public galleries, with Green Leader Bob Brown -- a major proponent of the scheme -- shaking hands with Government senators.
Attendees at a carbon expo conference in Melbourne were ecstatic with the result.
"The atmosphere is electric. This is fantastic," said Nick Armstrong of emissions trading firm COzero.
The government expects the scheme to spur a multi-billion-dollar investment rush in new cleaner energy sources including natural gas and renewable power stations to replace Australia's aging coal-fired plants.
Canberra has committed more than A$13 billion for renewable and low emissions projects, including a A$10 billion independent Clean Energy Finance Corporation, with around A$100 billion in renewables sector investment expected by 2050.
However, full introduction of the Australian scheme remains uncertain, with conservative opposition leader Tony Abbott promising to scrap the carbon price if he wins power and with Gillard's minority government holding power by only one seat.
The next election is not due until late 2013, but opinion polls show Gillard's government would be easily swept from office, and Abbott could potentially take power at any time in the event of a by-election in a government-held seat.
Abbott, who has campaigned tirelessly against the new laws, was overseas for Tuesday's vote, but he issued a statement to reaffirm his promise to repeal the laws if he takes power.
"The longer this tax is in place, the worse the consequences for the economy, jobs and families. It will drive up the cost of living, threaten jobs and do nothing for the environment," Abbott said.
A poll on Tuesday showed the conservatives leading ruling Labor by 53 to 47 percent, although the government's popularity had improved slightly as voters warmed to Gillard's handling of economic and industrial relations problems.
The carbon price is one of the three key policies Gillard promised to finalize when she became prime minister, alongside a planned 30 percent tax on iron ore and coal mines and new measures to deter asylum seekers.
But dead-heat elections last August forced Gillard to negotiate details of the carbon price with the Greens and three independent lawmakers.
Climate Minister Greg Combet said the government would stick to its A$23 a tone price, despite it being almost double the European cost of between $8.70 and $12.60 a tone, which is four-year-lows on the back of global economic uncertainty.

"I'd certainly hope and anticipate that in the course of the next three-and-a-half years, the crisis in Europe is overcome, markets will stabilize and recover and our carbon price will mesh well," Combet told Australian radio.
($1 = 0.967 Australian Dollars)
(Additional reporting by Rob Taylor in CANBERRA; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

http://news.yahoo.com/australia-passes-landmark-carbon-tax-laws-015138476.html

**********************************************************

Well, at least the emissions traders are happy... 

Edit: to add the link to the article (sorry, I forgot)


----------



## Haletown (9 Nov 2011)

Australia . . what we avoided.

A minority government dog wagged by the Green Party members.

76% of Australians are against it.  Should be a fun next election.  The Aussies will vent their anger and disgust at Gillard via the ballot box.


----------



## Redeye (9 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The historic record and scientific observations and evidence from many different fields totally negates the AGW arguments, and reveals (just as much as the Climategate emails) that the entire AGW industry is a scam.



So, it revealed as much as the Climategate emails about it being a scam?

So, nothing at all then? Despite your pervasive, loathsome, deep-seated ignorance, investigation after investigation showed that there was no scam at all, just a horrendous mischaracterization of presentation of actual science.


----------



## Haletown (9 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> So, it revealed as much as the Climategate emails about it being a scam?
> 
> So, nothing at all then? Despite your pervasive, loathsome, deep-seated ignorance, investigation after investigation showed that there was no scam at all, just a horrendous mischaracterization of presentation of actual science.



Not quite.  None of the "investigations" were impartial or meant to find truth, they were set up to bury the controversy.  When you don't even question the main characters in your "investigations", when your "investigations" are lead by people with vested interests in global warming - and getting rich because of those interest, you are not interested in getting to the bottom of things, you are interested in protecting the status quo and the tens of billions of Pounds squandered by the Government in useless wind turbines, carbon storage scams and a myriad of useless regulations.


But if you feel the need the believe it, fill your boots full.


----------



## Redeye (9 Nov 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Not quite.  None of the "investigations" were impartial or meant to find truth, they were set up to bury the controversy.  When you don't even question the main characters in your "investigations", when your "investigations" are lead by people with vested interests in global warming - and getting rich because of those interest, you are not interested in getting to the bottom of things, you are interested in protecting the status quo and the tens of billions of Pounds squandered by the Government in useless wind turbines, carbon storage scams and a myriad of useless regulations.



The investigations were conducted by several different agencies with no particular interest or agenda. That's the reality.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> But if you feel the need the believe it, fill your boots full.



Until actually proven otherwise, I side with the scientific consensus, not the fringe. I'm fine with that. I'm happy with investments in changing how we source our energy, and developing more sustainability. I figure I owe it to future generations, even if they're not related to me.


----------



## Haletown (9 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The investigations were conducted by several different agencies with no particular interest or agenda. That's the reality.
> 
> Until actually proven otherwise, I side with the scientific consensus, not the fringe. I'm fine with that. I'm happy with investments in changing how we source our energy, and developing more sustainability. I figure I owe it to future generations, even if they're not related to me.



Sure they were . . . look up Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh and see how "independent" they were.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/24/the-telegraph-gets-it-about-climatgate-inestigations-and-the-conflict-of-interest-of-publicly-funded-media/

Like I say, you can believe in anything you want if it makes you feel better. 

But buy some longjohns 'cause we are in for a long cold spell.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Nov 2011)

I spotted an error in that article:



> The carbon price will impose a cost on every tone of carbon emitted, giving companies a financial incentive to curb pollution



This does nothing about pollution. It limits the so-called "greenhouse gas" emissions, or so they hope.

Meh, colour me skeptical.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2011)

I hope they meant "ton" or "tonne" and not tone.   ???


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I hope they meant "ton" or "tonne" and not tone.   ???



even at that there's 280 lbs difference between a tonne and a ton...

that makes a huge difference when you are talking in the hundreds/thousands of tonne's/tons


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> even at that there's 280 lbs difference between a tonne and a ton...
> 
> that makes a huge difference when you are talking in the hundreds/thousands of tonne's/tons



So, how many *tones* is that?   ;D


----------



## GAP (9 Nov 2011)

C-


----------



## FlyingDutchman (9 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So, how many *tones* is that?   ;D


I don't know, I'm tonne death.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2011)

http://digital.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post 10 Nov 11 *WWF’S tainted ‘witnesses’
*
_The fund’s climate witness program is just another fundraising scheme, as indicated by that “Donate!” button_

It is an established strategy among both the panjandrums of climate catastrophe and their media handmaidens either to ignore individual skeptics or to denigrate them en masse as “deniers” or shills for the fossil fuel industry. No surprise, therefore, that The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star have so far contained not a peep about Donna Laframboise’s exposé of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), The Delinquent Teenager who was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert. However, the book has drawn an angry response from at least one bastion of climate alarmism, the WWF.

Ms. Laframboise’s book claims that the WWF — along with other environmental NGOS such as Greenpeace — has “infiltrated” the IPCC. The WWF subsequently issued a press release describing the assertion as “ludicrous.” Her “sole evidence” was “some overlap between some of the thousands of scientists who have worked for the IPCC and members of a scientific advisory panel to WWF’S climate witness scheme.”

Funny how even the most tenuous link between any individual skeptic and Big Oil or Big Coal is considered to taint all skepticism, and yet to point out the implications of the very significant “overlap” between a radical activist organization and the IPCC is “ludicrous.”

Further diversionary bombast came from the WWF’S Josh Laughren. In a letter to the Post, Mr. Laughren boldly refuted what Ms. Laframboise had never claimed. “Despite Ms. Laframboise’s (and Mr. Foster’s) claims to the contrary,” he wrote, “academies of science from 19 countries all endorse the consensus position that humans are causing climate change, not to mention the more than 800 Canadian scientists and 12 Canadian scientific societies who signed WWF’S 2009 letter to the Prime Minister asking for urgent action. The fact that scientists around the world are increasingly speaking up is evidence of how concerned they are, not of some vast and mysterious conspiracy.”

Ms. Laframboise’s book said nothing about the non-existence of such endorsements and letters. Neither did my review. And who is suggesting “some vast and mysterious conspiracy?” There is nothing mysterious about the fact that the IPCC was set up by governments to find scientific support for a thesis they were already strongly inclined to support.

I have little doubt that the vast majority of IPCC authors are wellmotivated, honest and “concerned,” but I also have little doubt that quite apart from the fundamental bias in the organization’s orientation, its strings are being pulled — as Ms. Laframboise documents — by a central claque of activists such as IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who has repeatedly stated that what is required is a fundamental change in Western lifestyles, even as he personally piles up the Air Miles.

Ms. Laframboise is certainly not the first person to question the integrity and motivations of the IPCC. Former British chancellor of the exchequer Nigel Lawson suggested in his book, An Appeal to

Reason, that the IPCC had mutated into a “politically correct alarmist pressure group.” Andrew Montford, at the end of his own exposé,

The Hockey Stick Illusion, declared: “It is clear that it would be foolish in the extreme to give the IPCC the benefit of the doubt. Their record is too poor, the stakes too high.”

Perhaps the most significant official criticism of the IPCC came in the report by the Interacademy Council, the group representing national science academies, which found “significant shortcomings in each major step of IPCC’S assessment process.”

This latter point is amply fleshed out by Ms. Laframboise’s assiduous investigative digging.

Unfortunately for the WWF, meanwhile, its eruption of indignation draws attention to that “Climate Witness” scheme, which it established “to bring attention to the serious impacts climate change already is having on people and communities, particularly in the developing world. The scientific advisory panel was set up to ensure that the climate impacts related in the articles were consistent with current scientific knowledge of impacts.”

If you go to the WWF website and locate the very first piece of climate testimony, you will find a scientist exercising creditable due diligence. According to “witness” Rifi Hamdani, 31, “I live on Derawan Island, East Kalimantan, Indonesia, and work as a dive guide at the Maratua Paradise Resort. Unpredictable weather has made an impact on underwater tourism here.” The subsequent “scientific review” by Dr. Heru Santoso, of the Tropical Forests and Climate Change Adaptation project, Indonesia, notes: “There are very few scientific literatures to report whether the observed phenomena in this specific region are related to climate change.”

So the first scientist concludes that this witness’s testimony is essentially worthless, as must be all such “stories” about local weather when it comes to assessing the science of global climate. The climate witness program is at heart just another fundraising scheme, as indicated by that “Donate!” button in the top right-hand corner.

As Ms. Laframboise points out of the IPCC authors involved with the WWF: “These people chose to link their scientific reputations to an activist organization that believes ‘It is nearly impossible to overstate the threat of climate change.’ They chose to muddy the water by aligning themselves with lobbyists at the same time that they were examining some of the planet’s most important questions.”

It’s one of the many critical issues raised by her book that, strangely, don’t seem to be getting the media attention they deserve.


----------



## Haletown (10 Nov 2011)

more "truth is stranger than fiction" from the ever so corrupt IPCC.

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/09/the-ipccs-fake-review-editor/

That IPCC, that claims to only uses peer reviewed science - except for the 35% of references that are NOT peer reviewed science but ARE press releases and fundraising literature from Greenpeace and the WWF.

That IPCC, the oh so corrupt waste of time and money that fools so many people into believing it is above reproach, above review and must be listened to, or else.

Get ready for the Durban COP Gong show . . .   probably as entertaining as Copenhagen COP.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2011)

Why "consesnsus" is not Science:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204554204577023893088328710.html?grcc=88888Z0



> *Is That Scientific Heretic a Genius—or a Loon?*
> By MATT RIDLEY
> 
> 'For a profession whose product is new knowledge, science seems strangely resistant to novelty.'
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2011)

And a little reminder as to why the climate alarmists are so shrill:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/james-hansen-and-the-corruption-of-science.php



> *James Hansen and the Corruption of Science*
> 
> Posted on November 20, 2011 by John Hinderaker in Climate
> James Hansen and the Corruption of Science
> ...


----------



## Haletown (21 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And a little reminder as to why the climate alarmists are so shrill:
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/james-hansen-and-the-corruption-of-science.php



That's how the scam works.

Create fear & hysteria about global warming

Great rich off the scam

Don't report the riches and don't pay taxes



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (21 Nov 2011)

After the clearly demonstrated lack of ethics of all the major proponents of AGW alarmism, you have to wonder who is stupid enough to take what they say at face value any more?

In all seriousness, despite best of intentions, you have to live under a rock not to have heard about Gore, Pauchiri, Hansen and Mann's conflicts of interest....the Greenpeace staffers writing the IPCC report, and obviously the ClimateGate Emails.

It's truly an insight in human nature that people are far more comfortable having their existing views reinforced by liars and spin doctors, then to take the time to critically assess what's actually going on, and change their world views as new information becomes available.  

At this point anyone who doesn't see AGW alarmism is a faith-based belief is truly missing the point....and we all know how easy it is to argue with someone about their religion.

Yikes....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> That's how the scam works.
> 
> Create fear & hysteria about global warming
> 
> ...



It wouldn't suprise me if some of these 'scientists' were also part of the Y2K computer scam. Same con game, different subject.

Just keep hyping the latest scare and stay rich.


----------



## Haletown (22 Nov 2011)

Climategate  deju vu

http://tinyurl.com/6vx7497

Thousands of new emails to be digested on the eve of Durban COP.

Another nail to drive in the coffin of the Great Hysterical Global Warming Catastrophic Climate Change  We Are All Gonna Die Scam.


----------



## Haletown (22 Nov 2011)

Now that folks have had some time to start reading the emails . . . .  


'FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you're going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you're going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you're going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/

Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2011)

Climategate 2. These people are supposed to be scientists, but never seem to learn or change their behaviour:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/22/breaking-climategate-two/



> *Breaking: Climategate Two*
> 
> Anthony Watts and Jeff Id — and I don’t know how many others — got links this morning to a new bundle of 170 megabytes (compressed) of new emails from the same old people. Apparently FOIA.org has taken the position that these people are consuming money that could be better used.
> 
> ...



And a link to the emails for any Climategate deniers out there:



> Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
> 
> https://remote.utorrent.com/send?btih=EBD36AFC51AFEF4486028C1940739E6112964629&dn=FOIA2011.zip&message=&sid=e0c7873&cid=6592169267
> You’ll need a bit torrent client
> ...


----------



## Haletown (23 Nov 2011)

Dellers summarizes:

Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
Stage 5: this is old stuff
Stage 6: this is nothing
Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

Repeat as needed

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119271/climategate-2-0-the-warmists-seven-stages-of-grief/


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2011)

Climategate 2; the gift that keeps on giving:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/mr-david-palmer-explains-the-problem/



> *Mr. David Palmer Explains The Problem*
> Posted on November 23, 2011 by Willis Eschenbach
> 
> Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
> ...


----------



## Haletown (25 Nov 2011)

Ooopsy!

"“Global warming rate less than feared: study”:

    High levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may have less of an impact on the rate of global warming than feared, a study said Thursday.  The authors of the study funded by the US National Science Foundation stressed that global warming is real, and that increases in atmospheric CO2, which has doubled from pre-industrial standards, will have multiple serious impacts.  

    But the more severe estimates, such as those put forth by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are unlikely, the researchers found in their study published in the journal Science…."

Sorry about that little mistake . . .  what's a few hundred $billion in bad Public Policy decisions around the world.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/11/24/study-funded-by-national-science-foundation-concludes-global-warming-rate-less-than-feared/


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2011)

More to bury the Climategate deniers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html



> *Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming*
> 
> 5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
> Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2011)

Consensus? Really?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/scientists_in_revolt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1ev1k9h7u



> *Scientists in Revolt against Global Warming*
> By Karin McQuillan
> 
> Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science.  The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO2 emissions took over the media and political arena by storm.  The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted.  We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.
> ...


----------



## TheHead (27 Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo&feature=feedu

This pretty much shuts down the second last article.  Did you manage to check the context of the quotes in that article?


----------



## GAP (28 Nov 2011)

Canada to pull out of Kyoto Protocol next month
Article Link
 CTVNews.ca Staff Sun. Nov. 27 2011 

Canada will announce next month that it will formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, CTV News has learned.

The Harper government has tentatively planned an announcement for a few days before Christmas, CTV's Roger Smith reported Sunday evening.

The developments come as Environment Minister Peter Kent prepares for a climate conference in Durban, South Africa that opens on Monday, with delegates from 190 countries seeking a new international agreement for cutting emissions.

Issues on the agenda include extending the Kyoto emission targets, a move being championed by Christiana Figueres, head of the UN climate secretariat.

Kent said in the House of Commons on Nov. 22 he won't sign a document at the Durban conference that extends the Kyoto targets.

"Canada goes to Durban with a number of countries sharing the same objective, and that is to put Kyoto behind us," Kent said.
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2011)

In this context, the comments on the survival of Zoroastrianism is frightening:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203935604577066183761315576.html



> *The Great Global Warming Fizzle*
> The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom.
> 
> By BRET STEPHENS
> ...


----------



## Haletown (30 Nov 2011)

It should be a crime to do this to children

http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/

Suzuki really, really, really needs to give his head a shake for going after children with such fear mongering.


----------



## MJP (30 Nov 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> It should be a crime to do this to children
> 
> http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/
> 
> Suzuki really, really, really needs to give his head a shake for going after children with such fear mongering.



Wow.  Sent a complaint into Advertising Standards Canada. http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/consumerSubmission.asp  If they get a myriad of complaints it will make things tough for David Suzuki and his advocacy slush fund.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> It should be a crime to do this to children
> 
> http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/
> 
> Suzuki really, really, really needs to give his head a shake for going after children with such fear mongering.



That's brilliant. I love it - sending it around to a people I know, a great way to get more people involved in the discussion, and funny too.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2011)

So it's NOT a gag website?? Wow....


----------



## MJP (30 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's brilliant. I love it - sending it around to a people I know, a great way to get more people involved in the discussion, and funny too.



Exactly how is playing on the fears of children brilliant?  As a marketing concept it borders on unethical by preying on those that may not have the logical reasoning that most adults have.  I usually prefer to engage a target audience in meaningful debate/argument about why support for my cause is worth it.  Not run around like chicken little pretending the sky is falling unless you give me money.

I don't like left leaning socialists and their lovely welfare state programmes,  but don't sit around scaring my kids about having to pay the growing national debt incurred each year from them.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Dec 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Exactly how is playing on the fears of children brilliant?  As a marketing concept it borders on unethical by preying on those that may not have the logical reasoning that most adults have.  I usually prefer to engage a target audience in meaningful debate/argument about why support for my cause is worth it.  Not run around like chicken little pretending the sky is falling unless you give me money.



I agree.  Here's more:  Suzuki green like the Grinch



> If you buy something at the site, you won't actually get anything in the mail, not even a crumb too small for a mouse. The Reindeer Water Wings ($19.99 made from bio-based foam) and Magic Sleigh Pontoons ($99 made from 100% recycled Aluminum) are "symbolic gifts" that will earn you an e-card in your inbox.


----------



## Haletown (1 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's brilliant. I love it - sending it around to a people I know, a great way to get more people involved in the discussion, and funny too.



Well, well . . .  doesn't that say it all.


----------



## Sythen (1 Dec 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Wow.  Sent a complaint into Advertising Standards Canada. http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/consumerSubmission.asp  If they get a myriad of complaints it will make things tough for David Suzuki and his advocacy slush fund.



Dear Mr. <deleted>,

Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) received your letter expressing concern about the above-referenced advertising.

We are currently reviewing the advertisement under the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards (Code). We will advise you shortly of the results of our review.

In the meantime, for information about the Code and the complaint handling procedure, please visit www.adstandards.com.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Kedrosky
National Standards Coordinator
amy.kedrosky@adstandards.com


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2011)

:+1:  same contact name also


----------



## MJP (1 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> :+1:  same contact name also



Same here

For those interested here are the Ad Councils rules regarding advertising to children.

2. Advertising to Children

Advertising that is directed to children must not exploit their credulity, lack of experience or their sense of loyalty, and must not present information or illustrations that might result in their physical, emotional or moral harm.

Child-directed advertising in the broadcast media is separately regulated by the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children, also administered by ASC. Advertising to children in Quebec is prohibited by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
13. Advertising to Minors

Products prohibited from sale to minors must not be advertised in such a way as to appeal particularly to persons under legal age, and people featured in advertisements for such products must be, and clearly seen to be, adults under the law.
14. Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

It is recognized that advertisements may be distasteful without necessarily conflicting with the provisions of this clause 14; and the fact that a particular product or service may be offensive to some people is not sufficient grounds for objecting to an advertisement for that product or service.

Advertisements shall not:

(a) condone any form of personal discrimination, including that based upon race, national origin, religion, sex or age;

(b) appear in a realistic manner to exploit, condone or incite violence; nor appear to condone, or directly encourage, bullying; nor directly encourage, or exhibit obvious indifference to, unlawful behaviour;

(c) demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;

(d) undermine human dignity; or display obvious indifference to, or encourage, gratuitously and without merit, conduct or attitudes that offend the standards of public decency prevailing among a significant segment of the population.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Dec 2011)

Complaint to the Council sent today.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2011)

Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.   ;D


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.   ;D



Climate is gonna change regardless of what we do. So sit back and enjoy the ride.  8)


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.   ;D



My wife, recovering Liberal that she is, agrees with you.


----------



## Redeye (2 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm cheering for global warming. December 1st and I'm still riding the Harley.   ;D



There was a guy filling up his H-D Switchback in Sackville, NB on the way home from Gagetown this weekend. I almost wish my bike wasn't in storage.


----------



## Haletown (3 Dec 2011)

Oh Boy !

A Two-fer

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/12/tale-of-two-fantasies.html


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2011)

Move along, nothing to see here:

http://www.dailytech.com/Climatologists+Trade+Tips+on+Destroying+Evidence+Evangelizing+Warming/article23368.htm



> *Climatologists Trade Tips on Destroying Evidence, Evangelizing Warming*
> Jason Mick (Blog) - November 25, 2011 5:12 PM
> 
> Penn State researcher and his CRU/IPCC colleague treated AGW like a religious "cause" despite warnings from peers
> ...


----------



## Sapplicant (4 Dec 2011)

Not sure if anyone's posted this before, but even it has been, it's worth re-visiting.

The Vulgar Truth.


----------



## GAP (4 Dec 2011)

Proof of Global Warming


----------



## aesop081 (4 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Proof of Global Warming



and man-made too !!!!


----------



## Bass ackwards (4 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Proof of Global Warming


So there _is_ something to be said for removing the evidence


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2011)

Another surprise for the alarmists. Go to the link to watch the animation:

http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2011/11/greenhouse-gas-surprise-re-set-your.html



> *Greenhouse gas surprise: Re-set your brain with new satellite data.*
> 
> Were you thinking, like me, that CO2 fumes from industry in Burlington and Beijing defined greenhouse gas?  Think again.  Tides of CO2 follow the growing season, moving north and south on earth.  CO2 is disappearing from the atmosphere and being recreated about equally. Watch the 12 month animation of data from the first satellite dedicated to measuring greenhouse gas, the Japanese GOSAT.   The seasonal shifts both down and up are way bigger than industrial inputs, even over the heart of Europe. The gif animation shows up to 30 ppm variation annually.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sythen (6 Dec 2011)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2011/12/20111205-125825.html



> OTTAWA - Federal Environment Minister Peter Kent has confirmed Canada will not be part of a second Kyoto Protocol to fight climate change.
> 
> "We believe that ultimately a new agreement that includes all of the world's major emitters (of greenhouse gases) in both the developing and the developed world is the only way to materially reduce annual mega-tonnage to the point we can work to prevent global warming hitting or exceeding two degrees," Kent said from the climate conference in Durban, South Africa.
> 
> So, when the Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed in 1997, expires in 2012, Canada's participation in the agreement will also expire.



More on link.. The part I find funny:



> "That is not the way to show leadership. Canada committed to the Kyoto Protocol, so they should respect Canada's word, respect Canada's commitment."



So keeping our word now matters to the NDP.. But when they debated the Afghan mission, it meant nothing?


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2011/12/20111205-125825.html
> 
> More on link.. The part I find funny:
> 
> So keeping our word now matters to the NDP.. But when they debated the Afghan mission, it meant nothing?



We are keeping our word. When the current protocol is done in 2012, so are we.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2011)

Much of the so called modeling on which climate alarmism was based was presented as a "black box" take it or leave it approach. The raw data was hidden, manipulated or otherwise obscured (as the Climategate I and II email dumps made clear). Perhaps if this is a condition of taxpayer funded research, scams will be harder to pull off:

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/12/08/essay-ways-prevent-scientific-misconduct



> *Cure for Scientific Misconduct*
> December 8, 2011 - 3:00am
> By
> Felicia B. LeClere
> ...


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2011)

might make a good rock song

"Here comes your 18th Climate Conference . . .  "


http://asiancorrespondent.com/71700/an-updated-history-of-last-chances-to-save-the-world/

Will COP18 be the last Great Big Hairy-Scary We Are All Gonna Die Fear Mongering & Hysteria Fest before  global economic realities override greenie eco-loony delusions?


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2011)

What they agreed to in Durban  . . .  

"Main points:

    Ø A new International Climate Court will have the power to compel Western nations to pay ever-larger sums to third-world countries in the name of making reparation for supposed “climate debt”. The Court will have no power over third-world countries. Here and throughout the draft, the West is the sole target. “The process” is now irredeemably anti-Western.

    Ø “Rights of Mother Earth”: The draft, which seems to have been written by feeble-minded green activists and environmental extremists, talks of “The recognition and defence of the rights of Mother Earth to ensure harmony between humanity and nature”. Also, “there will be no commodification [whatever that may be: it is not in the dictionary and does not deserve to be] of the functions of nature, therefore no carbon market will be developed with that purpose”.

    Ø “Right to survive”: The draft childishly asserts that “The rights of some Parties to survive are threatened by the adverse impacts of climate change, including sea level rise.” At 2 inches per century, according to eight years’ data from the Envisat satellite? Oh, come off it! The Jason 2 satellite, the new kid on the block, shows that sea-level has actually dropped over the past three years.

    Ø War and the maintenance of defence forces and equipment are to cease – just like that – because they contribute to climate change. There are other reasons why war ought to cease, but the draft does not mention them.
"


Now that's how I define success.  I am sure Lizzie May is tres excited.

rtr   http://tinyurl.com/7orkxw2


----------



## GAP (12 Dec 2011)

And who signed onto this stupidity?.....


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> And who signed onto this stupidity?.....



Maybe the same idiots who signed up to this piece of stupidity

"the United States Navy is reportedly slated to spend $12 million at a rate of $15 per gallon on a biofuel-gasoline blend -- a purchase justified by the proposition that dependence on oil is a national security threat.

"We are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters," Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said, according to a National Journal report last week. "Our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.""



http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/us-navy-paying-15gallon-green-fuel/250266


----------



## Haletown (12 Dec 2011)

. . . just because it is the Christmas season  . . .

"On the first day of Doomsville, alarmists gave to me…

12 Days in Durban

11 Journos hyping

10 Temps-not-Leaping

9 Mann’s-a-Dancing"


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43151


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Maybe the same idiots who signed up to this piece of stupidity
> 
> "the United States Navy is reportedly slated to spend $12 million at a rate of $15 per gallon on a biofuel-gasoline blend -- a purchase justified by the proposition that dependence on oil is a national security threat.
> 
> ...



He needs to read the "No Oil" thread. Shale oil, fracking "tight oil" shale, using the FT process to reconstitute natural gas to liquid fuel (or break down coal into a clean liquid...); we're swimming in the stuff...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2011)

The honest _environmentalists_, the folks who want clear air and water, have lost the "shouting" war to the extremists who want to punish humanity for being the dominant species on the planet.

The green extreme relies upon bad science and a hard left, Marxist misapprehension of economics and history to make their "case." Thus, they have no case, but because they shout loudest, and with some skill and imagination, the media (which is, generally, scientifically and economically illiterate) glorifies them and gives their non-existant "case" some legitimacy. It's the blind leading the blind, who then _inform_ the sheep.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Dec 2011)

Good news, according to the _Globe and Mail_ which say's Canada pulls plug on Kyoto climate-change accord.

The report goes on to say that Canada, by withdrawing, will not be liable for $14 Billion in penalties because we, under successive Liberal and Conservative governments, never met the targets to which Jean Chrétien agreed.

Why did we agree to such unrealistic targets? The Chrétien government was trying to outdo the Clinton administration in being "green." It was all domestic political window dressing, neither Canada nor the USA had any plan to meet the targets.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2011)

The idiots who signed on for $16/gal fuel were only following the crony capitalist script:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/11/navy-buys-biofuel-for-16-a-gallon/



> *Navy buys biofuel for $16 a gallon*
> POSTED AT 7:00 PM ON DECEMBER 11, 2011 BY J.E. DYER
> 
> This is going to help the Defense Department weather looming budget cuts, for sure.  Teaming up with the Department of Agriculture (which has a cheery Rotary Club ring to it), the Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about 4 times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.
> ...


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2011)

message from the UN to Canada"

"the new push towards a universal, legal climate agreement in the near future.

I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing. Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort. Industrialized countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions."


Isn't  it wonderful when UN leeches and other assorted world government wannbe marxist progressives whine?

Can't wait for Suzuki and May to get their  CBC time to do their whining.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/email-from-unfccc-we-wont-let-canada-out-of-the-kyoto-convention/#more-53024


----------



## GAP (13 Dec 2011)

You would whine too if you stood to lose 14 billion dollars for graft....er.....assisting third world countries with their climate change costs.....


----------



## cavalryman (13 Dec 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Can't wait for Suzuki and May to get their  CBC time to do their whining.



Your wish has been granted:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-may-kyoto.html


----------



## SevenSixTwo (13 Dec 2011)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Your wish has been granted:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-may-kyoto.html



"Reuters news agency reported that China called the decision "regrettable" and called on Canada to continue abiding by its commitments on climate change."

HAhahahahahahaha


----------



## Haletown (13 Dec 2011)

From the Greenies are Morons file . . . jaw dropping dishonesty & conspiracy.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/national-academy-of-sciences-appointee-caught-making-up-stuff-to-win-lawsuit-rico-lawsuit-follows/

It has always been know many greenie climate scientologists invented data, hid declines, refused to publish methods etc, but these idiots believed that just because they were being made famous in an eco-documentary movie, the laws didn't apply to them.

Let us hope the end up with massive fines, much jail time and every verdict in every case where they the expert witnesses gets tossed.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

The crying begins:

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/the-pot-calling-the-kettle-black/environment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiscoveringTheSecretsOfVancouver+%28Discovering+The+Secrets+Of+Vancouver%29



> *The Pot Calling The Kettle Black*
> December 13th, 2011 Posted in environment
> Give me a break…
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2011)

This from the CBC comments section sums it up:



> "If our reputation is based on handing over fourteen billion dollars to thieves to buy friends, then it's not worth having."


----------



## Haletown (14 Dec 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This from the CBC comments section sums it up:



Quote

    "If our reputation is based on handing over fourteen billion dollars to thieves to buy friends, then it's not worth having."

Somebody at the CBC has some 'splaining to do.  Letting some common sense filter through in their comments is a CBC Corporate No-No.

Can't be Progressive and have common sense.  You have to have "beliefs".


----------



## GAP (14 Dec 2011)

MJP said:
			
		

> Wow.  Sent a complaint into Advertising Standards Canada. http://www.adstandards.com/en/Standards/consumerSubmission.asp  If they get a myriad of complaints it will make things tough for David Suzuki and his advocacy slush fund.



Well, that was a bust.....



> Re: Our Case #17213 – David Suzuki Foundation – Internet Advertisement
> Advertising Standards Canada (ASC) received your e-mail expressing concern regarding the above-mentioned advertising.
> ASC administers the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards, the principal instrument of advertising self-regulation. The Code's clauses set the criteria for acceptable advertising. Consumer concerns about advertising messages in Canada are evaluated against the criteria contained in the Code, available on ASC’s website listed above.
> In light of your concern, ASC staff carefully reviewed the advertising. In our evaluation, the advertisement is not directed to children, but rather to adults. The website uses mature language to explain its purpose, and a credit card is required to respond to the campaign. Additionally, we did not find that the website presented issues regarding climate change in a manner that was exploitative or misleading. After careful evaluation, we did not identify an issue under the Code with this advertising and have closed our file on this matter..
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Dec 2011)

I got the same reply this morning.   :rage:


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Dec 2011)

As did I. Clearly they were looking at a different site than I was.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2011)

The observations of this expedition make nonsense of the "hockey stick" and other nonsensical predictons about AGW. The date is pretty important as well:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/survival/stories/why-the-british-were-doomed-to-lose-the-race-to-the-south-pole-6617203?click=pm_latest



> *Why the British Were Doomed to Lose the Race to the South Pole*
> 
> One hundred years ago today, Norwegian Roald Amundsen became the first person to reach the bottom of the world. But for his competitor, British explorer Robert Falcon Scott, the race ultimately proved deadly: Scott and his team froze to death on their return trip. What many people don't realize is that the rivals were unevenly matched from the start. Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Edward Larson, author of the new book An Empire of Ice: Scott, Shackleton, and the Heroic Age of Antarctic Science, tells PM the story.
> By Stephanie Warren
> ...


----------



## Haletown (16 Dec 2011)

This is going to be fun.  Real science, the kind where the release their data and methods, unlike the Climate Scientology Crew.

"What these eminent scientists are predicting is significant: “We predict an annual mean temperature decrease for Svalbard of 3.5°C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 (2009–‐20) and a decrease in the winter temperature of ≈6°C.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/16/polar-amplification-works-both-ways/#more-53159

Somewhere, Al Gore is crying and David Suzuki is saddened as they come to realize their opportunity to monetize the fear mongering over AGW is just about over.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2011)

Climategate 2.0 exposes more of the scam:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-under-fire/



> *Climategate Bombshell: Did U.S. Gov't Help Hide Climate Data?*
> By Maxim Lott
> Published December 16, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (17 Dec 2011)

Maybe all the hyperbole and fear mongering was a little over the top after all.  Kinda puts paid to the whole positive feedback loop theory.

Accurate data, global coverage, full surface to space profile.


http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/16/thirty-three-temperature-update-well-bel


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2011)

Sticking a fork in Jeffrey Simpson

http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/12/so-what-is-jeffrey-simpson-really.html



> *So, what is Jeffrey Simpson really talking about???*
> Simple: Moral Superiority.
> 
> Nowhere in his column will one find even the slightest hint of an explanation of how sticking with the Kyoto crowd would actually solve a damn thing.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2011)

Nobody expected the Inquisition....

http://surecures-remedy.blogspot.com/2011/12/shades-of-galileo.html



> *Shades of Galileo*
> 
> Recently, a second round of emails taken from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were released online. This release -- dubbed "ClimateGate 2.0" -- is once again revealing that those scientists and politicians pushing an alarmist view of Earth's climate being in danger due to manmade carbon dioxide emissions have engaged in deception, distortion, intimidation and even criminal activities as pertains to Freedom of Information legislation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (30 Dec 2011)

Steven nails it  . . . 

    I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
    I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
    I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
    I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
    I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
    I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
    I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
     I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
    I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
    I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
    I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
    I will stop making up data where none exists
    I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
    I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
    I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
    I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
    I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
    I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
    I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
    I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
    I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles  like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
    I will admit that there is no missing heat
    I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
    I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
    etc. etc. etc.





http://www.real-science.com/new-years-resolutions-climate-scientists


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2012)

The Senate of Canada holds hearings:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/progress-canadian-senate-listens-to-global-warming-skeptics/?print=1



> *Progress: Canadian Senate Listens to Global Warming Skeptics*
> 
> Posted By Tom Harris On January 2, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 32 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Unintended consequences:

http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/b8adf28ac78f88f3.html



> *Atmospheric Environment 46 (2012) 545-553*
> 
> Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: Results from a transient 2010e2050 climate simulation L.J. Mickley a,*, E.M. Leibensperger a,b, D.J. Jacob a, D. Rind c
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Jan 2012)

;D


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jan 2012)

I was suddenly struck by a new theory on AGW last night while at work:

All of this rampant obesity we're seeing has caused the earth's rotation to slow due to an increase in the earth's mass, allowing the sun to linger longer on the surface thereby driving up the global temperature. The same theory accounts for the time dilation effect whereby some people appear bright until you hear them speak.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2012)

Just wow. Follow the links to see the graphs:

http://miltonconservative.blogspot.com/2012/01/icelandic-saga-continues-fraud-is.html



> *The Icelandic Saga Continues (The Fraud is Breathtaking)*
> 
> January 18, 2012
> tags: GISS, Iceland
> ...


----------



## Haletown (24 Jan 2012)

Inconvenient Numbers



http://www.cartalk.com/content/bob-lutz-green-car-guy-who-says-global-warming

    Car Talk: A lot of people seeing your involvement in the Chevrolet Volt and Via Motors might conclude that your views on the environment had evolved since you said that global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

    I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

    The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.


----------



## Haletown (26 Jan 2012)

How the Great Global Warming Scam works at the grass roots level.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/019105.html

And the insult to injury . . .  we pay the eco nutters to gum up the works.


----------



## MJP (27 Jan 2012)

From the Toronto Sun and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Harper’s smarter, On green energy, the PM was right. His critics were wrong
By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun 

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/25/harpers-smarter?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=recommend-button&utm_campaign=Harper%92s+smarter 

If Canada’s “green” media — especially in the Parliamentary Press Gallery — demanded the same standards of accountability of themselves as they do of politicians, they would be killing entire forests right now apologizing to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Why? Because in sidestepping the economically suicidal stampede onto the green energy bandwagon which they relentlessly shilled for, Harper was right and they — along with the Liberals, NDP, Bloc and Greens — were wrong.

Today, so-called “green” energy is in retreat all over the developed world, as taxpayers and consumers in countries that blindly raced into it are in open revolt against paying exorbitant, ever-rising prices for unreliable, inefficient power sources that don’t lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Germany is poised to slash public subsidies for solar energy — which sent shares in solar companies crashing world-wide — because it can’t afford the grossly inflated, 20-year feed-in-tariffs it has been paying for energy that’s so unreliable. It has had to import nuclear power from France and the Czech Republic this winter to avoid blackouts, plus restart an old, oil-fired electricity plant in Austria.

As Germany’s Spiegel Online reported: “Solar energy has gone from being the great white hope to an impediment to a reliable energy supply.”

In the U.K., an all-party alliance of MPs has been formed to fight the proliferation of wind turbines, amidst public fury over higher energy prices, unreliability and the problems it has caused for the nation’s electricity grid. Even world-famous U.K. environmentalist James Lovelock, who supports nuclear power, has described wind turbines as useless and growing blights on the landscape.


More on link


----------



## Haletown (27 Jan 2012)

Glowball Warming . . . . coming undone faster than a cowboy's zipper at en of the cattle drive whorehouse



"Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publish-a-letter-in-wsj-saying-theres-no-need-to-panic-about-global-warming/#comment-876994


Too bad about the $$$hndreds of $$$Billions of taxpayers dollars wasted around the world building useless wind turbines and solar parks, paying off greenie political cronies at Solyndra and dozens of other eco-grifter greenie companies.

That money would have bought a lot of free public education and healthcare.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

Real science:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-coup-de-grace-for-global-warming-catastrophe.php



> *THE COUP DE GRACE FOR GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHE?*
> Going through this week’s issue of Nature magazine, which arrived in my in-box yesterday, the following short squib in their “research highlights” section appears:
> 
> Warming, but not as much
> ...


----------



## Haletown (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Real science:
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/the-coup-de-grace-for-global-warming-catastrophe.php




Trying to walk back the hysteria & fear mongering they have been spewing isn't going to save their reputations.

The era of easy eco grifting, selling the scam, is over. Only the really heavy Greenie Kool Aide guzzlers still carry the CO2 torch, still believe, still think they are winning the battle for public support.

What scam will they think of next?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> What scam will they think of next?



Most people don't remember "Global Cooling"  ;D


----------



## Haletown (28 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Most people don't remember "Global Cooling"  ;D



right  . . .  but we have to make vewy, vewy, vewy scawy  . . .so maybe we should exaggerate, hyperventilate and go all hysterical and label it "Global Ice Age Will  Freeze Yer Ass Off"

Has a nice fund raising ring too it.  8)


----------



## GAP (28 Jan 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> right  . . .  but we have to make vewy, vewy, vewy scawy  . . .so maybe we should exaggerate, hyperventilate and go all hysterical and label it "Global Ice Age Will  Freeze Yer Ass Off"
> 
> Has a nice fund raising ring too it.  8)



Think Ice Cubes/Bags of Ice......incorporate a global cooling message into each cube, this will remind the masses on a consistant basis.....


----------



## Haletown (28 Jan 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Think Ice Cubes/Bags of Ice......incorporate a global cooling message into each cube, this will remind the masses on a consistant basis.....



Excellent . . . .  an idea for an advertising campaign   


"Buy our Ice or the Planet Gets It"


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2012)

Global cooling may be more of a threat than we might think (and unlike Global warming, the conswequences of global cooling include crop failure and lower crop yields, factors that may have caused civilizations to collapse in the past during other episodes of global cooling):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html



> *Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)*Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years
> 
> By David Rose
> 
> ...


----------



## Furniture (30 Jan 2012)

I can well imagine that there are many people working in the Met Office in the UK that don't believe the official line they are forced repeat, much like there are people who don't agree with the party line within EC. Like all employees though, they can't be publicly seen going against what the bosses tell the world.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2012)

Well this is real science and it is really frightening:

http://metanoodle.blogspot.com/2012/01/coming-ice-age-will-that-be-venti-or.html



> The coming ice age: Will that be Venti or Grande?
> It's going to get a lot colder.  "Global Warming" and "Cooling trend since 1998" are blips.  The real story has been known for decades.  Here's the Venti chart.  Look at the 100,000 year cycles and the temperature cliff we are falling off.  (1986).
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2012)

Interesting history lesson; look at the "solutions" offered, then look at the date. The more things change....

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/01/31/the-coming-of-the-new-ice-age-end-of-the-global-warming-era/?print=1



> *The Coming of the New Ice Age: End of the Global Warming Era?*
> 
> Posted By Zombie On January 31, 2012 @ 11:19 am In Uncategorized | 144 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Feb 2012)

> When I visited the House of Lords’ minister, Lord Marland, at the Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the Department’s chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the Department’s calculations detailing just how much “global warming” that might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and 2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.



The response says everything you ever needed to know about the Global Warming/Climate Change scam:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/huhne-is-no-loss/



> *Huhne is no loss*
> Posted on February 3, 2012 by Anthony Watts
> By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (6 Feb 2012)

"“breathtaking ­hypocrisy”


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/2012/02/05/green-guru-flies-to-tahiti-to-lecture-on-global-warming-115875-23735649/

I am sure Gaia will forgive him because he believes he is doing good.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2012)

Trust the men from Oz to find the best way to pour mockery and scorn on climate alarmists:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/cold_is_old/



> *COLD IS OLD*
> 
> Tim Blair
> Monday, February 13, 2012 at 06:04am
> ...



So lets all raise an extreme one...


----------



## Haletown (18 Feb 2012)

DeSmugBlog gets p-owned.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/18/top-ten-things-heartland-institute-will-do-with-6-4-million-in-funding/

And they are about get a big law suit as well.

Wonderful news


----------



## Haletown (20 Feb 2012)

because the expert's models say global warming is real . . .


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> So lets all raise an extreme one...



Hmmmm, somehow, "I'm an extreme-hearted bitch" just isn't cutting it for me.  :'(


----------



## Sythen (21 Feb 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2012/02/20120220-194840.html



> OTTAWA -- A top climate scientist is shoving a stick into the gears of the global-warming machine, saying Alberta's oilsands are not to blame - coal is.
> 
> Dr. Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria, B.C., and a lead author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says Alberta's oilsands actually produce only a tiny bubble of greenhouse gases.



More on link.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, somehow, "I'm an extreme-hearted *****" just isn't cutting it for me.  :'(



Wow, that's extreme, Vern


----------



## Haletown (21 Feb 2012)

FakeGate, Act3 Scene 1  Gleick 'Fesses Up.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/statement-by-the-heartland-institute-on-gleick-confession/

This dude is so in deep doo-doo . .  he's the big promoter of Ethics for the Warmongers.

Ethics, ya right . . .  for Thee but necessarily for Me.



And the spinners over at DeSmogBlog are nailing him to the "Whistleblower" cross.

The lawyers are going to have a blast  with this one.


----------



## Haletown (27 Feb 2012)

Brilliant.

"Is the fight against global warming alarmism hopeless?
February 26th, 2012

NOTE: The following light-hearted and playful editorial was whipped up after seeing a new Washington Post editorial on their Post(-Normal)Opinions page entitled Is the fight against global warming hopeless? I took the text of that article (which I encourage you to read first) and added some creative modifications. Only a few of the sentences were left intact, which are their creations, not my own…although I doubt the WaPo editorial board will agree with the context I have used them in. Snicker.

Is the fight against global warming alarmism hopeless?

IS THE FIGHT against global warming alarmism hopeless? It can seem so. The long-term threat to humanity comes from fears that carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life on Earth to exist, will lead to damaging energy policies which kill perhaps millions of poor people around the world each year. Fortunately, after decades of effort, only about one-tenth of America’s energy mix comes from renewable sources that don’t produce life-enhancing carbon dioxide, and which are so expensive they reduce prosperity for all.

But two policies could allow inefficient, wealth-destroying carbon-free technologies to try to catch up to their less expensive competitors. One is aimed at greenhouse substances that clear out of the atmosphere after a few years, months or even days (as if the climate system really cares than much about them). Cutting back the emission of soot and ozone gases such as methane (sic) could reduce the world’s warming by an unmeasureable amount over the next few decades. Adding hydrofluorocarbons — another class of short-lived pollutants — to the list wouldn’t really help to delay the approach of temperature thresholds beyond which global warming could be catastrophic, since those thresholds are entirely in the realm of fanciful theories anyway.

Alarmists believe that reducing these emissions is relatively cheap, especially when the benefits to health are factored in — but at the exclusion of the dangers to health of the reduced prosperity which would also result. For example, primitive cooking stoves in developing countries produce much of the world’s soot; alarmists think using more efficient ones would prevent perhaps millions of deaths from respiratory illness, as if poverty can be alleviated by giving poor people a solar cooker.

Methane, meanwhile, is the primary component of natural gas — a commodity that pipeline or coal-mine operators could sell if they kept it from escaping into the atmosphere. Researchers have curiously concluded that global crop yields would rise…a speculative and even hypocritical claim considering the known benefits to photosynthesis of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.

Coordinating an effective international effort to cut funding to long-lived climate alarmism enforcers will be the hardest task. Science institutions worldwide have spoken out on the need to address global warming, despite no scientist really knowing how much of past warming (which ended ten years ago) is natural versus manmade, and despite those institutions knowing virtually nothing about the underlying science.

Climate alarmists will waste more than just American money. Regulators in the developing world push to enforce stronger air-pollution rules, which expands the role of government and provides job security for bureaucrats, while ignoring the downside of diverting too much of the taxpayers’ money away from other, more worthy goals.

Since many of the health benefits of fossil fuels have been taken for granted by people, politicians are too eager to cut carbon dioxide emissions, without realizing there are very good reasons that we use carbon-based fuels.

One development that promises to provide abundant energy without the meddling of environmental activists — America’s natural gas boom — faces a challenge of a very different sort: the environmentalists themselves. Innovative drilling techniques have made huge amounts of fuel deep below Americans’ feet retrievable at low cost. Most of it is methane, a greenhouse gas that produces only about half the carbon as coal after combustion. Environmentalists should be cheering: Cheap gas transported for the most part in existing pipelines can start the United States on a wealth-enhancing path with minimal added cost.

That path will be followed naturally, based upon market forces and the ever-present consumer demand for energy. This might well eventually steer us away from fossil fuels, if only because they will gradually be depleted and so their price will by necessity rise.

There is reason for hope – but not for complacency – over the coming years that the ill-conceived policy fantasies of climate alarmists can be fended off so that the poor of the world have a chance to prosper, with continuing access to our most abundant end least expensive energy sources – carbon-based fuels.

This editorial represents the views of Dr. Roy W. Spencer as a professional climate scientist and semi-professional economist wannabe, as determined through debate among the various voices in his head."


http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/is-the-fight-against-global-warming-alarmism-hopeless/


----------



## Haletown (28 Feb 2012)

Exactly . . . .  Judith gets it.

"Climate science has claimed for 30 years that it affects the safety of hundreds of millions of people, or perhaps the whole planet. If it gets it wrong, equally, millions may suffer from high energy costs, hunger due to biofuels, and lost opportunity from misdirected funds, notwithstanding the projected benefits from as yet impractical renewable energy.
Yet, we have allowed it to dictate global policy and form a trillion dollar green industrial complex - all without applying a single quality system, without a single performance standard for climate models, without a single test laboratory result and without a single national independent auditor or regulator. It all lives only in the well known inbred, fad-driven world of peer review."

What's a $trillion dollars . . .  wouldn't buy much cancer research or hospital care or pave a few roads . . .  because to to the Warmistas, Global Warming doesn't have an opportunity cost.

http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html


----------



## Redeye (29 Feb 2012)

I love the infographic here. The fact that people still spout the drivel that is 90% of this thread is pretty simply taken down by good old fashioned common sense here:

http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/


----------



## TheHead (29 Feb 2012)

You can't beat this science. Now that's the Roy Spencer that we all know and love.  Plus he's a proponent of "intelligent" design.

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."


http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/07/30/is-roy-spencer-a-credible-voice-on-global-warming-research/



> Is Roy Spencer A Credible Voice On Global Warming Research?
> 
> You may have heard about new research by Dr. Roy Spencer that purports to blow a devastating hole in the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Spencer’s interpretation of his statistical analysis of satellite data proposes that clouds, not increase in carbon dioxide, have led to global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I love the infographic here. The fact that people still spout the drivel that is 90% of this thread is pretty simply taken down by good old fashioned common sense here:
> 
> http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/



Leave it to Grist to provide the perfect summary of the Warmonger Eco-Greenie-Gaia religious dogma.  

Meanwhile, the AGW theory continues to implode as reality imposes itself, as the predictions of warming don't happen, as the High Priests of AGW feel it necessary to commit criminal acts to try and maintain their seat on the Fame & Gravy train, as the efforts to promote AGW fall on ever  more deaf ears as the vast majority of people now couldn't care less about the the repeated fear mongering coming out of the AGW propaganda mills like desmugblog et al.

It is over, the Warmongers have lost.  What is happening now is just the twitching in the AGW corpse that looks like it is still alive.

Probably just some CO2 gas deep in the bowels of the beast.


----------



## Redeye (29 Feb 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Leave it to Grist to provide the perfect summary of the Warmonger Eco-Greenie-Gaia religious dogma.



Leave it to you to completely, utterly fail to debunk it. Thanks for playing. 



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, the AGW theory continues to implode as reality imposes itself... (excessive naus deleted)



What colour is the sky in the world you live in? You realize that none of that is actually true, right?



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> It is over, the Warmongers have lost.  What is happening now is just the twitching in the AGW corpse that looks like it is still alive.



LOL Do you actually believe that?! Man, I want whatever it is you're on. It sounds fantastic.


----------



## GAP (29 Feb 2012)

Boy....you 've really bought into the all is green and democrat stuff, eh....wow


----------



## Haletown (29 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Leave it to you to completely, utterly fail to debunk it. Thanks for playing.
> 
> What colour is the sky in the world you live in? You realize that none of that is actually true, right?
> 
> LOL Do you actually believe that?! Man, I want whatever it is you're on. It sounds fantastic.



You are so welcome.  Just trying to help with your recovery.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Feb 2012)

It was -13 as we deployed to the field this morning. This was one day I would actually want Redeye to be right.  

Sadly, Haletown called it again  :rage:


----------



## Jungle (29 Feb 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It was -13 as we deployed to the field this morning. This was one day I would actually want Redeye to be right.



Tell me about it... it was -25 here this morning. I can't wait for this global warming thing to kick in !!!


----------



## Furniture (29 Feb 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I love the infographic here. The fact that people still spout the drivel that is 90% of this thread is pretty simply taken down by good old fashioned common sense here:
> 
> http://grist.org/list/infographic-the-idea-of-a-climate-change-hoax-makes-no-sense/



I have a few questions about the infographic....

In what way does Greenpeace qualify as a small regional organization or community activist? In what particular way is their budget small? Is it being compared to the budgets or G8 nations, or to actual small community activist groups like Siloam Mission in Winnipeg? 

What study is used to support the claim of 90% of the worlds scientists support "Climate Change"?  What objective measure is being used to ensure that the opinion of a vocal minority of scientists that enjoy hearing their voice on TV isn't being used to misrepresent the views of the majority of scientists?  

What real evidence is there of a massive conspiracy to bribe scientists to make false statements about "Climate Change"? 

What qualifies as an obscene profit? Is it any amount of money more than the average believer makes? 

Posting a link to a simple minded propaganda page does nothing to prove anything about "Climate Change" other than that it has moved away from the realm of science and into the realm of religion. Anytime people who disagree are labled as heretics or deniers it indicates that the discussion is not about science but about belief, or emotion. 

Come back with some solid climate records from WMO approved sites that show a distinct increase in temperature or solid evidence of another variety, otherwise this is no more about truth and science than a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew debating which version of God is more valid.

Before people get all crazy about the latest theory of "Climate Change" just remember that as of WW2 we didn't even know about jet streams, and the concepts of warm and cold fronts were new things.

Edited for spelling


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Feb 2012)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Come back with some solid climate records from WMO approved sites that show a distinct increase in temperature or solid evidence of another variety, otherwise this is no more about truth and science than a *Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew debating which version of God is more valid.*


Tangent, but perhaps applicable, because Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same deity: the God of Abraham.  So, where some will point to this or some will point to that specific difference about each method of worship, the fact remains that they all believe in the same thing.  So, with weather, some may point to hockeystick graphs, others will spout propaganda, but the fact remains that the experts can only guess what is happening tomorrow in terms of the weather.  So, that being said, how can we know for certain of anything?  As a kid, it was an impending ice age.  10 years from now: who knows?


----------



## GAP (1 Mar 2012)

I see they are edging back to the ice age scenario again......


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Mar 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I see they are edging back to the ice age scenario again......




Yes, and it can only be prevented by closing the Alberta oil patch, preventing China and India from enjoying lifestyles we take for granted and, generally, beating up on private property ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2012)

I watched a horticulture program the other day that showed a banana tree that can sustain temps like I get here.

I'm buying one for my backyard  ;D

When I can grow the less hardy varieties though, I'll be truly happy.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Leave it to you to completely, utterly fail to debunk it. Thanks for playing.
> 
> What colour is the sky in the world you live in? You realize that none of that is actually true, right?
> 
> LOL Do you actually believe that?! Man, I want whatever it is you're on. It sounds fantastic.



How's that mirror you're looking at?


----------



## GAP (1 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, and it can only be prevented by closing the Alberta oil patch, preventing China and India from enjoying lifestyles we take for granted and, generally, beating up on private property ...



But on the bright side, an ice age will stop the pine beetle infestation.....who knew!!


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

Real environmentalists start to wake up to the catastrophe of the global warming hysteria campaign  . . .  this is coming from a grass roots enviro bunch.

Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little

"A searing new report says the environmental movement is not winning and lays the blame squarely on the failed policies of environmental funders. The movement hasn't won any "significant policy changes at the federal level in the United States since the 1980s" because funders have favored top-down elite strategies and have neglected to support a robust grassroots infrastructure. Environmental funders spent a whopping $10 billion between 2000 and 2009 but achieved relatively little because they failed to underwrite grassroots groups that are essential for any large-scale change, the report says. Released in late February by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, Cultivating the Grassroots was written by Sarah Hansen, who served as executive director of the Environmental Grantmakers Association from 1998 to 2005.

Environmental funders mainly support large, professionalized environmental organizations"

A $Billion + a year and all they get is more photoshopped polar bear pictures that are great for fund raising but not for being truthful or supporting organizational integrity.

The real environmental movement has been punted in favor of the Global Big Enviro Industry.

Sad really, but once they committed themselves to global warming, once they assumed they had the "killer app", that their theory couldn't be wrong, that they were really saving the world, they couldn't turn back.  The media jumped on board - they love a "sky is falling" story and Al Gore's mockumentary struck the perfect chord by sensationalizing the Hockey Stick.  The scientists became famous, got tons of sympathetic media coverage and $Big $Bucks of research funding fell on their heads.  The Fame & Gravy Train was such a temptation for professors from ignored Departments in unheralded universities, too much temptation it seems.  

When Mother Nature refused to make the global atmosphere respond the way the AGW computer models predicted, it just meant the data needed  "adjusting" - but do not ask how the adjustments were made because  we are scientists and you can trust us.  When global warming didn't happen the meme was morphed to climate change and now it is climate catastrophes - just yesterday it was seriously reported the climate change will trigger earthquakes, volcanic activity and tsunamis. 

Really, seriously reported in the MSM and some people took it on faith it was true.

That's why it is over.

The computer models say it is getting warmer.
The data says it is not.
Gradually,  models yield to the dictates of data.

Reality sucks for the warmistas and their credibility is rather low. Seriously low.



http://www.alternet.org/environment/154290/why_the_environmental_movement_is_not_winning


----------



## RangerRay (1 Mar 2012)

Sounds about right.

While all the attention and money flows to the "global warming problem", other real environmental issues get swept under the carpet.  No one cares anymore about the destruction of wildlife habitat, ecological integrity, or the damage to fisheries caused by some resource extraction activities.  But tell people that if we do not reduce our 2% of carbon emissions or we will experience hell on earth, watch the TV cameras come running and the emptying of wallets.

The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.



The XL & Keystone pipeline opposition is part of a well designed and concerted "ring" strategy that Big Green has put in place to stop the Oil Sands being developed.  They have determined the best way to kill off Oil Sands development is to stop the movement of product to market.  Because the Oil Sands are truly, 100% evil to the eco's.

Good strategy actually.  Doomed to failure but it will slow down the eventual export to market of oil sands products.  Lots of sturm & drang coming . . .  don't forget to make a donation to save the planet 

Ironically the greatest threat to Oil Sands development is the massive tight oil deposits in the lower 48 states . . .  as soon as the Americans wake up and develop their own stuff they won't need much from us.

Big Green will fight on.  

They started with Silent Spring . . .  the DDT ban resulted in millions dead
They went to The Population Bomb . . .   that worked for a bit but flubbed out
They went to the Club of Rome . . . fizzled badly
The had Global Cooling for awhile
They went all in for Global Warming, until nature refused to cooperate
So they morphed to Climate Change, but that is waning rapidly

I think they will use fresh water issues as their next "we are all gonna die or else, so please donate" meme.

When they change from Climate Change to Water Wet being the issue you'll know they have moved on to ever greater fear mongering in pursuit of the eco religous beliefs and fund raising schemes.


----------



## Redeye (1 Mar 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Sounds about right.
> 
> While all the attention and money flows to the "global warming problem", other real environmental issues get swept under the carpet.  No one cares anymore about the destruction of wildlife habitat, ecological integrity, or the damage to fisheries caused by some resource extraction activities.  But tell people that if we do not reduce our 2% of carbon emissions or we will experience hell on earth, watch the TV cameras come running and the emptying of wallets.



Actually, that sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I don't know what organizations you're looking at or which people you're talking to, but most "Greenies" care about all of those things. The same folks worried about carbon emissions are generally the ones who'd like to see mining operations face better regulation, better enforcement of the various acts, etc. Part of the reason they'd like to see alternative energy sources developed is to deal with those problems you've discussed. If we need less oil and gas, we don't have to destroy habitats to get more. We don't have to drill deeper offshore with disastrous potential consequences if we don't need the oil. Of course, it's not that simple, we'll always need fuel but curbing demand deals with that. All those other issues get attention whenever you draw people into any sort of environmental issue since they're all related.



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> The only place where these two are meshing is the Northern Gateway Pipeline, for different reasons.  Otherwise, Big Environment does not care about local conservation issues.



"Big Environment"? What "Big Environment"? That sounds as mythical as the "liberal media".


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> "Big Environment"? What "Big Environment"? That sounds as mythical as the "liberal media".



 :goodpost:


Oh....wait a minute....you were serious.  (I thought you were being sarcastic...)


But truth be told, unless "it" (no matter what "it" is) somehow adversely spews the Evil Carbon into our poor atmosphere, "they" (the public at large) morph into a batch of honey badgers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Mar 2012)

The same "Big Enviroment" that had the cash to challenge a billion dollar professional wrestling company and pretty much outspend them to get them to change thier name.......[sorry, not even that, it was just to change thier initials,..yea that "big enviroment"]


----------



## Redeye (1 Mar 2012)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The same "Big Enviroment" that had the cash to challenge a billion dollar professional wrestling company and pretty much outspend them to get them to change thier name.......[sorry, not even that, it was just to change thier initials,..yea that "big enviroment"]



You mean the World Wildlife Foundation, which asserted their intellectual property rights?

Since climate underpins everything on Earth, yes, all organizations have some interest in it, but it's a pretty small mention on WWF's website and materials, because their conservation efforts are much broader than that.

Again, the kind of resources they have to work with pale in comparison to the industries funding the fringe nonsense some people seem to be desperate to believe for reasons I simply can't comprehend.


----------



## muskrat89 (1 Mar 2012)

> desperate to believe for reasons I simply can't comprehend



I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.



Muskrat,

Did you forget the sarcasm smilie?


----------



## Redeye (1 Mar 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I think your frustration levels will go down significantly once you get that the vast majority of the population simply isn't as enlightened and/or intelligent as you are.



For the most part, yes.

No, that's not sarcastic.


----------



## Furniture (1 Mar 2012)

Feel free to prove your superior intellect and enlightenment by giving clear, concise proof of man made "Climate Change". 

Please ensure the data used to confirm your belief/dogma is in compliance with WMO data standards.


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

Is this

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/follow-the-money-why-heartland-is-a-big-threat/#more-58028

Big Green or Big Government Green ?


----------



## Jed (1 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Is this
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/01/follow-the-money-why-heartland-is-a-big-threat/#more-58028
> 
> Big Green or Big Government Green ?



Now I can follow this Graphic over Redeye's prior posted graphic (The one that was supposed to show common sense wrt GCW) anyday.


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

Well this 

http://tinyurl.com/88g94ky

must be, has to be Big Government Green.

Of course it will be Really, Really Big Government Green because POTUS Obama has decided to, in his own words, "double down" on green cars, windmills, solar panels and various other stuff that is made by companies that seem to have deep ties and election campaign  funding arrangements to his administration.

He has to learn about them somehow I guess.


----------



## Haletown (1 Mar 2012)

this is going to be fun . . .

"Hong Kong Airlines Ltd. has threatened to cancel an order for 10 Airbus A380s in the latest escalation of tension over the European Union’s decision to extend its emissions trading system (ETS) to aviation, the South China Morning Post reported."

Seems the ever so green Euros have decided they can impose their carbon taxes on anyone and there will be no consequences.

I am sure the Euros will stick to their Green guns because they are saving the world from CO2 pollution, unlike the dastardly Canadians who exploit those terrible tar pollution sands.

Nasty colonials should just shut up and follow the Euroland leadership.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> For the most part, yes.
> 
> No, that's not sarcastic.



Hmmmmm, modest as well as intransigent.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Mar 2012)

"A man's got to know his limitations".

But many do not.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2012)

An interesting take on why _climate change_ is not on the top of India's agenda in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/global-exchange/international-experts/why-climate-change-is-not-on-indias-radar/article2356454/


> Why climate change is not on India’s radar
> 
> SUMEET GULATI
> 
> ...




I believe in climate change ... I believe the climate has been changing, usually slowly, sometimes quickly, for eons, ever since there was a climate; I believe we, humans, make some "contributions" to climate change but I am not persuaded that they are significant and I think our scientific energy should be devoted to adaptation rather than prevention, since I doubt changing our "contribution" is going to have much impact.

I believe in cleaning up the environment ~ in Delhi, Beijing and Vancouver; I think that the government's green money and green scientific energy should be spent on clean air, clean water and clean soil (for our food). I have been in Beijing on a hot, smoggy summer day when the sky is, literally, yellow with sulphur laden smoke and when breathing is difficult and when every breath tastes like poison; that's a crisis, an immediate crisis that endangers more people than live on all the islands threatened by rising tides caused by melting ice.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Mar 2012)

How many coal burning electric plants could have had scrubbers installed, thus maintaining a reliable source of electricity whilst reducing the output of pollutants for the cost of all those avian guillotines that were sitting idle here in southern Ontario yesterday because there was no wind for several hours; and now the wind is too strong!


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2012)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> How many coal burning electric plants could have had scrubbers installed, thus maintaining a reliable source of electricity whilst reducing the output of pollutants for the cost of all those avian guillotines that were sitting idle here in southern Ontario yesterday because there was no wind for several hours; and now the wind is too strong!



None.  Removing C02 from stack gases is very expensive.  Wouldn't want your electric bills to skyrocket, oh wait, that's already happening.  Sucks to have Ontario go all greenie when you can't afford to heat or cool your house.

Now if they could capture the C02 and pump it into greenhouses where it is plant fertilizer . . . 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE&feature=player_embedded

Because C02 is not, despite all the shrill exhortations of Lizzie May, a pollutant.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Mar 2012)

wasn't talking about CO2 but about the real pollutants that turn the air brown.  You know, the kind you see in pictures of Beijing and Hamilton on a bad day.  Things like sulphur and lead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2012)

I don't know about the technology and its costs. I do know that China, like the USA, has an abundance of _dirty_ coal that is cheap and easy to mine and burn ... the pollution is highly visible and tens, hundreds of millions of Chinese breathe in the sulphur and whatever else every day ... but nuclear plants, while clean, take a long time to build; as the _Three Gorges_ project showed there are unintended consequences to mega hydro-electric projects (and power wasn't the primary goal of _Three Gorges_, it was built, primarily for flood control); so coal is China's (and India's) primary source of much needed electrical power - and it's dirty.


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2012)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> wasn't talking about CO2 but about the real pollutants that turn the air brown.  You know, the kind you see in pictures of Beijing and Hamilton on a bad day.  Things like sulphur and lead.



Ahhhh  real pollution.

Pretty sure Ontario already scrubs the exhaust stacks for particulates.  Ross McKitrick has documented the story of how much cleaner the air is in Ontario now than 30 years ago.


http://www.rossmckitrick.com/pollution-and-health.html


----------



## GAP (3 Mar 2012)

Talking to a guy the other day...his son has the contract to install system for stack gases in Estevan's coal burning plant.....30Million


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Mar 2012)

Never having had the experience of visiting Beijing myself I still can't help but wonder how much of Beijing's pollution comes from grit blown out of the Gobi desert - a pollutant that would continue regardless of how much coal was burnt.

I recall that in the Lower Mainland - where all pollution is an affront to Gaia - one of the biggest contributors to airborne pollution in Vancouver was grit blown off the sand bars in the Fraser up by Hope.


----------



## Jed (3 Mar 2012)

Polution in downtown Damascus is bad as well. A lot of smog from vehicles burning leaded gas plus the grit blown in from some of the surrounding desert. The Barada river is pretty much an open sewer too.

I don't know how most of the heating of infrastructure is done in the winter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Mar 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Never having had the experience of visiting Beijing myself *I still can't help but wonder how much of Beijing's pollution comes from grit blown out of the Gobi desert - a pollutant that would continue regardless of how much coal was burnt*.
> 
> I recall that in the Lower Mainland - where all pollution is an affront to Gaia - one of the biggest contributors to airborne pollution in Vancouver was grit blown off the sand bars in the Fraser up by Hope.




Some certainly, but the Beijing government officially blames coal fired power plants for the very real threats to health and even life (for the elderly, especially).

In Cairo we could really see the desert sand 'pollution' which was, of course dependent on the prevailing winds; in Beijing it takes quite stiff breeze to blow away the smog - and even a North wind clears the air, Gobi sand and all.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2012)

The water issue has been raised nuberous times too Haletown. Luckily for us it will die with an even quicker whimper since technologies like "Forward Osmosis" and a microdesalinization technique I posted in another thread (among others) can be quickly developed to provide fresh water at a much lower price than Reverse Osmosis and Thermal desalination can. Since demand for water is quite rigid, market forces will bring these sorts of systems in play faster than the alarmists can drum up the massive "we are all doomed" campaigns.

The greatest threat to the alarmists is simply the "I'm from Missouri" effect. People are tired of apocalyptic predictions that don't pan out (even if they havn't reached the conclusion by other means, such as historical data like the European Warm Period or the Little Ice Age, which were obviously not caused by human activity, or reading how climactic data about Mars mirrors that of the Earth, which is only an AGW problem if you believe NASA is idling millions of SUV's on Mars as well... ).

15 years after the "warmest year on record", temperatures have flatlined or declined while most "green" schemes have turned out to be vast money grabs, which is enough evidence for the vast majority of people to dismiss the topic.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Ahhhh  real pollution.
> 
> Pretty sure Ontario already scrubs the exhaust stacks for particulates.  Ross McKitrick has documented the story of how much cleaner the air is in Ontario now than 30 years ago.
> 
> ...


  Unfortunately, this is not totally true.  Rather than spend the money on fixing the emissions Dalton elected to shut them down and replace them with wind.  Hasn't happened yet but fortunately, so many businesses have fled the province due to the high power, salary rates that we no longer need as much energy.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Mar 2012)

No discussion or dissension allowed (or aloud):

Climate change skeptic's university course criticized
By Emily Chung, CBC News
Posted: Mar 2, 2012 4:58 AM ET 

A group of scientists is raising alarm about "incorrect science" in a course at Ottawa's Carleton University that was taught for three years by a climate change skeptic.

"We describe a case in which noted climate change deniers have gained access to the Canadian higher education system through a course taught at Carleton University," the Ottawa-based Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism said in a report this week.

More at Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heretic! Burn the skeptic!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Mar 2012)

Common tactic of (mostly) the progressives in the world.  "You oppose us?  You are unintelligent/wrong/(insert insulting term here)"

Instead of calling the professor a professor, they instead labelled him a "climate change denier".  This is clever.  For after repeating the same lie over and over again, it begins to stick.  You see, they don't assume or suppose that he has an opposing view as a result of critical and independent analysis of the whole thing.  Oh, no.  You see, they call him a "denier", which assumes that climate change is a fact.  It's not just them, either.  Any "progressive" group will label opponents as haters, and use shame to get their way.  

Why they do this?  Hubris.  They are the Supreme Beings, and nothing is going to tell them otherwise.  "Ecce homo?  NO!  ECCE NOBIS!!!!"

(sorry, just my rant)


----------



## Haletown (3 Mar 2012)

interesting . . .

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-80Kvw92W34/T1KoJ-bOUbI/AAAAAAAAVf0/Ie1AtKGvkow/s1600/Booker+wind+01.jpg

How green energy makes "sense" in England.  Probably the same system being used to build Dalton's Green Utopia in Ontario by diverting funds into the Feed In Tariffs mechanism.  

Because no matter how it adds up, if the subsidies are added directly to the Electric bills or if they are hidden and paid out of General Revenues or Tax Credits whatever, it is going to be a huge drain on the wallets of the citizens of Ontario.

Because it is very, very expensive to feel green.

Apologies to Kermit.


----------



## Redeye (5 Mar 2012)

Here's an article that is pretty much exactly why I don't have a lot of time for industry apologists who've attacked actual scientists. From the Guardian, reproduced as Fair Dealing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers?CMP=twt_gu

The scientist who has borne the full brunt of attacks by climate change deniers, including death threats and accusations of misappropriating funds, is set to hit back.

Michael E. Mann, creator of the "hockey stick" graph that illustrates recent rapid rises in global temperatures, is to publish a book next month detailing the "disingenuous and cynical" methods used by those who have tried to disprove his findings. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars is a startling depiction of a scientist persecuted for trying to tell the truth.

Among the tactics used against Mann were the theft and publication, in 2009, of emails he had exchanged with climate scientist Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University. Selected, distorted versions of these emails were then published on the internet in order to undermine UN climate talks due to begin in Copenhagen a few weeks later. These negotiations ended in failure. The use of those emails to kill off the climate talks was "a crime against humanity, a crime against the planet," says Mann, a scientist at Penn State University.

In his book, Mann warns that "public discourse has been polluted now for decades by corporate-funded disinformation – not just with climate change but with a host of health, environmental and societal threats." The implications for the planet are grim, he adds.

Mann became a target of climate deniers' hate because his research revealed there has been a recent increase of almost 1°C across the globe, a rise that was unprecedented "during at least the last 1,000 years" and which has been linked to rising emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants. Many other studies have since supported this finding although climate change deniers still reject his conclusions.

Mann's research particularly infuriated deniers after it was used prominently by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in one of its assessment reports, making him a target of right-wing denial campaigners. But as the 46-year-old scientist told the Observer, he only entered this research field by accident. "I was interested in variations in temperatures of the oceans over the past millennium. But there are no records of these changes so I had to find proxy measures: coral growth, ice cores and tree rings."

By studying these he could trace temperature fluctuations over the past 1,000 years, he realised. The result was a graph that showed small oscillations in temperature over that period until, about 150 years ago, there was a sudden jump, a clear indication that human activities were likely to be involved. A colleague suggested the graph looked like a hockey stick and the name stuck. The results of the study were published in Nature in 1998. Mann's life changed for ever.

"The trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global warming would be destroyed with it. Bring down Mike Mann and we can bring down the IPCC, they reckoned. It is a classic technique for the deniers' movement, I have discovered, and I don't mean only those who reject the idea of global warming but those who insist that smoking doesn't cause cancer or that industrial pollution isn't linked to acid rain."

A barrage of intimidation was generated by "a Potemkin village" of policy foundations, as Mann puts it. These groups were set up by privately-funded groups that included Koch Industries and Scaife Foundations and bore names such as the Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity and the Heartland Institute. These groups bombarded Mann with freedom of information requests while the scientist was served with a subpoena by Republican congressman Joe Barton to provide access to his correspondence. The purported aim was to clarify issues. The real aim was to intimidate Mann.

In addition, Mann has been attacked by Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general of Virginia who has campaigned to have the scientist stripped of academic credentials. Several committees of inquiry have investigated Mann's work. All have exonerated him.

Thousands of emails have been sent to Mann, many deeply unpleasant. "You and your colleagues… ought to be shot, quartered and fed to the pigs along with your whole damn families," said one. "I was hopin [sic] I would see the news and you commited [sic] suicide," ran another.

Yet all that Mann had done was publish to a study suggesting, in cautious terms, that Earth had started to heat up unexpectedly in the past few decades.

"On one occasion, I had to call the FBI after I was sent an envelope with a powder in it," Mann adds. "It turned out to be cornmeal but again the aim was intimidation. I ended up with police security tape all over my office doors and windows. That is the life of a climate scientist today in the US."

Mann insists he will not give up. "I have a six-year-old daughter and she reminds me what we are fighting for." Indeed, Mann is generally optimistic that climate change deniers and their oil and coal industry backers have overstepped the mark and goaded scientists to take action. He points to a recent letter, signed by 250 members of the US National Academy of Science, including 11 Nobel laureates, and published in Science. The letter warns about the dangers of the current attacks on climate scientists and calls "for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them."

"Words like those give me hope," says Mann.

The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars will be published by Columbia University Press in April

==========================================================================================================

For the most part, the people attacking the science have about as much credibility as creationists do in the scientific community (none), and the idea we should treat deniers as "beyond reproach is laughable, particularly when there's stories like this out there. Sadly, from the level of discourse I've seen on so many issues, nothing claimed here would shock me if true. I read it with a bit of cynicism, but there's plenty of reason to believe that the threats and hate mail are real. 

"Climategate" was nothing. That's been studied, torn apart, analyzed, and explained repeatedly. "Climategate 2.0" was also nothing. A rehash of the same quotemined emails presented out of context. The scientific community (with some detractors, as is always the case) overwhelmingly believes climate change - all climate change - to be a significant issue because it will have real impact on things like migration, food production, etc. And economically speaking, using resources more efficiently makes sense anyhow.

The suggestion I'm intransigent is without basis. I'll look at as much credible info as possible. I have a pretty moderate position, not the alarmism that's going nowhere fast, but the "hey, there's money to be made doing things differently, and the benefits are there, and if it turns out climate change wasn't accurately modeled, we'll still probably be better off" view.  The fact that there's so much propaganda out there to counter that sort of view, and the source of it to me is pretty clear, and that people blindly read nonsense spouted by people with no background in the actual science as though it has the same weight as science is the problem.

It's a tactic that's becoming common in political discourse of all sorts - shift debate from real issues to nonsensical noise, attack the sources knowing that the people who are watching aren't going to do their own research, marginalize the voices of reason, and then just dump as much money into the system to saturate civil society with the message, while real problems get ignored.

It's a sick, sad state of affairs.


----------



## Jungle (5 Mar 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's a tactic that's becoming common in political discourse of all sorts - shift debate from real issues to nonsensical noise, attack the sources knowing that the people who are watching aren't going to do their own research, marginalize the voices of reason, and then just dump as much money into the system to saturate civil society with the message, while real problems get ignored.
> 
> It's a sick, sad state of affairs.



That applies to both camps; I bet the same comment was made by some Romans a couple of thousand years ago...


----------



## Redeye (5 Mar 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> That applies to both camps; I bet the same comment was made by some Romans a couple of thousand years ago...



Sure. No argument there - but it seems more pervasive in one camp. And it's seeming to get a whole lot worse lately, but maybe that's just how I've been seeing things lately.


----------



## Haletown (5 Mar 2012)

ouch . . .  this is going to hurt  when Ontario wakes up to the new green reality imposed on them and their wallets.

"The government has finally seen through the wind-farm scam – but why did it take them so long?

To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide."


http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/5128-matt-ridley-the-winds-of-change.html


----------



## Haletown (5 Mar 2012)

nothing like a good chuckle on a Monday morning.

"A team of Canadian climate scientists is predicting the widespread disappearance of outdoor hockey rinks across the country in the next 50 years due to global warming - with some regions of the sport's spiritual birthplace likely to witness an even earlier eclipse of old-time shinny on natural ice."

Remember back in 2000 when the British Climate "experts" claimed "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past " ?

And the Australian Climate "experts" claimed the droughts were now permanent ?



http://www.ottawacitizen.com/travel/Final+buzzer+shinny+nears+climate+scientists+warn/6250192/story.html


----------



## Jungle (5 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Remember back in 2000 when the British Climate "experts" claimed "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past " ?



Yeah... I can confirm they were wrong. Here's my backyard last week:





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

And we keep receiving snow almost everyday day. We are well into march, yet we still have minimums of -15 to -20.


----------



## Haletown (5 Mar 2012)

and that damnable Arctic ocean just won't cooperate with the ever so smart computer models produced by the ever so smart climate scientists.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/#more-40211


Since there has been so hyperventilating the last years about the polar bears dying off because the Arctic Ocean ice is melting, does this mean there will now be an explosion in the Polar bear population?

Think of all the poor seals that will now become polar  bear lunch.


Just asking.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2012)

There never was a polar bear extinction except in the minds of excitable and clever scam artists and advertizers who know that large, furry animals attract lots of sympathy (especially from people who have never been closer to a bear of any kind than the Toronto Zoo. Trust me, after being in the field in Gagetown and Petawawa I give bears a very wide berth, and these are much smaller and less agressive than their northern cousins!).

I thought the idea of Michael E. Mann calling foul was pretty hilarious. His so called "Hockey Stick" graph simply makes no sense given historical facts like the European War Period (when Vikings were farming in Greenland or Scots were making wine rather than scotch since the average temperature was warmer than today) and the Little Ice Age (when major European and North American rivers were frozen over), and of course he refused to publish the algorithms and data used to create the graph so other scientists could check the work or see if it could be duplicated (a process known in some circles as "Science")

The population of polar bears has been relatively steady or even climbing, which means that seals may not be the only thing on the menu given the expanded human presence up north...


----------



## GAP (5 Mar 2012)

Especially since they don't eat, except what they can scrounge, from about April to Sept.....human garbage dumps smell pretty good to a starving bear.....


----------



## Jungle (6 Mar 2012)

-24c this morning... PLEASE, bring on the warming !!


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Mar 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> -24c this morning... PLEASE, bring on the warming !!


But...it _is_ warming:   without all that carbon dioxide, it would be -26!  ;D


----------



## GAP (7 Mar 2012)

Cellulosic Ethanol Gets a $100 Million Boost

Virdia plans to make cheap sugars from wood chips, tackling the industry's greatest challenge.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 By Kevin Bullis
Article Link

Despite years of federal mandates, the cellulosic biofuels industry—which aims to make ethanol from wood chips and similar plant matter instead of corn—has yet to start commercial-scale production.

But the fledgling industry got some good news yesterday when Virdia, a company that converts cellulose into sugar, announced that it had raised over $100 million in private and public financing to go toward building its first commercial-scale plant. Converting cellulose to sugar is the most difficult part of making cellulosic biofuels. Once the sugars are produced, they can be converted to ethanol using the conventional process for making ethanol, which uses corn sugar.

Wood chips and other cellulosic materials have several advantages: they're abundant, they don't compete with food crops like corn, and they result in far lower carbon-dioxide emissions than corn ethanol. 

Philippe Lavielle, Virdia's CEO, says the company's technology, when employed at a large scale, could make cellulosic sugars economically competitive with sugar made from corn. "A corn ethanol plant could use sugars from Virdia instead of corn sugar," he says. 

Virdia, which until today was called HCL Cleantech, grinds up wood chips and cleans them to remove contaminants, then dissolves the cellulose and hemicellulose components with hydrochloric acid, in a process called acid hydrolysis. That leaves behind a brown powdery substance called lignin that can be used in wood pellet stoves, or could be used to make other fuels and useful chemicals.

Acid hydrolysis is an old process, but it has been too expensive to be used to produce cheap sugar. Virdia's key innovation is a proprietary process for inexpensively recycling the acid, which makes acid hydrolysis cheaper and cleaner. "The 70-year-old process never recycled hydrochloric acid, it just neutralized it. That made it uneconomical and difficult to justify environmentally, because it produced mountains of salt," Lavielle says.

The company says another advantage of its technology is that it produces more sugar per ton of biomass than conventional approaches, which typically rely on breaking cellulose down with enzymes. It produces between 95 and 97 percent of the theoretical maximum, compared to 75 to 80 percent with enzyme-based approaches, Lavielle says. "We get all the sugars out from brute-force engineering," he says.
More on link


----------



## Haletown (7 Mar 2012)

much too funny . . 

Step 1.  Check out this website

http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/staff.html

Very professional, web presence kudos, etc etc.


Step 2.   Check out the fisking of the Arctic Institute

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/04/sea-ice-news-volume-3-1-the-arctic-institute-pawns-itself/#comment-913834

a one room apartment in a bedbug infest building . . .  now that is a real Institute   :nod:


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2012)

Not much depth of experience(ie in years) with the staff. Pretty easy on the eyes, though.  ;D


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2012)

Lorne Gunter: For climate cues, look to the sun
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/07/lorne-gunter-for-climate-cues-look-to-the-sun/
Lorne Gunter  Mar 7, 2012 

Ottawa’s giant skating rink on the Rideau Canal was closed in February due to thin ice caused by unseasonably mild temperatures. Yet, at the same time, ice blocked the canals of Venice for the first time in recent memory as temperatures in the exquisite Italian city dropped to -10C for more than a week. In the Netherlands, canals were closed to commercial boat traffic because ice made them unnavigable — another unusual development.

Also in early February, fountains in southern France froze over. Polish rail lines were chocked with metres of snow. Swiss villages were cut off by record accumulations this winter. In Japan, tens of thousands of residents were confined to their homes because there was too little removal equipment to clear all the white stuff. At one point three weeks ago, more than 140,000 people worldwide were reportedly stranded by snow.

So which is likely to be the new norm: North America’s mild winter, or Europe’s and Asia’s cold, snowy season?

To hear climate alarmists and environmentalists tell it, the world will soon be without winter. There will be no more backyard skating rinks or Arctic sea ice to sustain the polar bears. Snow will become a rarity in much of Europe, and tornados such as the ones that devastated large swaths of the American Midwest last weekend will become more commonplace.

But that’s not what some solar physicists are predicting.

Scientists who have made careers of studying the sun warn that our star is about to enter a less-active phase — a solar minimum that could last 30 years or longer. If that happens, some physicists see a worldwide return to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Not coincidentally, the deepest part of the LIA — during the late 17th century — was the last time our sun generated as few sunspots and as little geomagnetic activity as it appears set to generate for the next few decades.

Solid records of the connection between solar activity and Earth’s temperatures go back at least 300 years. If so-called proxy records are included — evidence from tree rings and ice-core samples, for instance — then the connection is thousands of years old.

The sun-temperature connection only makes sense. Which is warmer, summer or winter? Daytime or night? A sunny day or a cloudy one?

Sometimes I wonder whether our Neolithic ancestors understood better than modern climate alarmists what warmed the Earth. They didn’t build monuments that marked the summer and winter solstices because they worried the soot from their cooking fires was dangerously warming the planet. They built Stonehenge and the Goseck Circle and others to ensure the declining sun of winter would come back and prompt the return of spring and the plants and animals they relied on for their subsistence.

For years, now, the global-warming establishment has tried to minimize the effects the sun has on weather and climate. For instance, rough drafts of the UN’s next five-year report on climate change (which are already circulating) apparently devote just a single sentence to the sun’s role as a “driver” of temperatures on Earth, while page after page after page obsesses on the carbon-dioxide-temperature theory.

The fact is, scientists have studied the sun so thoroughly for so long that they can forecast with about 85% confidence what will happen to our temperatures if the number of sunspots rises or lowers from one cycle to the next and if the sun’s geomagnetic activity strengthens or weakens. They even know the effect on temperatures if one solar cycle — typically about 11 years — is longer or shorter than the cycle before it. And by studying the forces at work deep inside the sun, they can estimate with accuracy the length of the next cycle or two. This gives them a good idea of the sun’s influence on climate for the next few decades.

According to a recent study by three Norwegian scientists — Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl and Ole Humlum — the sun’s current cycle has lasted so long that the next, due to begin any time now, will see a decline in temperatures of 0.63C. And that cycle is expected to last so long that the cycle after that will witness a temperature drop of 0.95C.

Given that the planet has warmed only about 0.7C or 0.8C over the past century, that means all the warming Earth has experienced since 1900 could be wiped out in the next solar cycle, and in the cycle after that temperatures could retreat to levels not seen since the 18th century.

Start idling your full-sized SUVs in your driveways now. The planet may need all the global warming it can get.


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2012)

The Gaia fantasy land lives large in America.

"The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States."


The winning company was announced and their eco  greenie gaia friendly bulb retails for  $50.00 each.


That is soooooooooo affordable.   ;D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/government-subsidized-green-light-bulb-carries-costly-price-tag/2012/03/07/gIQAFxOD0R_story.html


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Mar 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

Militaries around the world are now looking at climate change as a source of instability and insecurity in the coming decades. Have they also fallen victim to propaganda from "big environment"?


----------



## Haletown (13 Mar 2012)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/20/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
> 
> Militaries around the world are now looking at climate change as a source of instability and insecurity in the coming decades. Have they also fallen victim to propaganda from "big environment"?



Or are they smart enough to take advantage of the Warmista fear mongering to make their case for why they need to be funded and prepared for this new "threat"?

The Cold War is over, is the the new Warm War?

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Mar 2012)

Haletown I have no doubt that a military would be inclined to use something like global warming to justify a larger budget, but that still does not explain the scientific consensus in the first place. The vast majority of the world's scientists in relevant fields accept that climate change is occuring and it is due to human activity. Governments and militaries are slowly beginning to plan accordingly. 

However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy.   I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly?  Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.

 Accepting climate change does not play into any one nation's or group of nations' hands. It makes developing far more difficult for the South, and would require us in the North to drastically change our lifestyle. It will require tough choices on everyone's part, which is exactly the reason why politicians have been the last to accept reality. To me it's a question of what people have to gain from either argument. Accepting climate change means accepting a change in lifestyle, accepting that easy solutions to the problems of growth and development are no longer feasible. In short, it requires nothing less than a major shift away from our current economic and energy models. Again, I am not sure who this would benefit, outside of solar panel and wind turbine manufacturers. It is easy to understand why there is so much resistence to the idea of climate change. This also makes it easy to understand the possible motivation behind disputing climate change. The petroleum industry's important and central role in the vast economic growth we have seen since World War II means that it is uniquely positioned as a powerful lobby in North America, and indeed the world. I am not suggesting that all opposition to climate change is funded by oil companies, but they do tend to be the most vocal and the most visible. This is also not to say climate change as a cause of human activity has been undisputedly proven. Scientific theories cannot be proven, only disproven. But if 70 or 80 or even 90 pecent of the world's climate scientists believe it IS happening, and IS a result of human activity, I would argue that on the basis of cost-benefit analysis we should act now.  


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2012)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> However, many believe that global warming is a conspiracy.   I would argue that a conspiracy or fraud on this scale would make 9/11 conspiracy theorists look like absolutely rational people. It is simply inconceivable that thousands of scientists in dozens of nations, in a wide range of different but interconnected and related fields would be producing data that all points to one reality, and all knowingly lie about it. What would they have to gain exactly?  Even an exaggeration of data seems unlikely given that the scientific process requires that the consensus be formed around the most conservative numbers.



Try reading the thread, entirely, before you wade in. The proof is there in spades.


----------



## Haletown (13 Mar 2012)

1.  Change is to climate as wet is to water.  Our climate is a close coupled chaotic system of systems.  Change is normal, is the preferred state.

2.  Many human activity, including the release of GHG's, influences the climate.

3.  Current climate change is within historical parameters.

4. Consensus is to science what guessing is to engineering.

5. The planet is currently in the very late stage of the current inter glacial period and on the verge of the next ice age - buy long underwear futures & get rich!

6.  You can believe the computer models of climate or the actual climate date, but not both.

7. Kyoto was and still is a global socialist ponzi scheme invented by greenie zealots to be used as an excuse for massive wealth transfers between nations that function and nations that don't.


----------



## Furniture (13 Mar 2012)

Computer modes are only as accurate as the information dumped into them. If the person/people pumping the data into the model have a particular spin they want to sell they skew the numbers to create the desired outcome. It happens every day in the computer models for weather forecasts, it is done to account for local effects caused by terrain and water sources. If you want to see a perfect example that will only waste an hour of your life watch Deadliest Warrior...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

Lord Moncton is doing a lecture tour of the US and Canada. Here is a link to a blog post that outlines the basics of the lecture for those of us who might not be able to attend:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#more-58770

edit to add:

The video link is here:
http://union.campusreform.org/group/blog/live-webinar-lord-monckton-at-union-college

and further edit, Lord Monckon provides a link to a video presentation as well:

http://echo-media.hartford.edu:8080/ess/echo/presentation/00a9a818-188a-4ff3-b317-
b7a8695ca3f8

The final paragraphs are very important, I think:



> Lord Monckton, sternly but sadly, told those who had raised their hands: “You know, from the plain and clear demonstration that I gave during my lecture, that the IPCC’s statistical abuse was just that – an abuse. Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority. In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.”
> 
> That pin, if you had dropped it, could have been heard again. Many young heads were hung in shame. Even their professor looked just a little less arrogant than he had done throughout the proceedings. Quietly they shuffled out into the darkness.
> That night, the Gore Effect worked overtime. Temperatures plummeted to 14° F. The following morning, as we drove through the snowy landscape of upstate New York towards the next venue the following morning, I asked Lord Monckton what he had thought of the strange conduct of the professor, particularly when he had abused his authority by asking his students to assent to the correctness of a statistical technique that he and they had known to be plainly false.
> ...



Amen


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2012)

And here at home, Dalton McGuinty squares the circle his way ...






Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-from-march-2012/article2354494/

... "clean" energy from "dirty" money.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

Lord Monckton on the Micheal Coren Show: http://jr2020.blogspot.com/2012/03/lord-christopher-monckton-with-michael.html

Alternate link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sDnj_LdoK8k


----------



## Haletown (17 Mar 2012)

The insanity that happens when a politician chugs the global warming kool-aide.

"The math is simple: Had OPG used its hydro facilities to deliver the same amount of power supplied by wind, the cost savings to Ontario’s ratepayers would have been the difference between the $32-million per TWh hydro price and the $135-million paid for wind. The 3.9 Twh of wind power that cost Ontario ratepayers $526-million last year could have been bought from OPG for $125-million — a potential saving of $400-million"

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/03/15/ontarios-power-trip-wind-wastes-water-and-your-dollars/

Have to feel sorry for Ontario.  This green energy policy disaster is a major factor in driving the former economic engine of Canada into Have Not province status.  

A big part.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2012)

The *entire green* movement, everything from elementary school class projects through to the McGuinty and Obama governments, reminds me of nothing more than the hysteria of 800 years ago:





The Children's Crusade of 1212


----------



## Furniture (21 Mar 2012)

An interesting opinion piece, seems the Suzuki Foundation doesn't like people questioning their income sources.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/21/david-waterwings-suzuki-lectures-senate-on-need-to-curn-the-rhetoric/


----------



## larry Strong (21 Mar 2012)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> An interesting opinion piece, seems the Suzuki Foundation doesn't like people questioning their income sources.
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/21/david-waterwings-suzuki-lectures-senate-on-need-to-curn-the-rhetoric/



Hello pot..........


----------



## Sythen (4 Apr 2012)

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2012/04/20120403-190940.html



> Anti-wind protesters journeyed from across Ontario to demonstrate in Toronto Tuesday against the province's green energy subsidy plan.
> 
> Farmer Pat Jilesen, who raises hogs near Port Elgin in Bruce County, said his hydro bill has gone through the barn roof with off-peak power alone up 80% between 2008-2011.
> 
> ...



More on link. Figured this was a good place for it, even though it could have gone in to Canadian politics somewhere.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Apr 2012)

You guys are condemning millions to death. This isn't political. and upon examining the situation through a cost/benefit  analysis even the most frothing at the mouth insane free enterprise IDIOTS (to use a generous term) must be at least ABLE to read the writing on the wall. You were wrong about A-Stan, and the JSF, and now you are wrong again. When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?


----------



## MJP (5 Apr 2012)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You guys are condemning millions to death. This isn't political. and upon examining the situation through a cost/benefit  analysis even the most frothing at the mouth insane free enterprise IDIOTS (to use a generous term) must be at least ABLE to read the writing on the wall. You were wrong about A-Stan, and the JSF, and now you are wrong again. When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?



Do you have anything of substance to add?  You know to show this cost/benefit analysis or is this just a drive by condemnation by our moral betters?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Apr 2012)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> When will you lose the ideology, and gain some logic?


Probably about the same time you lose the preachy tone and provide some logical evidence....in your 'holier-than-thou' rants against site members regarding Afghanistan, the environment, JSF...   :


----------



## Haletown (5 Apr 2012)

The Environutters have been telling us for years the polar bears would all be gone soon because the Arctic Ice Cap is melting  and the poor cudly-wudly wittle bears will all drown! 

How awful.

Ooopsy! 


"Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count-confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/

Just another Eco Greeny fund raising scam that was based on fear mongering rather than data.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Apr 2012)

>You guys are condemning millions to death.

Generally speaking, a warmer earth is a more "humane" earth - longer, wetter growing seasons = more food = less famine and fewer deaths due to undernutrition and conflict over food resources.  A cost/benefit analysis should encourage us to accept a couple of degrees of warming and turn our efforts to mitigating other long-standing and more demonstrably pressing issues which cause large numbers of deaths.

That is, for those who deal in numbers and facts instead of feelings and peer-group trends.


----------



## Haletown (5 Apr 2012)

> >You guys are condemning millions to death.



You mean like the all those hundreds of millions who have died unnecessary deaths because environmentalists got all worked up over chlorine compounds and instigated an absolute ban on DDT?


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Apr 2012)

...??


----------



## Haletown (5 Apr 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ...??



Just trying to make a teensy bit challenging for them  :


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Apr 2012)

I wager you're referring to mosquitoes.


----------



## Haletown (6 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wager you're referring to mosquitoes.



Well it is Easter weekend and I gotta frappe la rue here shortly to go visit the in law clan so let's just cut to the chase . . .   not exactly mosquitoes but the are actively involved.

"it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world. The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized. "


http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp

Happy Easter or whatever you all do this weekend   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Well it is Easter weekend and I gotta frappe la rue here shortly to go visit the in law clan so let's just cut to the chase . . .   not exactly mosquitoes but the are actively involved.
> 
> "it is vividly apparent that DDT was not hazardous to human health and that the banning of its domestic use led to its diminished production in the United States — and less availability of DDT for the developing world. The results were disastrous: at least 1-2 million people continue to die from malaria each year, 30-60 million or more lives needlessly lost since the ban took effect. This is especially tragic since there was hope of eradicating the disease altogether when DDT was first introduced and its potential was recognized. "
> 
> ...



Playing with soft shelled, misshapen, DDT affected Easter eggs?


----------



## GAP (6 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Playing with soft shelled, misshapen, DDT affected Easter eggs?



That's why we decorate them....


----------



## Haletown (6 Apr 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> That's why we decorate them....



Well it adds to the BBQing challenge but they taste great if you get the grill at just the right temperature so you don't scorch the paint.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Apr 2012)

Well Mr. Suzuki??

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/08/unbearable-news-for-doomsayers

It would come as no surprise if David Suzuki called an emergency meeting of his David Suzuki Foundation over the weekend to deal with the sad news that the North Pole was not melting.

Every eco-system has its canary in the coal mine and, in the case of the Arctic, it¹s the polar bear - supposedly dying off, say doomsayers, because global warming is melting the very ice on which these bears need to hunt.
The trouble with this, however, is that it's bogus.

Our Nanooks of the North have never been healthier. An aerial survey of the northern shore of Hudson Bay, where the polar bear is supposedly most threatened, shows a population some 66% greater than what many scientists predicted.
This should drive Suzuki apoplectic. The dying polar bear, after all, is his meal ticket. Its impending demise turned the lies of An Inconvenient Truth into a Nobel Prize for former U.S. vice president Al Gore.
This is a very difficult bell to unring.

The aerial survey's results, released last week by the Government of Nunavut, shows a bear population along Hudson Bay of 1,013 animals when the alarmists predicted the number would be as low as 610.
These would likely be the same "scientists" used by David Suzuki for his sky-is-falling, ice-is-melting, canary-is-dying fundraisers which have Santa Claus drowning as the North Pole melts. What will they say now that this inconvenient truth has the polar bears flourishing, not dying off? It is a conundrum for the Suzuki crowd.

"(The survey shows) the bear population is not in crisis as people believed," says Drikus Gissing, wildlife management director of Nunavut.
"There is no doom and gloom."
What? How could this be?

Instead of listening to eco-opportunists, or university professors, we'd rather take the word of the Inuit. It's their hunting ground too, and they say the polar bear is far from being endangered.
In fact, the 25,000 polar bears across Canada's Arctic is likely the highest number ever.
We trust, therefore, that David Suzuki will call a press conference to explain his Chicken Little routine. He can use one of our Sun News studios for free.

No charitable tax receipt necessary.


----------



## Maxadia (9 Apr 2012)

"Hooray!!!  All my crusading has worked!!!"

- David Suzuki (just being facetious here, of course.  ;D)


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Apr 2012)

You've overlooked the obvious response:

"The ice is melting and the polar bears can't get to sea. That's why they're concentrated on shore."

You can rationalize anything to support your argument.


----------



## Haletown (9 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You've overlooked the obvious response:
> 
> "The ice is melting and the polar bears can't get to sea. That's why they're concentrated on shore."
> 
> You can rationalize anything to support your argument.



An obvious response that ignores data and the facts

http://www.real-science.com/more-ice-in-2012-than-1974

Never stopped the Warmongers before . . . 

You can believe the climate models or the data but not both.

You can believe Suzuki or the data but not both.

You can believe Greenpeace or the data but not both.

Ya have to love it when a plan comes together.  :nod:


----------



## Maxadia (9 Apr 2012)

An oldie but a goodie....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2012)

A long list of NASA luminaries finally speak out openly against Prof Hansen. Of course the argument for "global warming" has been based on misinterpreting or manipulating empirical evidence (the Hocky stick graph that managed to ignore the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age is perhaps the best known example, but the Climategate emails have tons of other examples). Better late than never:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/



> *Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models*
> Posted on April 10, 2012 by Anthony Watts
> 
> An embarrassing image for NASA: James Hansen, arrested in front of the White House in Keystone pipeline protest. Image: via Wonk Room
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2012)

Interesting lecture on video:

Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plr-hTRQ2_c&feature=player_embedded


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2012)

The costs of following the Global Warming agenda are huge; economic competitiveness has been damaged in many places where the Green Ideology has taken root:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/11/lawrence-solomon-green-power-failure/



> *Lawrence Solomon: Green power failure*
> Lawrence Solomon  May 11, 2012 – 10:24 PM ET | Last Updated: May 11, 2012 10:59 PM ET
> 
> Climate mania impoverishes electricity customers worldwide
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 May 2012)

Real data puts a double tap into the "Hockey Stick" graph. The manipulation, Climategate, alarmism, attempting to supress evidence or ruin reputations has all backfired in a most spectacular and satisfying way (although the true believers will never, ever, look at the evidence and still claim, contrary to all evidence [even the ability of the algorithm to generate "hockey sticks" from random numbers] that the graph is true and the accumulated evidence is false).

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-death-of-the-hockey-stick/?print=1



> The Death of the Hockey Stick?
> 
> Posted By Rand Simberg On May 17, 2012 @ 12:00 am In Environment,History,Media,Politics,Science,Science & Technology | 92 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2012)

Useless models have been used to drive the "debate", now that they have been debunked it is time to start looking at alternative models and solutions:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/



> *Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test*
> Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post  Jun 13, 2012 – 9:07 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 14, 2012 11:17 AM ET
> 
> Computer models utterly fail to predict climate changes in regions
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2012)

Real data and observation is so annoying to the AGW climate alarmists. Doing science and claiming to do science turns out to gbe two different things:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/



> *Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show*
> 
> Crafty boffins got elephant seals to survey for them
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (26 Jun 2012)

'nuff said.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2012)

There is an old joke that goes:

"How many libertarians does it take to stop a Soviet division:

None, the market will take care of it"

Well the market took care of the USSR, and now it takes care of the global warming alarmists as well...

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/06/29/us-carbon-output-forecasts-shrink-again/



> *US Carbon Output Forecasts Shrink Again*
> 
> Much to the surprise (and, one suspects, the chagrin) of the deranged doomsaying wing of the environmental movement, new forecasts of US CO2 emission are out and they point to an even steeper drop than the last set of predictions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Jul 2012)

A team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University studied tree rings to reconstruct climate data over the last two millennia. A report of their findings from the university's web site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time 

Calculations prepared by Mainz scientists will also influence the way current climate change is perceived / Publication of results in Nature Climate Change

 09.07.2012 

An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." The new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Was the climate during Roman and Medieval times warmer than today? And why are these earlier warm periods important when assessing the global climate changes we are experiencing today? The discipline of paleoclimatology attempts to answer such questions. Scientists analyze indirect evidence of climate variability, such as ice cores and ocean sediments, and so reconstruct the climate of the past. The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were. 

Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years. 

The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age. 

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. 

"This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2012)

Lies.  It's a pack of lies.  The science was settled last year.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jul 2012)

Interesting. There's historical reference that points to the Romans considering Britain as a good grape/wine region. That would not be considered the case now, with the possible exception of Devon and Cornwall.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Interesting. There's historical reference that points to the Romans considering Britain as a good grape/wine region. That would not be considered the case now, with the possible exception of Devon and Cornwall.



And Newfoundland was called Vinland by the Norse....although, that could also mean "meadow or pasture land".

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


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jul 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And Newfoundland was called Vinland by the Norse....although, that could also mean "meadow or pasture land".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland



Yes, and I doubt they would have called it Greenland if it wasn't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Yes, and I doubt they would have called it Greenland if it wasn't.




Recently I read that now that the Greenland ice cap is receding (melting) archaeologists are able to find the remains of farmsteads and settlements that have been covered for 600 years. The Greenland coast was, once, very green, for several miles inland and was good, productive farmland. It was the Greenland Inuit (known as _Skræling_) to the Scandinavians) who drove the Europeans away, not the encroaching weather/ice cap which came later.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jul 2012)

So wait a minute, you're telling me that all the melting ice up north and south is at levels that have occured previously in recorded history and that the world didn't end then?  Well isn't that something!


----------



## GAP (11 Jul 2012)

I'm still waiting for the big flip.....that puts Canada at the equator......


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2012)

>all the melting ice up north and south is at levels that have occured previously in recorded history

To be more precise, retreating glaciers all over the globe - not just the polar caps - reveal signs of human habitation in their debris fields.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jul 2012)

Not so fast, Al Gore...



> Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years
> 
> Study of semi-fossilised trees gives accurate climate reading back to 138BC
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (23 Jul 2012)

Well this is gong to hurt a tad . .  .

"This is a sorry and sobering story of how a combination of
unreflective environmental fundamentalism, a massive
feeding-frenzy by corporate rent-seekers, and political
hubris has the makings of an economic disaster for a
province already in serious fiscal difficulties.
Unfortunately, this sorry story does not end here. The
environmental assessment processes put in place under the
Green Energy Act to review industrial wind turbine projects
located in many rural communities throughout Ontario
reflects similar administrative deficiencies and is inflicting
substantial environmental costs and health risks on these
communities without effective evaluation."

http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TrebilcockGreen.pdf



When he says  "taxpayer dollars  that have been dissipated"  he think means they were flushed down the Great Greenie Global Warming Fear Mongering and Fund Raising Scam's toilet.

Have to feel sorry for Ontario . . .  just a world of greenie hurt coming down the tracks.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Jul 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Have to feel sorry for Ontario . . .



I live in Ontario and i wouldn't feel sorry for this place. Ontarians voted McSquinty in and then re-ellected him.

Self-inflicted wound.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jul 2012)

Oh, so many people are saying "Bring it", but I rather doubt that the threatened lawsuit will ever come to pass. There is a process known as "discovery" which promises to be highly embarrasing to Mann and the University:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43626



> *UnManned*
> by Rand Simberg on July 23, 2012 at 9:42 am
> 
> No, the post title is not a reference to a type of space vehicle.
> ...



Mann is also involved in a lawsuit in Canada, where he sued a Canadian Climatologist, but is now running into difficulty since he is not providing the evidence demanded by the discovery process here:

http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/official-probe-shows-climategate-whitewash-link-to-sandusky-child-sex-case/



> But while arguments over PSU’s hidden “Climategate” emails will rage anew in the U.S., across the Canadian border in the Supreme Court of British Columbia Mann is close to losing another legal battle on this issue. Mann is yet again stonewalling a court over showing his hidden “dirty laundry” of dodgy data.
> 
> But such incessant secrecy won’t save Mann.  Judge Freeh’s damning report may persuade his Canadian counterpart that Mann’s libel suit against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is likely vexatious and premised on a cover up. Freeh’s findings will thus make it harder for Mann to dodge a Canadian Supreme Court requirement to hand over all his disputed “dirty laundry”. If Mann won’t comply he faces punitive legal sanctions. Leaked emails proved Mann was an influential figure among climatologists accused of fixing global warming records to win lucrative government research grants worth millions. In particular, evidence reveals a statistical “trick…to hide the decline” in reliability of proxy data in Mann’s research. And Mann is certainly ahead of his peers in arrogance because he’s the only climate scientist to boast on Facebook that he “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with other IPCC authors in 2007.”


----------



## Haletown (25 Jul 2012)

A perfect example ofneco fear mongering.

Screamimg headlines today that Greenland is melting,  blah, blah, blah.

Seth Bornstein, a noted Eco hysteria peddler does no fact checking but echo chambers a dubious report.

Meanwhile, the great Grrenland melt isn't actually happening . .  .  Probably a data/satellite error.

Because the webcam shows what is really happening.


http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

Doesn't look like Lake Greenland now does it?


----------



## Haletown (9 Aug 2012)

A remarkable interview.  From Global Warming hero to major disappointment in one simple NPR video.  

http://tinyurl.com/8jo4wwq

"“But that doesn’t mean that we’re seeing increased wildfires. It doesn’t mean we’re seeing increased tornadoes. We’re not, we’re not. Yes, the temperature’s going up, yes it’s greenhouse gases. But to exaggerate it, by bringing in all these other things, I think, tends to mislead the public. And when they learn that they’re wrong, when in 2006 there are no hurricanes hitting the U.S. despite predictions, they tend to become somewhat cynical about science. I think that’s really unfortunate."

"is it fair to say that if we don’t take any steps to reduce emissions, we are going to have more superstorms like Katrina?

Richard Muller: Oh, no. No, no. First, you have to recognise that according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami, the number of hurricanes has been going down. The next thing you need to know is that Katrina was not a superstorm, it was only a Category 3 when it hit New Orleans. Just happened to be the first Category 3 that hit New Orleans in decades.  And they were unprepared for it"

etc  . . .  the interviewers were not prepared for his skewering of many of their eco religious pieties.

Let's hope they do get Mikey Mann to do a joint interview . . . although I doubt he would dare enter into a public debate with Muller.


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2012)

So everyone knows Mikey Mann,  famous inventor of the Hockey Stick Climate Graph.  Seems he is a little bit upset, well very upset with a Mark Steyn story published n the National Review that mocks him.

So Mikey gets his lawyer to send a threatening letter to the National Review.

The response from the NR lawyers is priceless.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/pdf/2012-08-22_National_Review_Response_Letter.pdf

We can only hope this lawsuit proceeds because Discovery is going to be delicious. 

Entire story over at WUWT 


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/22/best-michael-mann-headline-evah/#more-69741


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2012)

Rand Simberg and Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball have also received SLAPP from the author of the Hockey Stick graph (see upthread), but are fighting for legal discovery as part of their defense.

Mann is stonewalling the judges and refusing to release the demanded information, which should result in the cases being thrown out and Mann being cited for contempt as a minimum. Everyone who gets threatened by Mann is being targetted by a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) in order to silence the opposition, but it is happily backfiring against him.


----------



## Haletown (20 Sep 2012)

What happens when Public Policy falls prey to the fear mongering eco greenie crowd . . .

"To put it in context, the Global Adjustment — the pot where subsidies for wind and solar are temporarily placed before billing ratepayers — for the 12 months ended Aug. 31, 2009, totalled $2.98-billion. For the 12 months ended August 31 this year, the Global Adjustment had grown to $6.2-billion, a jump of over $3.2-billion or 107% in three years.

If one couples that with the drop in revenue for OPG of $554-million in the six months ended June 30, 2012 (clean hydro has been displaced by wind and solar) compared to June 30, 2009, the raw costs in dollars required to support FIT and MicroFIT programs are in excess of $4-billion annually, with only 2,000 MW of wind and 400 MW of solar up and running. The more wind and solar Ontario gets under the FIT program, the bigger the costs become.

The province claims 20,000 jobs have been created, most of which would be in construction. At current costs, that works out to a cost per job of $200,000 annually and growing. The price has been high, and it’s still rising. But will FIT prove to be useful? Will it achieve its objectives, which are allegedly intended to reduce carbon emissions? No evidence exists that any carbon emissions have been reduced as a result of the FIT program, despite the City of Toronto’s claims to be cutting carbon emissions at the absurd cost of $2,600 per tonne.

So happy FIT anniversary, Ontario. But forget the champagne. We’re out of cash."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/09/19/ontarios-power-trip-happy-fit-day/


Truly have to feel sorry for Ontario Tax and Rate payers.  Be generous with the lube because you are truly being screwed over.


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2012)

Global warming: the heat’s back on
Protecting the ozone layer means the next step must be the control of damaging HFCs 
Article Link
 By Geoffrey Lean 14 Sep 2012

It was an extraordinary triumph of old technology over new, of basic science over space-age wizardry and – 25 years ago tomorrow – it led to a planet-saving pact, one of the most successful treaties ever agreed.

Back in 1983, Dr Joe Farman, a diffident British geophysicist then running a couple of research stations in Antarctica, spotted something that made him go “nearly off my rocker”. Routine measurements he had been taking on a 25-year-old machine swathed in a quilt showed that half the ozone, high in the stratosphere 15 to 50 kilometres above the earth, appeared to have vanished.

It seemed incredible, since a Nasa satellite was busily circling the globe, taking 140,000 ozone readings a day and reporting nothing much out of the ordinary. Thinking that his ancient contraption might have finally gone awry, Farman replaced it with a new one in 1984. But it showed even less of the stuff overhead.

With great daring, he published his findings, even though one of his paper’s referees described them as “impossible”. Nasa was provoked to review its records – only to find that its satellite had indeed made similar measurements, but that its software had automatically disregarded them as unreliable before they could be seen.

The discovery of the “ozone hole” caused alarm, because a thinly scattered stratospheric layer of the blue-tinged gas is all that protects terrestrial life from lethal ultraviolet solar rays. For more than a decade, some scientists had worried that CFCs, used in a huge range of products from foams to aerosol cans, were eroding it – and, sure enough, observations soon showed they were to blame. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2012)

When the solutions are so much worse than the problems they are supposed to "solve":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html



> *Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK*
> Germany has gone further down the 'renewables' path than any country in the world, and now it's paying the price
> 
> By Christopher Booker
> ...



Since there is simply no economical means of storing vast quantities of electrical energy to balance the grid (by storing renewable energy when it is produced and releasing it when it is needed), any place that puts a large stock into renewables is asking for trouble.


----------



## AliG (23 Sep 2012)

So... Full halt and reverse? Or do the sensible thing and learn / adapt from this? Increase research in large power storage to solve the problem. I suspect that there will be good returns to whomever finds solutions to transient large power storage that does not involve carbon at the end of the manufacturing process.


----------



## Haletown (23 Sep 2012)

Large scale storage of realiable energy has already been solved.

Water reservoirs,  coal beds, natural gas fields and uranium deposits are well know forms of potential energy that are plentiful, extensive, cost effective and technically well understood.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2012)

Ahem; I was speaking of large scale and economical means of storing generated electrical energy. If this was possible, then smaller generators could run a maximum efficiency, and power generated at off peak times could then be stored for release during peak hours.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2012)

Always worth repeating; the "facts" used by climate alarmists are worthless since they don't match actual observations nor can they be used to make actual predictions. An amateur scientist shows how science is done for real:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=9789



> *New E-Book: Who Turned on the Heat? The Unsuspected Global Warming Culprit — El Niño-Southern Oscillation* -buffy willow-
> 
> Dr. Pournelle,
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Oct 2012)

According to a story in the Daily Mail, the UK Met Office recently released a report (without issuing a press release) that states the world temperature has been stable since 1997. The usual suspects jump through hoops to show this is meaningless, but do suggest their climate models are inaccurate. 

A link to the longish story is here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html


----------



## Journeyman (14 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> dailymail.co.uk: Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago


Speaking, not as a scientist, but as someone riding a motorcycle yesterday.....there is no global warming -- dammit!    :cold:


----------



## AliG (14 Oct 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> According to a story in the Daily Mail, the UK Met Office recently released a report (without issuing a press release) that states the world temperature has been stable since 1997. The usual suspects jump through hoops to show this is meaningless, but do suggest their climate models are inaccurate.
> 
> A link to the longish story is here.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html



I hope that you are not using the Daily mail as gospel.

Link to the actual study: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf

Full graph is on page 53.


----------



## AliG (14 Oct 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Speaking, not as a scientist, but as someone riding a motorcycle yesterday.....there is no global warming -- dammit!    :cold:



Climate / weather can be differentiated as such: Climate is taking your untrained dog for a walk on a leash; weather is the dog at the end of the leash. The dog is constrained by the leash as to were he can go; be it forward (warmer) or back (colder). As you move forward the dog can go further forward, where it is warmer and not as far back where it is colder. Of course, the dog will also randomly go around you.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Oct 2012)

Well....uh.....thank you for that simplifying analogy.  :stars:

What you're saying is, as the dog moves back I should wear another layer and go for the lined gloves. Got it.  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2012)

And I thought obscure analogies were my specialty.  ???

AliG:

You're working overtime at giving my heart palpitations.

You show a graph that demonstrates a stable if fluctuating temperature between Confederation and World War 1.  It then demonstrates a "radical" upward slope of 0.8 degrees since WW1.    Perhaps we should thank Gavrilo Princip for speeding up the recovery from [urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/05/medieval-volcano-disaster-london-graves]this event[/url]:

A 4C temperature drop globally - instant starvation and death; wars, famines and plague; cats and dogs...; etc.

Good news about that volcano. It put paid to Genghis Khan's empire.

On the other hand, I understand that Genghis Khan wasn't such a bad chap after all:  all for women's rights, free trade, keeping a decent set of books....

By the way:  I thought you might prefer The Guardian as a reference.

Cheers,


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2012)

Mad science rears its ugly head. No word if the ship's mate was named Igor...

On a more serious note, since the tools and techniques of modern science are widely available to anyone with the money (you can order custom DNA on line, for example) it is becoming harder to deal with this issue. Is this guy a crank or a genius? How do we tell, or for that matter, who "decides". With complex and chaotic systems, we also run into an inability to determine what, exactly, is happening, since end conditions are not determined in a linear fashion from initial conditions. There is also a matter of intent. If we recast this as an experiment to improve fisheries rather than "climate geoengineering" we might have the same actors and actions, but the measure of effectiveness is now based on the catch rather than some nebulous temperature data. One might get an entirely different perspective if the experiment had been announced in that fashion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/science/earth/iron-dumping-experiment-in-pacific-alarms-marine-experts.html?_r=0



> *A Rogue Climate Experiment Outrages Scientists*
> By HENRY FOUNTAIN
> Published: October 18, 2012 288 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2012)

The Haida....

Stewards of the environment - Last Bastion in the Fight against Big Oil.


----------



## Haletown (25 Oct 2012)

Turns out they borrowed the $2.5 million from the local credit union, which granted the loan on what is now seen to be a gruel thin business case related to selling carbon credits.

Should be interesting to see how it all works out given that they will have great difficulty quantifying the amount of carbon they claim to have reduced and the much greater difficulty of getting their carbon credits certified for sale on what remains of the international carbon market.

My only fear is that they have already cooked a deal with the BC Government to trade these credits through a provincial mechanism related to the BC Carbon tax.  Schools and hospitals in BC need to buy carbon credits every year and this would be a lovely political fit.


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2012)

A USA Today article calls into question just how serious the LEED Certification program really is about being "Green" rather than a cash cow for the construction industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/green-building-leed-certification/1650517/


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2012)

I live in Southwestern Ontario where wind turbines are sprouting like mushrooms. Until five months ago I considered them a sign of progress but now that there is one going up about 500m from my house I've started to pay more attention.

Its not a NIMBY issue (although I note that the people who favour these things all live in Toronto and they don't have any in their back yard), nor am I worried about health effects (I don't think there are any) but instead I wonder just how good these things are since the power coming from them is four times the cost of nuclear power and they run at less than 20% efficiency while nuclear is above 95%. 

So what's my point? 

I think I've grown weary of the debate between all the experts as to whether or not there is global warming or not and if there is it as a result of human activity or is nature just passing gas.

I've long ago decided that when there are numerous experts with widely varying opinions and you can't just use your common sense bulls**t meter to figure out who is right and who is wrong, then you should follow a conservative course of action until the evidence becomes clear.

For me this means that one shouldn't:

- spend billions of dollars on 'fashionable' alternative energy sources until they become a viable and cost effective 

- one shouldn't create a multi trillion dollar industry based on 'trading' ethereal concepts like carbon credits 

- one shouldn't any support tax regimes based on allegedly curing us of tenuous bad environmental habits (I should note that I do support regulatory processes that prohibit harming the environment [e.g. oil spills etc] and then punishing offenders) - Those of you who live in Ontario and are aware of the powers of Stewardship Ontario to set levies on the sale of items that they consider environmentally harmful will know what I'm talking about; and

- one shouldn't let schools run one-sided indoctrination programs but demand a more balanced approach - all to often these issues are achieving near cult/religious status in the educational institutions. Kids are as worried about the oncoming environmental apocalypse as we were in the fifties and sixties of the incoming Soviet missiles. Just as bad, anyone who even questions these Al Gore inspired mantras is immediately labelled as a denier or enemy of the 'inconvenient truth'. 

 :-\


----------



## Redeye (2 Nov 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> - one shouldn't let schools run one-sided indoctrination programs but demand a more balanced approach - all to often these issues are achieving near cult/religious status in the educational institutions. Kids are as worried about the oncoming environmental apocalypse as we were in the fifties and sixties of the incoming Soviet missiles. Just as bad, anyone who even questions these Al Gore inspired mantras is immediately labelled as a denier or enemy of the 'inconvenient truth'.



We should totally teach creationism alongside evolution too. It's just as much a controversy in the scientific community, after all (by that, I mean, not at all).

At least you're not a NIMBY on wind turbines. I'm sick of listening to people whining about how they look - that's honestly the major argument I'd seen people make against them. Frankly, anything that reduces dependence on burning coal is a good thing - and I say that living in Nova Scotia, which derives most of its electricity from coal-fired stations which are notoriously severe polluters. Even if you simply discard any discussion of climate change, coal is a nightmare, and "clean coal" touted by the industry is about as real as safe cigarettes. Coal, depending on which study you read, contributes to numbers of deaths in the USA that are four or five digit numbers.

The problem is that wind, while great and all, doesn't provide a base load as needed - nuclear and hydroelectric need to be expanded to do that. I get really sick of greeny types who oppose nuclear development when even after taking into account the two most catastrophic incidents in the history of nuclear energy (Chernobyl and Fukushima) have one less damage to health than coal in particular. I don't see what Ontario is waiting for on building at Darlington, and I'd love to see Maritime provinces (likely led by NB as they have some experience) pooling their resources to expand nuclear generation out here.

The problem I have is


----------



## FJAG (2 Nov 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> We should totally teach creationism alongside evolution too. It's just as much a controversy in the scientific community, after all (by that, I mean, not at all).



I actually had hoped the creationism issue had died with the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 and for the life of me can't see how any intelligent human being, much less legislatures, can make arguments in favour of teaching it as part of a curriculum in a public education system.

I don't think that there is any controversy within the scientific community re creationism v evolution. The controversy is between the scientific community on the one hand and the religious right (and some of their pseudo scientists) on the other.

And that's exactly my point. I don't think that the global warming etc issue has a sufficient level of consensus amongst the real scientific community to allow one to come down definitively on either side of the issue. That's why I don't favour extreme responses (and thereby very expensive) to curb a problem that may not actually really be there.

I must admit re Turbines that I do think they give a very progressive air to this region. I have five that went up about one and one half kilometres away (and that puts them well within view of my house). I thought it was quite neat when they went up. A lot of my neighbours hold a different view. Another one is at this moment being erected about to go up about a half kilometre away and I'm a bit more worried about that one. Not the health effects or the view or anything but there are many people out there who really hate these things and at this point I feel it may impact property values. There are some folks a bout five kilometres up the beach who have just started a lawsuit on that very basis. I think they'll lose but I'm keeping an eye on it. 

I should point out my house is right on the shores of Lake Erie. My 'back yard' is a beach with an uninterrupted view all the way across the lake to Cleveland.  The turbines are for me on the other side of the house that's basically the 'front yard' and since I rarely sit out there to enjoy the views of the tobacco, tomato or corn fields I really am not bothered by these things. Again I get it that for many of my neighbours things are different and they have to view these things while enjoying the out doors.

Its kind of funny sometimes how its the little things that make a difference. Not far from us are turbines where they have set up horrendously ugly power lines along the road to take the generated power to the nearest grid. In our area all the powerlines are buried which makes the whole scheme look better. Similarly the five turbines that went in three years back were painted in five segments going up the pole. The bottom segment was a darkish green and then the shades got progressively lighter as they went up. The appearance made them blend in nicely with the treelines and the sky. On the other hand the new ones going in are a bright grey colour which stands out like a sore thumb against the ground and only blends towards the top at the sky level. Like I said. Its the little things that make a difference. I wish when Ontario was regulating this industry in the beginning, they would have given some of those issues a little attention.

Cheers


----------



## Redeye (2 Nov 2012)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I actually had hoped the creationism issue had died with the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 and for the life of me can't see how any intelligent human being, much less legislatures, can make arguments in favour of teaching it as part of a curriculum in a public education system.



Sadly, there's a lot of morons out there.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I don't think that there is any controversy within the scientific community re creationism v evolution. The controversy is between the scientific community on the one hand and the religious right (and some of their pseudo scientists) on the other.
> 
> And that's exactly my point. I don't think that the global warming etc issue has a sufficient level of consensus amongst the real scientific community to allow one to come down definitively on either side of the issue. That's why I don't favour extreme responses (and thereby very expensive) to curb a problem that may not actually really be there.



There's a pretty solid consensus, actually. It's about as solid as the consensus on the theory of evolution. There are discussions and further research into the degree of anthropogenicity, but among scientists who study climate, there seems to be no real debate on the issue, no matter how much drivel is trotted out. Not to mention that there are related issues in terms of environmental protection and carbon emissions. What it still all comes back to to a large extent is that reducing them isn't really all that difficult. But that's a whole other issue. I've not seen what kids are being "indoctrinated" with, but I suspect it's the fairly simplistic concept of use scarce resources wisely and that sort of thing. I remember when we got told about how leaving lights on too long contributed to acid rain problems, and how the importance of things like recycling were stressed to us in school when we were kids. I suspect nagging from kids might have gotten parents to pay attention to such issues, so I don't see a real problem there.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I must admit re Turbines that I do think they give a very progressive air to this region. I have five that went up about one and one half kilometres away (and that puts them well within view of my house). I thought it was quite neat when they went up. A lot of my neighbours hold a different view. Another one is at this moment being erected about to go up about a half kilometre away and I'm a bit more worried about that one. Not the health effects or the view or anything but there are many people out there who really hate these things and at this point I feel it may impact property values. There are some folks a bout five kilometres up the beach who have just started a lawsuit on that very basis. I think they'll lose but I'm keeping an eye on it.
> 
> I should point out my house is right on the shores of Lake Erie. My 'back yard' is a beach with an uninterrupted view all the way across the lake to Cleveland.  The turbines are for me on the other side of the house that's basically the 'front yard' and since I rarely sit out there to enjoy the views of the tobacco, tomato or corn fields I really am not bothered by these things. Again I get it that for many of my neighbours things are different and they have to view these things while enjoying the out doors.
> 
> ...



Burying transmission lines is atrociously expensive, but it does have an aesthetic appeal, for sure. It seems they did that with a recent installation of a lot of turbines near Amherst, NS. One thing that I was reading a few days ago was about the stress that wind power puts on grids because we're not at the point that there's any means of storage for electricity generated by renewables - and Germany is essentially the case study. I was amazed when I was there this summer a couple of times by the sheer number of turbines. They are everywhere it seems, and generate an enormous amount of electricity on windy days. The trick is that wildly shifting outputs mean that other sources must constantly be brought on to the grid and taken off, and there's stress from the changing outputs that's been torquing a lot of their neighbours, to whom Germany supplies power but basically takes advantage of their grids. They're apparently working to build a new system but it's not done yet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/windmills-overload-east-europe-s-grid-risking-blackout-energy.html

It almost seems like they'll have to build a lot of pumped storage facilities and such things to contain potential energy until other methods come into use. Some of the things I've seen proposed are pretty interesting in terms of using mechanical storage systems - one, as I recall, basically used surplus off peak power to run a massive refrigeration system for liquid nitrogen, the expansion of which when turned off worked some kind of turbine system. It wasn't particularly efficient, but it was a novel idea, the kind of thing that research will stem from.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2012)

>We should totally teach creationism alongside evolution

They are not really "alongside" or in opposition or mutually inconsistent.  Evolution (natural selection) is about how things change.  Creation is about starting points.  Think about it carefully - there is no "theory" of a beginning of life in natural selection, only wild speculation as to how it might come about.

Whatever the "concensus" on climate change is, there are three levels of belief that are uncontroversial (the first two are trivially and obviously true):
- that climate is changing
- that things we do affect climate change
- that there has been a slight warming trend for the past two centuries

What there is not, except inside models with assumed multipliers, is a "theory" of how catastrophic warming can occur.  As with the question of the initial conditions from which evolution can proceed, there is only wild speculation.  Undertaking trillions of dollars of spending because a bunch of professors are fond of assuming the presence of a number > 1 may be the most rampantly foolish policy proposal of the past two decades.


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's a pretty solid consensus, actually.



While there is much its not universal. 

This attachment is a but one recent example of an article in the Wall Street Journal where sixteen scientists voiced their contrary opinions on the greenhouse gas controversy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

This article (sorry its from the UK's Daily Mail) shows that over the last sixteen years there has been no discernible rise in the global aggregate temperature. In fact since record keeping began in the 1880s there has only been a rise of 0.75 degrees C. While there had been a slight rise from 1980 to to 1996 the forty years before had seen declining or stable temperatures.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

I know we could argue this back and forth for months on this without convincing the other but I think the 'contrary' opinion has been gathering more and more support. As I mentioned in my first post, I usually have a very good 'bulls**t' meter to tell me when the info I'm seeing should be given very little weight. Unfortunately for me the meter is swamped by too much pro and con on both sides which quite frankly leaves me sitting on the fence at this time.




			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> to whom Germany supplies power but basically takes advantage of their grids. They're apparently working to build a new system but it's not done yet.



I read about a year ago in Spiegel that they were exploring using the electric rail line grid as a transmission vehicle from the North to the South. Sounded interesting although the more recent news seems to be centring on four new transmission 'Autobahns'. Too bad. Sounded interesting: less expensive and no new transmission lines.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/switching-to-renewables-germany-explores-using-train-lines-as-a-power-grid-a-758698.html




			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> It almost seems like they'll have to build a lot of pumped storage facilities and such things to contain potential energy until other methods come into use.



Storage could be a big issue. I've been reading (albeit primarily in articles written by people with an axe to grind - the one below is sourced from the Ottawa Citizen) that Ontario has on occasion had to pay foreign customers to take excess power off our hands.  The problem appears to be power sources that can't be turned down and below anticipated domestic demand.

http://savethenorwesters.com/2011/08/17/ontario-power-generators-shell-out-35m-ytd-to-get-rid-of-surplus-juice/

Cheers


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >We should totally teach creationism alongside evolution
> 
> They are not really "alongside" or in opposition or mutually inconsistent.  Evolution (natural selection) is about how things change.  Creation is about starting points.  Think about it carefully - there is no "theory" of a beginning of life in natural selection, only wild speculation as to how it might come about.
> 
> ...



I really am spending way too much time on this forum today.

Your 'creationism' point is either a subtle jibe or I'm reading too much into it. 

I agree evolution and creation are two different things. We can either view creation from the creation of the universe -- 'Big Bang' or from the start of life -- 'primordial soup' both of which, to me, are the scientific (although admittedly theoretical) precursors to 'evolution'. 

'Creationism' in the biblical sense has absolutely no scientific value whatsoever and if taught in school at all should only be taught as part of social studies in mythology amongst of the multitude of 'creationist' legends  that underlie the worlds' primitive societies. It should never be taught as a stand alone as a religious option to generally accepted scientific theories.

Your points on climate change fall well within my own beliefs.  I'll make one small but obvious addition. Those trillions of dollars come out of our pockets either as taxes or consumer charges. 

Cheers again

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Nov 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sadly, there's a lot of morons out there.



That does it.  I'm tired of years of listening to you call anyone who disagree's with your ideals "morons" [and worse].  
You've gone through the warning ladder and now it's time.
Bruce
Staff


----------



## Nemo888 (23 Nov 2012)

The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility. The question is what to do about it. I am enjoying Europe getting a taste of our crappy winter weather so far as the transatlantic currents are disrupted. But if we go to 4C solutions like  growing food in the arctic are completely unrealistic. There is no topsoil and very little sunlight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20408350

Climate change evident across Europe, says report

The effects of climate change are already evident in Europe and the situation is set to get worse, the European Environment Agency has warned.

In a report, the agency says the past decade in Europe has been the warmest on record.

It adds that the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events is rising, and the continent is set to become more vulnerable in the future.

The findings have been published ahead of next week's UN climate conference.

They join a UN Environment Programme report also released on Wednesday showing dangerous growth in the "emissions gap" - the difference between current carbon emission levels and those needed to avert climate change.

"Every indicator we have in terms of giving us an early warning of climate change and increasing vulnerability is giving us a very strong signal," observed EEA executive director Jacqueline McGlade.

"It is across the board, it is not just global temperatures," she told BBC News.

"It is in human health aspects, in forests, sea levels, agriculture, biodiversity - the signals are coming in from right across the environment."

2C or not 2C

The report - Climate Change, Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Europe 2012 - involving more than 50 authors from a range of organisations, listed a number of "key messages", including:

    Observed climate change has "already led to a wide range of impacts on environmental systems and society; further climate change impacts are projected for the future";
    Climate change can increase existing vulnerabilities and deepen socio-economic imbalances in Europe;
    The combined impacts of projected climate change and socio-economic development is set to see the damage costs of extreme weather events continue to increase.

As it currently stands, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has set a target of limiting the rise in global mean temperature to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.

But the report's authors warn that even if this target to mitigate warming is met, "substantial impacts on society, human health and ecosystems are projected to occur".

To limit the impacts, experts say effective adaptation strategies need to be developed in order to minimise the risk to nations' infrastructure, homes and businesses.

The European Commission is expected to publish its European Adaptation Strategy in 2013, outlining measures it think will help the 27-nation bloc deal with future climate shifts.
Swollen River Tiber, Rome (Getty Images) Europe will have to climate-proof its infrastructure if its economy is to "weather the storm"

Examples of adaptation measures include using water resources more efficiently, adapting building codes to be able to withstand extreme weather events and building flood defences.

Prof McGlade said such measures would be essential in order to climate-proof the EU.
Continue reading the main story	
“Start Quote

    While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement... they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal ”

Achim Steiner Unep executive director

"I think what the European Commission and other parts of the world are finding is that whilst it is important to understand what is happening at the global level, it is what is happening at the regional and local levels that will really determine how economies will weather the storm," she said.

The report said the cost of damage caused by extreme weather events had increased from 9bn euros (£7bn) in the 1980s to 13bn euros in the 2000s.

One of the report's authors, Andre Jol, head of the EEA's vulnerability and adaptation group, added: "We know that the main increase in damage costs from natural disasters has not been from climate change, as such, but more as a result of an increase in wealth, people and infrastructure in risk areas.

"But one of the key messages from the report is that in the future, with projected increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme events, we know that climate change will contribute to the increase in the cost of damage from extreme events."

'Lack of action'

On Monday, the World Bank published a report that warned that the world was "on track to a 4C [increase by the end of the century] marked by extreme heatwaves and life-threatening sea-level rise".

It added that the world's poorest regions would be hardest hit by the warming, which was "likely to undermine efforts and goals".

"A 4C warmer world can, and must be, avoided - we need to hold warming below 2C," said World Bank group president Jim Yong Kim.

"Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today."

However, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) warned that it was still possible to achieve the 2C target but time was running out.

Data in the Emissions Gap Report showed that annual greenhouse gas emissions were now "14% above where they need to be in 2020".

Unep executive director Achim Steiner said: "While governments work to negotiate a new international climate agreement to come into effect in 2020, they urgently need to put their foot firmly on the action pedal by fulfilling financial, technology transfer and other commitments under the UN climate convention treaties."

The reports have been published ahead of the annual two-week UN climate conference, which starts on Monday in Doha, Qatar.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Nov 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility.



Please. :

Wishful thinking on your part is not an arguable point.


----------



## Haletown (23 Nov 2012)

So the pre Doha Meetings are in full agenda setting mode. We can expect much more of this stuff as they try and get their gravy train rolling again.

Lots of entertainment to be had as economic reality, especially in Europeland, begins to invoke its relentless reality check on the Eco Religous Zealots pushing the environmental disaster/sky is falling meme.

Film at 11.


----------



## Dissident (23 Nov 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The science is settled. Climate change deniers have no credibility.



Repeat a lie often enough...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2012)

Crap Nemo!  Had you been alive a couple billion years ago, perhaps you could have saved the dinosaurs.

When are these "conspiracy theorists" going to simply accept the fact that the worlds climates are constantly changing.  We already know that we are headed towards another Ice Age in a few thousand years.  Do we need to prepare you now with Winter Cam Jackets having long sleeves and straps to connect them to your back?


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2012)

More on mad science from NextBigFuture. What is a bit frightening is many of these schemes are actually quite affordable and even have an element of "DIY" about them. After all, hiring a barge and steaming out into the open ocean and dumping iron into the water is something almost anyone could arrange. High flying balloons lifting hoses into the stratosphere is a bit more difficult in terms of building, but the overall cost is quite modest (and don't forget we now live in a world where you can order custom DNA over the Internet and a private individual founded a rocket company that has successfully launched payloads to the ISS...). Since, despite what activists would like us to believe, climate is a poorly understood chaotic system, there is no real way to predict what will happen from these experiments.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/11/low-cost-geo-engineering-and-actual.html



> *Low cost geo-engineering and actual field tests*
> 
> The cost to construct a Stratospheric Shield with a pumping capacity of 100,000 tons a year of sulfur dioxide would be roughly $24 million, including transportation and assembly. Annual operating costs would run approximately $10 million. The system would use only technologies and materials that already exist—although some improvements may be needed to existing atomizer technology in order to achieve wide sprays of nanometer-scale sulfur dioxide particles and to prevent the particles from coalescing into larger droplets. Even if these cost estimates are off by a factor of 10 (and we think that is unlikely), this work appears to remove cost as an obstacle to cooling an overheated planet by technological means.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Nov 2012)

There are some significant examples of large scale engineering projects where good intentions created more problematic issues than those that were solved.

The Aswan High Dam is a good example of good intentions with unforeseen consequences. Yes the annual flooding of the Nile was controlled, but as a result, groundwater increased in salinity, increased sedimentation of the Lake Nassar Reservoir, increased Algae blooms in waters below the dam, and so on.

Redirecting rivers into the Aral Sea to irrigate desert lands in the former Soviet Union has caused the sea to essentially dry up.

Efforts to control the Mississippi River have had negative effects on annual flooding.

Sometimes the best solution is to leave things as they are.


----------



## Dissident (27 Nov 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Efforts to control the Mississippi River have had negative effects on annal flooding.



Sounds like some pretty serious consequences.


----------



## cupper (27 Nov 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Sounds like some pretty serious consequences.



Oops. Typing too fast.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2012)

More on mad science from Popular Mechanics (see any contradiction there?  ). One comment on Instapundit was rather chilling, though:



> Forget geoengineering. I’d look at an infectious-disease expert with Deep Ecology beliefs. . . .



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?click=pm_latest



> *Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists?*
> 
> An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from doing it himself?
> By Kathryn Doyle
> ...



Mad science playing around with geo engineering does require a certain scale, which should make it relatively easy to spot. A mad scientist working on a plague will have far fewer constraints; a basement lab and a fermenter could be disguised as a micro brewery, for example. We already have a certain experience with this, most computer hacking requires a relatively limited amount of equipment (hackers who need huge amounts of computing power simply take over your computer and add it to a "bot net").


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Nov 2012)

This open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations published in The Financial Post is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125 scientists.

Special to Financial Post | Nov 29, 2012 8:36 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 29, 2012 8:45 PM ET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations


H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

First Avenue and East 44th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.

November 29, 2012

Mr. Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal … Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather” Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions. 

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.


Edit: Here is the link to the letter which includes the names and qualifications of the signers:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/29/open-climate-letter-to-un-secretary-general-current-scientific-knowledge-does-not-substantiate-ban-ki-moon-assertions-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/


----------



## 2 Cdo (30 Nov 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Repeat a lie often enough...



I remember hearing the same "science is settled" argument in the 1970's about a coming ice age. I predict in 50 years or so people will be laughing about our battle against "global warming" and "climate change".


----------



## Haletown (2 Dec 2012)

Amen, you are forgiven of your sins, that will be $100.00

"The analogy between Indulgences and Carbon Credits is very good, but especially as both create a source of income for those who identify and define the problem, exploit the guilt, and offer a solution. They also do nothing to ameliorate the supposed problems, the amount of sinning or the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere from human sources. In fact, they almost guarantee an increase in both cases. The analogy fails because sin exists, whether it is a transgression against religious or secular law. CO2 in the atmosphere from any source, including human, is not causing global warming or climate change. More important, it’s essential to life on the planet and an increase in atmospheric levels is beneficial to their distribution, abundance, and productivity."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/02/is-al-gore-the-latter-day-pardoner/#more-75159


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Dec 2012)

One problem I have with global warming or in my own words "routine climate change" is everybody is focussed on Polar Bears, etc, etc. A

Apparently Forest Fires can dump WAY more carbon in the air than a city full of cars running and idling. That was a shocker to me. I say we ban forest fires, oh wait, Smokey the bear tried that.

Seriously though from a part time farmer (me) that specializes in pasture management/land healing there are some very easy steps we could take as a society to enhance and heal the land we have left available and improve soil quality.

On that note I see different problems than most fellow canadians. I can go into more detail if people are interested.


----------



## 63 Delta (4 Dec 2012)

Lets hear it. Id be interested to know more about improving the soil quality, as well as what the current quality is even at.


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Dec 2012)

To start with, I will base this on my own practical experinces and what I have learned from my mentors, Gerald TeVelde (Twin Creeks Farms) and Greg Judy (Green Pastures Farm). As well as all the good stuff I have learned from numerous books, videos and talks with Joel Salatin (Polyface Farm)

1. Soil must be worked
2. Soil must be "rejeuvenated" will explain more later
3. Soil needs to also have rest but not too much
4. Soil needs to be nourished
5. We should mimic nature structure

These above points will prevent desertification (A serious problem) and heal the land, this has many benefits will explain as I go on.

SOIL MUST BE WORKED

For healthy soil, plants (grasses, forbes and legumes, bushes and trees too) need to be frequently "trimmed" or "mowed" by animals (ruminant animals are ideal). Using a grassland for example, having a herd of cows or a flock of sheep, come in, and eat intensely for a brief period of time and then move on. This action forces the plant to grow back, creates manure when digested (nourishment), allows for trampling action (this beats the ground up and loosens up some tight packed soil) with hooves. Tightly packed ground does not allow proper absorbtion of water and slows down microbiol activity (such as small insects, bacteria and worms). Also the prehensile tongue action of cows and sheep loosens the plants ever so slightly allowing more aeration of the soil (again improves microbial life). During this time, urine and manure is dumped on the ground (nourishment, bacteria, enzymes, nitrogen, minerals, ect, etc). It is imperative that soil is worked eating, stomping, defacting and urinating.

SOIL MUST BE "REJEUVENATED"

Soil needs additional nutrition from water, urine and manure. A note here, the soil gets loosened up by stomping and mowing action, this allows water to better seep in. Now a word on plants (solar collectors). Different plants have different roles. Forbes (we call weeds) are usually distinguished by long tap roots. This tap root collects deep seated mineral up into the plants leaves and stems. The animals eat these parts of the plant, this in turn, brings those minerals to the surface when the animal poops them out. Deep tap roots also aeroate the soil, allowing water absorbtion and microbial activity.  Grass is excellent nutrition for animals and is great for binding soil and keeping top covered preventing damage by wind and sun. Legumes (clover and alfafa are a few examples) fix nitrogen from the air into the soil via the roots, adding a "protein" boost to the ground, which other plants can take up in their roots. Now a word about natural seeding, as animals eat the seed heads, they poop out the fermented seed heads which will have started the sprouting process, starting its own life cycle over again.

More to follow....


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Dec 2012)

SOIL NEEDS REST BUT NOT TOO MUCH REST

As you see from above post, there is a cycle of conditioning that happens between weather, animals, earth and microlife. Now the rest. With herd animals (sheep, cattle, bison, goats, musk ox) are notorius open or loosely closed area grazing. These animals when present in a natural environment will hit an area intensely for a few hours to a day or two at the most then migrate onwards. The activity is hard and intense followed by several months to potentially a few years of rest. Now when I say grass, I mean real grass. Not the BS grass people keep out in their front lawns, we are talking 3 to 6 feet high whn fully grown, that is grass. many, many different species. More tropical and heavier precipitation areas, with more moisture, you can have more frequent return of herd animals (such as once every 4-6 months) where as in arid regions (which can still grown plenty of grass) such as certain parts of Africa and south west USA, a longer rest period of 1-2 years is more ideal. This rest allows plants to bouce back from being attacked (chewed on) and allows the minerals and nutrients to be fully broken down and absorbed into the soil. Now if too much time passes, the ground at the top will get hard (slowing or reducing water absorbtion), slows down worm activity and stalls plant growth.

SOIL NEEDS TO BE NOURISHED
We covered some of this earlier. The cycle goes from anaimals eating plant matter and passing it. The minerals are passed from plant to soil as well. Vitamins and nutrients gathered from the sun in the plants is collected from the animal upon being eaten. Now other forms of nutrients will also pass to the ground. dead plants rotting and breaking down and even dead animals breaking down. Insects have an improtant roll to our life cycle.

WE SHOULD MIMIC NATURAL STRUCTURE

To make this work best, we can not simply dump a herd of cattle or a flock of sheep or goats into a pasture. Without predators to enforce "discipline" they will be all over the place and randomly eating grass, allowing no rest. We can create predation by using protable electric fencing and "mob stocking" the animals together (keep reasonable packed together but not too tight). Move them every day or twice a day and allow a rotation plan that gives each spot of ground 90-180 days rest. This mimics one of the best examples (we destroyed), a herd of bison in the past could easily number in the thousands and they would eat, poop, piss, sleep and then move on. This action was performed by these animals for hundreds of thousands of years, creating some of the richest top soil North America originally had (that we have more or less destroyed). Deer, moose, elk do a similar action for more forested areas (They are ruminant animals as well). Also deer and their kind, keep forest well maintained. Without them, trees can grow to dense and that creates deadly competition for limited soil nutrition in trees. In time, several trees die off and then several packed dead dry trees = forest fire. Not good.

We can re-create this effect any where you have a little chunk of grass/open area. I have alot more to say but I will leave at this for now. The benefits from this are 
1. Healthy animals with healthy meat (Grass fed beef and lamb is hard to find)
2. Low in put from not having to create soy/corn/grain for bovines and sheep (These animals should NOT be eating this stuff anyways)
3. Healthy pasture and savanah areas
4. It has been shown to repair riparian areas (land and river/creek/pond meet)
5. Soil gets healthier and as each season passes in this manner, the plant population increases and the quality improves
6. No need for chemical fertilizer
7. Greatly improves hay quality
8. It allows animals to be more comfortable and behaving naturally before having that "one really bad day" at the abatoir


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Dec 2012)

And this thread from SDA is worth a read as Christopher Monckton blogs about his unauthorized intervention at the Doha climate conference.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/022156.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Dec 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And this thread from SDA is worth a read as Christopher Monckton blogs about his unauthorized intervention at the Doha climate conference.
> 
> http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/022156.html



You can see the looks on the delegates once their terps translated for them and it sunk in what he was saying. 

I'd be just as interested though to know how the delegates from Myanmar explained their absence, to their bosses, and how Monckton got their microphone  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2012)

Beat me too it, I see. But here is Lord Monckton's transcript (and apparently he is now being given the credit or blame for derailing the conference)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure/



> *Monckton on his smashing the U.N. wall of silence on lack of warming, and censure*
> Posted on December 7, 2012 by Guest Blogger
> UPDATE: The Russian Times blames Monckton for the failure of COP18 to fail to reach an agreement:
> 
> ...



Lord Monckton is a man of great learning and moral courage. Too bad there are not more like him in so many other fields.


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Dec 2012)

Nearly four in 10 Americans blame weather on 'end times'

Nearly four in 10 U.S. residents say the severity of recent natural disasters such as Superstorm Sandy is evidence the world is coming to an end, as predicted by the Bible, while more than six in 10 blame it on climate change, according to a poll released on Thursday. 

The survey by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Religion News Service found political and religious disagreement on what is behind severe weather, which this year has included extreme heat and drought. 

Most Catholics (60%) and white non-evangelical Protestants (65%) say they believe disasters like hurricanes and floods are the result of climate change. 

But nearly two-thirds (65% of white evangelical Protestants say they think the storms are evidence of the “end times” as predicted by the Bible. 

Overall, 36% point to end times and 63% to climate change.

More at link

 :endnigh:    anic:

Time to start watching Doomsday Preppers.....


----------



## cupper (14 Dec 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> :endnigh:    anic:
> 
> Time to start watching Doomsday Preppers.....



Unfortunately the global warming weather nuts only account for a small portion of Doomsday Preppers. You also have the anti-government nuts, the economic meltdown nuts, the super volcano nuts, the solar flare nuts, the pandemic nuts, bio terrorism nuts, the nuclear disaster nuts, the nuclear terrorism nuts, the end times nuts, the Myan Calendar nuts and the mixed nuts.  :nod:

Personally I'm waiting for the Squirrels to rise up and start harvesting. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2013)

Funny how "narratives" get derailed by facts. One observation that Jared Diamond and his ilk gloss over or ignore is the fact that it is too cold today to raise cattle in Greenland, yet the Vikings were able to do so in 1100AD. Now what are the implications of that, I wonder...

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2013/01/12/jared-diamond-and-the-collapse-of-the-greenland-norse/



> *Jared Diamond and the collapse of the Greenland Norse*
> 
> Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel‘s essential message is that there was nothing special about Europeans, their societies, or their culture that have led them to dominance of the world from the 17th century forward, which continues.  In all ways he has worked to explain why European and offshoot societies have had more goods, more freedom, and more power than other societies, not through any racial or cultural characteristics but purely through geographical, mechanical advantages.
> 
> ...



On a more general note, Jared Diamond makes observations of small, isolated economies and ecosystems, like Greenland and Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and then claims they are general cases applicable to continental societies, economies and ecologies. Save yourself some time and money. As for climate change, this example shows the natural trend of people adapting and moveing to meet changing circumstances.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Feb 2013)

Here is a short piece that I picked up from Small Dead Animals. The author reports that analysis of tree ring data indicates both that climate models do not accurately report previous warm periods and that there has been cooling of the European climate in recent years. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Tree Ring Studies Confirm Global Cooling

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 1:02PM 


Contributed by Chriss Street. Specialist in corporate reorganizations and turnarounds, former Chairman of two NYSE listed companies. His latest book, The Third Way, describes how to achieve management excellence and financial reward by moving organizations from Conflict and Confrontation to Leadership and Cooperation. He lives in Newport Beach, CA.

The prestigious Nature Journal recently published a major climate change study named Orbital Forcing Of Tree-Ring Data that proves through analysis of over 2000 years of tree ring evidence that current climate models substantially underestimated ancient Northern Europe temperatures levels during the Roman and Medieval Periods. The fact that temperatures have trended down for the last two centuries debunks theories that anthropogenic (man-made) global-warming is caused by a rising CO2 gas levels associated with industrial burning of “fossil fuels.”

Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this extremely cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years. The international team was able to conduct high reliability calculations of tree ring density from the cold water preserved Scandinavian pine trees, which correlate very closely with annual summer temperature patterns.



The United Nations’ endorsed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for interpreting studies of ice cores and ocean sediments to “conclude” that Europe was about to suffer catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But new Tree Ring Data allows precise measurements of annual climate variability. The results reveal there has been a cooling trend of -0.3°C (0.54°F) per millennia (1000 year periods) “due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.” The high-resolution graph shown above demonstrates that temperatures ancient periods were much warmer than predicted by IPCC. The study also documents the extreme temperature phases that occurred during Europe’s “Little Ice Age” that resulted in a general cooling trend between the 1150 and 1460 AD and extremely cold climate between 1560 and 1850 AD. According to lead researcher Jan Esper:


“We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low” … “Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today’s climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods.”

The results are a huge embarrassment to IPCC, which has acknowledged it did not carry out its own original research to monitor climate and related phenomena. But their extrapolated conclusions regarding a recent warming trend served as justification for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to demand Western industrialized nations implement the Kyoto Protocol treaty to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

In a direct broadside against global-warming doomsday alarmists, Esper noted:


This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant. However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.

The Tree Ring study proves the recent warming trend we are experiencing is not exceptional, because temperatures have been exceeded for at least two periods over the last 2000 years. Paleoclimatologists describe the warming of the earth over the last 12,000 years as the Holocene inter-glacial of the current Ice Age. The prior Eemian interglacial period, which began 130,000 years ago and ended 114,000 years ago, was much warmer. Scandinavia was an island, hippos swam in the Thames at the site of London, and the raised beaches of Alaska & fossil reefs of the Bahamas were formed.


----------



## GR66 (1 Feb 2013)

Is it just me or do both sides of this argument seem far too confident of their interpretations of historical "data"?  Our environment is a system of extreme complexity.  We cannot consistently and accurately predict what the temperature will be in 48 hours at a given location.  However we are quite willing to state with apparent certainty that a 2000 year old tree ring or a 10,000 year old layer of ice from a core sample "definitively" prove that the climate at that time was warming/cooling.

Do we know with absolute certainty every factor that dictates the size and density of a tree ring in a given year or the amount of a particular isotope in an ice core sample?  Can we infer that because ice in one region or tree growth in another region were such and such in a given year that the variations in micro-climates and local weather were not very different in another area?  

I'm all for research and trying to learn about our past climate but I fear that we're often a little too confident in our level of understanding of how the world really works.  The politics of the issue seems to be taking precedence over the actual science.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2013)

The issue isn't what the tree rings or ice core data says about that particular point in time, GR, rather the issue is attempting to explain why the climate changes from warm to cold and back again over time.

This is something like "CSI: the real world". The criminologists can collect data and interpret it with confidence ("a piece of fiber made of this material which is similar to the materials used in this brand of carpet..."), but it is actually up to the detectives to assemble the evidence into a coherent pattern and deduce who the criminal actually is.

In our case, climatologists can accurately determine historic data (and there is often much corroborating evidence as well; we can actually unearth settlements in Greenland and track the historic change from cattle farming to goat herding, and compare the dates of these changes to the dates of samples of Greenland ice), but the "detectives" have not managed to string the evidence into a coherent pattern and deduce causes. Indeed, with stunts like the "Hockey stick graph", "Hide the decline", hiding raw data and pressuring peer review journals into accepting only "consensus" papers, they have only muddied their own case and sown suspicion as to their motives and intended end results.

Climate is a chaotic system with thousands of inputs and non linear responses to input, so I personally believe that claiming to "know" the cause of climate change is actually impossible; at best you can sort out major factors and get a "broad stroke" approximation of what is happening. Like Economics and Ecology (and for the same reasons), Climatology is and can only be a "descriptive science", able to determine a rough correlation between cause and effect but unable to make accurate predictions about the future.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2013)

The politicization of science by the "Progressives" is perhaps the worst  possible outcome of this entire "Global warming" hysteria. Since the motivations are highly suspect (and the strong arm tactics they used pretty blatant), almost any science now will have a large question mark beside it regardless of the nature of the subject being studied:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/02/21/peter-foster-whos-muzzling-whom-over-what/



> *Peter Foster: Who’s muzzling whom over what?*
> 
> Peter Foster | Feb 21, 2013 8:05 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 21, 2013 8:40 PM ET
> More from Peter Foster
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Feb 2013)

I find it hard to believe there is a worldwide cabal of scientists intent on pushing bogus science on us. I find it somewhat easier to believe that the fossil fuel lobby has successfully muddied the waters, creating the illusion of a "debate" surrounding climate change. 99.9% of the world's climate specialists are sounding the alarm. The very vocal doubters are well funded, and are borrowing tactics directly from the tobacco cases in the 1990s. Create the illusion of doubt, and you've succeeded in in preventing meaningful action that may affect profits for the companies that hired you.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Feb 2013)

Can you please verify your 99.9% statement with sources?


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Feb 2013)

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Sorry 97%.


----------



## Haletown (24 Feb 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
> 
> Sorry 97%.



So I wonder if this  97% will now agree with Hansen, Trenberth, Annan et al and as of this past week, the entire IPCC, who have had to admit their CAGW is not happening as predicted, that there has been at least 15 years now that the forecasted warming hasn't happened, that despite new record CO2 levels, the planet is in fact cooling.

Or maybe they'll just say they have it right but just need more money for their computer models and more time to come with the next version of the Global Warming-Climate Change-Climate Catastrophe-Increased Storms-Gawd Only Knows.

Time will tell.  Meanwhile I am sure they believe they should still be funded and they should still have a major say in generating Public Policies that meet the environmental standards they have invented based on the theory they know is invalid but should be adhered to regardless of the consequences.  You know, turning food into poor quality car fuel, covering rural Ontario in wind turbines solar panels and getting children to believe the normal state of our climate is static and any changes are bad.

Because 97% of scientists are always correct.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Feb 2013)

Scientists are the first to admit that a theory can never be proved, only disproved. I'm not a scientist, but the link I posted above includes a very broad and representative list of respected scientific institutions from around the world. Contrast that with the very short list of scientists who think that a) climate change is not related to human activity, or b) don't think it's happening at all. I have to go with the 97% on this one.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Scientists are the first to admit that a theory can never be proved, only disproved. I'm not a scientist, but the link I posted above includes a very broad and representative list of respected scientific institutions from around the world. Contrast that with the very short list of scientists who think that a) climate change is not related to human activity, or b) don't think it's happening at all. I have to go with the 97% on this one.



Those old enough to have lived in the late 60s early 70s remember the hue and cry that the planet was cooling and that we were headed for another ice age. Forgive me if I maintain my skepticism.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Feb 2013)

As someone with motorcycles in winter storage.....BRING ON THE GLOBAL WARMING!!   :nod:


----------



## Haletown (24 Feb 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Those old enough to have lived in the late 60s early 70s remember the hue and cry that the planet was cooling and that we were headed for another ice age. Forgive me if I maintain my skepticism.



Or when the 99.99999% of scientists agreed that ulcers  were caused by stress . .  .  And it took a single Australian, who had to fight for 20 years and endure huge ridicule and contempt from his "peers" to get the world to see what he knew- they were caused by a bacteria and were easily curable.

The reality of the 97% of scientists who believe in global warming is a bit of a scam I and of itself.  They question that was asked is if they believed CO2 was a "greenhouse gas".  There should have been 100% agreement. 

 But that is not the same as saying they agree with the CAGW theory.  Because there are two parts to CAGW, the 1ish degree of warming that could happen with a doubling of CO2.  It is the second part of the theory that is the wonky bit,, the whole positive feedback loops thingy.  Very bizarre.

And they certainly didn't agree that CO2/humans and only CO2/humans are the cause of climate change.  That clai is beyond ridiculous and should be to anyone with even a modicum of basic science education.


But hey, it is a free world and anyone who wants to believe the planet is radically warming,the polar bears are going extinct, the oceans are rapidly rising, the polar ice caps are diminishing, that CO2 is pollution not plant food can believe so if they wish.

I have to thank the Global Warming Industry for one thing.  Here in BC, we have had a carbon tax for a few years that has been implemented to both lower personal income tax rates while making bad, evil gasoline more expensive.  Since  I don't use very much gas, maybe 350 - 400 litres a year it is wonderful that everyone else pays so much so I can pay less.  Being Green is simply wonderful.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2013)

Don't forget that scientists are also human, and follow incentives like other humans. If a torrent of money is going to a particular field or to follow a particular hypothesis, then you can bet that scientists will be flocking to the field or telling everyone who can fund them that their specialty is related to the field de jour.

The Perimeter Institute is an example of this trend, it was ridiculed and scientists who went there (because it is nicely funded by former RIM executives) looked down upon because it was founded with the intent to examine an esoteric branch of science which is at odds with the currently "consensus" String Theory. Since String Theory is itself not proven or amenable to experimental proof, this is more a case of snobbish fashion following than anything else.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Feb 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't forget that scientists are also human, and follow incentives like other humans. If a torrent of money is going to a particular field or to follow a particular hypothesis, then you can bet that scientists will be flocking to the field or telling everyone who can fund them that their specialty is related to the field de jour.
> 
> The Perimeter Institute is an example of this trend, it was ridiculed and scientists who went there (because it is nicely funded by former RIM executives) looked down upon because it was founded with the intent to examine an esoteric branch of science which is at odds with the currently "consensus" String Theory. Since String Theory is itself not proven or amenable to experimental proof, this is more a case of snobbish fashion following than anything else.



I think you have it backwards. I don't doubt that some scientists may be swayed by the promise of larger grants but I would argue they are in the minority. In fact that minority is represented by the scientists who are funded by petroleum companies to cast doubt on whether or not climate change is happening and is caused by human activity (these are the same guys who claimed that the link between lung cancer and cigarettes was tenuous at best).  You can't honestly believe that 97% of the world's scientists are just after money, and the very small minority who actually have corporate backing with tons of money behind them are acting purely in the interests of science.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think you have it backwards. I don't doubt that some scientists may be swayed by the promise of larger grants but I would argue they are in the minority. In fact that minority is represented by the scientists who are funded by petroleum companies to cast doubt on whether or not climate change is happening and is caused by human activity (these are the same guys who claimed that the link between lung cancer and cigarettes was tenuous at best).  You can't honestly believe that 97% of the world's scientists are just after money, and the very small minority who actually have corporate backing with tons of money behind them are acting purely in the interests of science.



What a load of ad hominem bullshit.

Quote what you want from now on. You've lost all credibility in a single statement.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Feb 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What a load of ad hominem bullshit.
> 
> Quote what you want from now on. You've lost all credibility in a single statement.



I addressed a point with what I view to be another valid point, and you're going to start throwing around profanity and accuse ME of getting personal? 

Anyways, the climate change debate is complex to be sure, and all the data in the world can't PROVE a theory as I mentioned above. But if you look at the numbers and what scientists on all parts of the spectrum of the debate have to actually GAIN from their position, I think it's only rational to conclude that the alarm is genuine. I genuinely  hope I'm wrong and the naysayers are right, but again, the numbers don't lie. If you examine who is backing the science that says climate change isn't happening, or humans have nothing to do with it, it's obvious that certain interests are at play here. Interests that are far more imbedded and powerful than the comparatively feeble solar or wind lobby, or the ambitions of a few scientists to increase their budgets and get papers published.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2013)

Anti climate change scientists are the same ones that worked for big tobacco and denied the cancer\ tobacco causation?

BULLSHIT.

Take your thin skin and delete the stupidity in your posts before hitting send.

I could care less what side you're on, but stop with the grade two theatrics.

They make you look dumb and desperate.


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Feb 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/keydocs.html


Found these links quite easily. If I still had access to JSTOR (haven't for a few years now) I could post several academic papers on the matter.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Feb 2013)

..and the same ones who screamed "ice age" not so long ago?

Ho hum.......


----------



## TheHead (27 Feb 2013)

Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2013)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.



So you got a smattering. That's different than implying they all worked there.

I'm sure there's enough crackpot scientists for both sides.

What's your point?


----------



## Haletown (27 Feb 2013)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Actually the Heartland Institute, the organization that pays Anthony Watts used to claim that Second Hand Smoke is not dangerous and that smoking in moderation wasn't harmful.  Moderation was stated as up to 6 cigarettes a day.



Donna explains . . . 

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2013)

Maybe you should re read the 78 pages of posts.

There are huge and glaring holes in the AGW arguments, and lots of evidence from multiple branches of science that strongly suggest that climate change is a natural phenomena following complex, non linear responses to thousands of inputs (ranging from the Sun and cosmic rays to the reflectively of clouds).

When historical evidence shows Vikings raising cattle on Greenland in 1100 AD (when it is too cold to do so today), or space probes tracking the temperatures on Mars show the same levels of increase as the Earth, to point out two easily researched observations, then both the cause and potential consequences of climate change as portrayed by the alarmists are thrown into doubt.

You can also read the 78 pages to see how the alarmists behave, hiding data, refusing to release the algorithms used to "calculate" and "predict" climate change, strong arming journals to refuse to publish dissenting papers, the IPCC using speculation and wild guesses to "prove" that climate change is real and there is a need for massive intervention in the global economy etc. etc.


----------



## Zartan (28 Feb 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> When historical evidence shows Vikings raising cattle on Greenland in 1100 AD (when it is too cold to do so today), or space probes tracking the temperatures on Mars show the same levels of increase as the Earth, to point out two easily researched observations, then both the cause and potential consequences of climate change as portrayed by the alarmists are thrown into doubt.



And people were farming in the American southwest, where they are no longer, and Southern Arabia was also supporting large urban civilization of which Yemen is a mere shadow (in both cases because it became too _dry_ and _hot_). Climate change does not always equal warming, nor is a single example from a single timeframe indicative of a whole.

There has been a lot of posts in this thread, which can be summarized thus, if I may post a grenade: like the cherry-pickings of a Christian who has never read the bible. 

Meanwhile, the Climate change argument is over to which degree humans are supplementing or altering natural processes. To claim that there are scientists who deny that climates do not change through natural processes is to strawman them. Certainly, there are people who do believe such tripe. I dare say that they are not scientists.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Feb 2013)

To believe that humans are wholly responsible for global warming is the height of conceit.

To believe that we have the power to reverse it is the height of hubris.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Feb 2013)

You should look up Allan Savory or listen to his material for a different insight on Climate malfunction. He points out how 200,000 cars on the road for one year release same amount of carbon as 12 acres of forest fire burning for 15 minutes, big WHOA!

He is very analytical and looks at several problems being tied into one major issue. He is one of the few environmentalist WHO does not spout off the usual non sense (Cars running, cattle, not enough stupid accords like Kyoto, etc, etc)

One Major issue he brings up is Desertification, a long standing issue that has greater impact on the environment and human personal and social health. 

Climate change is a given and happens, if we want it or not. There are ways to address some issues without the usual doomsday speeches. 

I highly recommend listening to Mr Savory, he is a great speaker and worth hearing a well thought out theory. Most of his principles I apply to my own farm practice.

http://vimeo.com/8239427


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (28 Feb 2013)

I just have one comment....

The pro-AGW "scientists" have repeatedly been caught lying, falsifying data, falsifying computer models, misrepresenting 'average temperatures' by ignoring the urbanization (heat sinks) of some collection points as well as not correcting for a southern shift of average collection points....

By any scientific standard, they should be ostricized and expelled from their fields....

The fact that they are often still tenured and cited as 'experts' is a fallacy driven by the fact that many progressives (in particular those in our educational institutions), are decidedly anti-fossil fuel, anti-industrialization, and have demonstrated a clear Machiavellian belief that the end (de-industrialization) justify the means (falsifying and misrepresenting whatever they have to in order to get carbon caps).


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2013)

Since the facts do not support what is being said, you need to look for what motivates politicians to tell such lies. OF course, in this case the answer is quite simple; try to create a real or faux crisis and then use that as a reason to increase government spending and power:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/obamas-thirteen-words.php



> *Obama’s Thirteen Words*
> 
> Remember George W. Bush’s famous “16 words”? They came from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, where Bush said: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” That was a true statement, but it caused immense controversy, for reasons that are now hard to remember.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2013)

Found your problem:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2290289/NASA-warns-unexpected-happening-Sun-year-supposed-peak-sunspot-cycle.html



> *The calm before the solar storm? NASA warns 'something unexpected is happening to the Sun'*
> 
> 2013 was due to be year of the 'solar maximum'
> As this picture shows, in fact the sun is incredibly calm - baffling experts
> ...



Any hypothesis about climate which does not take the prime driver into account is...incomplete.


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Mar 2013)

I love watching the flat earthers in this thread regurgitate Koch funded nonsense. Not even the paid henchmen can stand the BS anymore.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits-he-was-wrong-video

Richard Muller, who directed a Koch-funded climate change project, has undergone a 'total turnaround' on his stance on global warming, which he now admits is caused by human activity.


----------



## Scott (9 Mar 2013)

Be respectful or go away, you've been warned about this sort of thing, along with others, before.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2013)

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/09/hockey-stick


One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts. The above graph takes that into account by going further back than previous models. Look at the pronounced rise in temperature coinciding with human activity at the end of the graph.


----------



## Haletown (9 Mar 2013)

This whole climate change nee global warming thingy is just so last century.  How do the environmentalists think the can continue to scam the rubes and grow the congregation unless they find a new pice of falling sky?

After all, in one form or another, they have been running this grift since the early '70's.  

"In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Another Ice Age? – TIME 1974"

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


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Mar 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-03/09/hockey-stick
> 
> 
> One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts. The above graph takes that into account by going further back than previous models. Look at the pronounced rise in temperature coinciding with human activity at the end of the graph.



1.  Based on the manipulated data sets to date, why would you trust this one if we know Mann et al have changed numbers to suit their objectives in past.

2.  It is a blatant attempt to misrepresent 'climate' when looking at something within a 10,000 year framework.  If you look at a 10 million year framework, then you can see natural climate shifts on a more accurate scale.  The fact these frauds would use a scale they know is not representative to see the change in context shows again what a willfill deceipt they possess.

3.  As it's become such big business, global climate change fear mongering is probably the biggest propaganda play on the planet.  There are daily releases of fear-mongering statistics that never provide counter-arguments....which again demonstrates that this is NOT science.


M.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Mar 2013)

Here's a quick one from the National Parks Service....

My argument here being that if we clearly know manmade activity was not responsible for pre-historic temperatures level changes, then someone should take the time to generate a computer model that STARTS by first being accurate when backtesting against known data.







There was a huge uproar which you may have missed a couple of years ago where a 'climate scientist' made the claim that based on his models, the antarctic ice sheet was going to melt in 50-years.  Tonnes of papers and media picked it up.  Less covered was the fact that some non-believers got a hold of his model and he had 'fixed the outcome'.  Even if you put in lower levels of CO2 which was his primary variable (ignoring that giant warming agent we usually call the 'The Sun'), he still showed melting.  So CO2 up = Melting & CO2 down = melting.

Not science....

So again, my comment is that when you see claims like you posted, be sure you know who is providing the data set, and do your due diligence on if they've misrepresented information before.


M.


----------



## Haletown (11 Mar 2013)

"One of the main arguments against climate change is that the earth's climate naturally shifts."

Actually that is the main argument for Climate Change . . the real one not the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.  It is actually kind of a funny phrase.  By definition, our climate is close coupled, chaotic, dynamic energy balancing,  seeking system.  Change is to climate what wet is to water, an inherent characteristic and if people talked about "water wet", we'd figure they were a few bales full of a load.

That graph shows only the most recent climate era -  11,000 years ago, not even a blink of an eye in the planet's geologic/climate history. 

11,000 years ago was about the peak of the last ice age.  Putting  that into perspective, about 99% of what is Canada was buried under anywhere from 10,000 - 20,000 feet and multiple trillions of tons of ice.  The landmass, due to the massive weight was depressed about 400 ft below current levels (Canada continues to rise up as the plastic  characteristics of rocks is still recovering from the ice age deformations).

Pretty much the coldest point the planet has been in that time period.  Very short miserable "summers", very high albedo, very unfriendly to Homo Sapiens, with or without a Prius.


Global sea volumes and levels, because so much water was locked up in the ice sheets,  was drastically reduced and lowered respectively.

There was a lot of interesting material in the most recent report to have fun with.  The previous Hockey Stick graph eliminated the Medieval Warm Period because of the "interesting" statistical methodologies employed by MBH to get a final upsurge needed to make it the previous poster graph for the IPCC.  This new graph puts it back in.

Go figure. Both graphs cannot be correct.

The other most interesting part is the claim  that current "global warming" is the only thing preventing the next ice age from starting.

Well if that is true we better start burning a lot more hydrocarbons,  because if a couple degrees of warming can create the current level of the hysteria about what might happen, the reality of what a next ice age would do to life on the planet would really freak out the fear mongers.


----------



## Haletown (11 Mar 2013)

Now that the paper is published, scientists other than the ones who did the  Pals  , I mean Peer Review,  have started to look into the cow's entrails and they are finding all sorts of interesting "things"

"Let’s look at some specific features of the Marcott et al. curve. As shown in more than 3,000 publications, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is widely recognized to have been somewhat warmer than present Figure 1). In the past 10,000 years, at least six other warm periods of magnitude equal to the MWP occurred; nine other warm periods that were 0.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred; two warm periods that were 1°C warmer than the MWP occurred; and three warm periods that were 1.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred. All of these periods warmer than the MWP clearly contradict the Marcott et al. conclusions.

The Marcott et al. conclusions that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history” and “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene” are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong."

There's an Ouch! for you.

Visually, the new paper seems to have some easily Mk 1 Eyeball discernable problems.






http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/#more-81907

The game continues, the planet is not behaving like the computer models predicted.

You can believe computer models that do not work and the people who have a vested career and financial interest in pushing these models or you can believe the actual data, what is actually happening.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2013)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Here's a quick one from the National Parks Service....
> 
> My argument here being that if we clearly know manmade activity was not responsible for pre-historic temperatures level changes, then someone should take the time to generate a computer model that STARTS by first being accurate when backtesting against known data.
> 
> ...



Looking at the graph, I'm sure most of us now wish we had been born 50 million years ago in the Ecocens period. Balmy tropical weather all year round in James bay,,,,


----------



## Haletown (12 Mar 2013)

Well go figure . . .  Who knew big slabs of prime rib, or sirloin, or ribeye would be the solution to Global Warming.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vpTHi7O66pI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DvpTHi7O66pI


Not safe for Vegans who believe in Global Warming.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Well go figure . . .  Who knew big slabs of prime rib, or sirloin, or ribeye would be the solution to Global Warming.
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vpTHi7O66pI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DvpTHi7O66pI
> 
> ...



With the coming warm weather we can all spark up the barbeque and do our part for climate change! Make mine medium rare, please...


----------



## Haletown (13 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> With the coming warm weather we can all spark up the barbeque and do our part for climate change! Make mine medium rare, please...




Why wait for warm weather.  Much more fun to fire up the 'Q on Earth Day and turn on lots of lights so I can get a really good look my rotisserie spinning ten pounds of rib roast.  :nod:

Have to remember to fill the backup propane tank and buy some fresh horseradish.


----------



## cupper (13 Mar 2013)

The white smoke coming out of teh Vatican didn't help matters much. >


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Mar 2013)

Dudes, several post ago, I mentioned Allan Savory (The guy in that you tube video). I run my farm based on his principles and practices (I have attended HMI, the original organization he was affiliated with). Its great stuff. Very informative (You got hand it to those Rhodesians, they are out of the box thinkers). Yes, done correctly, we can have lots of tasty meat and food and REVERSE mass desertification (Which really is the big problem here, more so than climate fluctuation IMO).

BTW, to all you vegans/veggie heads out there, YOUR mass consumption of grains, corns and soy contributes to environmental damage in a nasty way (Most crop practices are very poorly managed and dependent on chemical fertilizers and pesticides/herbicides/fungicides. Not to mention, they leave huge amounts of soil exposed (very bad thing).

Eat grass fed and natural raised meat! Keep farmers and farm hands employed, regenerate the environment and enjoy the awesome taste of real meat!

BTW, anyone looking, I may have some steers available this fall. Just saying.


----------



## Haletown (14 Mar 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> The white smoke coming out of teh Vatican didn't help matters much. >



You can be sure the Catholic Church won't buy any Carbon Credits.

They invented the "Selling Indulgences to Get Rich" scam and they won' fall for the Eco Grifters gaming their con.   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Why wait for warm weather.  Much more fun to fire up the 'Q on Earth Day and turn on lots of lights so I can get a really good look my rotisserie spinning ten pounds of rib roast.  :nod:
> 
> Have to remember to fill the backup propane tank and buy some fresh horseradish.



I see you celebrate Human Achievement Day


----------



## Haletown (15 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I see you celebrate Human Achievement Day



Indeed.  

Habemus Homo Sapiens.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Mar 2013)

Here is a link to a long story in the UK Daily Mail that reports that many in the climate science warming community have not established that global warming is not happening at the expected rate and that there has been no warming since 1997. The graphs and table are well worth examining.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Mar 2013)

Evidence confounding the established doctrine will not convince the disciples that they may be wrong. Expect widespread condemnation and character assassination.


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Mar 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Here is a link to a long story in the UK Daily Mail that reports that many in the climate science warming community have not established that global warming is not happening at the expected rate and that there has been no warming since 1997. The graphs and table are well worth examining.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html


In the interest of balance, I found a point-by-point rebuttal to this exact article:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2013)

Indeed, and it does lay out the other side of the argument. One can find a discussion of the slate.com paper here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/


----------



## jpjohnsn (18 Mar 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Indeed, and it does lay out the other side of the argument. One can find a discussion of the slate.com paper here:
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/


Can you narrow it down a bit?  I couldn't any references to The Slate.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2013)

Look in the entry titled Monday Mirthiness. It discusses the slate article without reverting to the personal attacks and ridicule in it. 

I am inclined from my reading on the subject to be a skeptic, especially after the errors in the IPCC reports and Mann's original hockey stick graph were exposed by scientific analysis.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Mar 2013)

I'm a big fan of global warming; the sooner the bike comes out of winter storage, the better!

 :chopper:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Mar 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm a big fan of global warming; the sooner the bike comes out of winter storage, the better!
> 
> :chopper:



Being on the same latitude as Northern California, I have found out that there are 12 different types of banana trees I can plant here and grow.

I won't be happy until I can grow the rest of the species here.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Mar 2013)

Yesterday I was reading some contemporary material re the 1974 Cyprus blowup in which the writer referred to the coming ice age. To my surprise, this morning I found this piece on SDA which states that there is a growing body of opinion that global warming is a myth and we are faced with another little ice age. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Flagship Daily DIE WELT Stuns Germany: “Scientists Warn Of Ice Age”, Cites New Peer-Reviewed Russian Study

By P Gosselin on 25. März 2013 


Mentioning the lethal “100-year, record-smashing” spring cold and snow spreading across Europe over the past month has for the most part been avoided like the plague by Germany’s mainstream media. The silence over the record cold and frost, which has killed thousands and cost billions, has been ear-ringing.

Yet some leading dailies are breaking ranks, and have begun to examine the phenomenon critically and openly.

For example veteran journalist Ulli Kulke at German flagship daily Die Welt today has stunned the rest of the German mainstream media with a piece titled Scientists warn of ice age.

German flagship daily reports that “scientists warning of ice age.” Logo: DIE WELT.

Kulke writes that recently a growing number of scientific publications have been appearing in leading journals, and that they have been challenging the simplistic “one dimensional CO2 explanation” for climate change and showing that even the unlikely “doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2050 would not have dramatic effects.”

Kulke writes:

Yet, papers with such content, even though they have passed the peer-review process, do not make any headlines. But they have been becoming much more frequent recently.”

Increasingly it seems more and more scientists are now seeing huge opportunity in overturning one of the most ballyhooed scientific hypotheses of modern time, funding be damned.

In the Die Welt piece, Kulke asks if the record cold and snow over much of the northern hemisphere “is just a coincidence“. The odds are increasing that it is not, and that it’s not for nothing that a growing number of scientists are becoming friendly to other explanations and that the body of evidence supporting a combination of explanations is taking shape quickly. Kulke writes that it is therefore no surprise that 2 Russian scientists have recently joined the ever more thunderous chorus of alternative explanations on what drives climate. He writes:


It’s probably no coincidence that ever louder scientific opinions warning of an imminent ice period are coming also from Russia. Vladimir Baschkin and Rauf Galiulin have recently recognized the ice age possibility in a study. Both biogeochemists – a discipline that also includes the study of the Earth’s atmosphere – have written a study for the Research Institute Vniigaz of the Gazprom concern, an address of course that cannot be said is free of lobbyists. However, their arguments are underpinned by findings that are gaining more and more acceptance from independent science: solar activity is weakening considerably - to an extent that was last seen several hundred years ago, the Little Ice Age, according to scientists.”

Kulke writes that not only is the CO2-science for explaining climate change one-dimensional, but that also only looking at changes in solar irradiance is completely inadequate. The sun’s fluctuating magnetic activity and its impact on the Earth’s atmosphere, direct and indirect, though not well understood, are proving to have a far greater influence on the Earth’s climate than many are willing to admit. This is all being backed up by leading research institutes such as CERN in Geneva and the Danish National Space Institute of Denmark.


----------



## Haletown (29 Mar 2013)

And as the whole global warming thingy continues to fade away, overtaken by the reality of a cooling atmosphere even as CO2 levels rise, as the predictions do not come true, as trust in the fear mongering, Sky is Falling scientists, politicians and Greenie Grifters reaches new lows, we can always pause for a moment to have a good chuckle at the expense of those still committed to loving Gaia, hating human progress and believing their pagan religious  beliefs should be made into public policy paid for by others.



http://iceagenow.info/2013/03/global-warming-lies-exposed-video/


Happy Easter.  Great day to fire up the BBQ and roast up a nice 5lb deboned leg of lamb,  CO2 be damned.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2013)

And more. We should all be aware that the same people will be back with some other environmental "issue" that can only be solved by massive State intervention in our personal lives and control of the economy and limitations on our freedoms. Funny that every problem they find always has the same solution....

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/03/climate-change-endgame-in-sight.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo



> *Climate Change Endgame In Sight?*
> 
> In my Weekly Standard cover story about the fallout from the “Climategate” email scandal three years ago, I offered the following question by way of prediction:
> 
> ...



and from the comments:



> EPatrick Mosman (signed in using Hotmail)
> Jerry Lawson
> After McIntyre pointed out that NASA/NOAA had reported incorrect temperature for the 2000-2006 years, higher of course, in 2007 NASA published revised temperatures
> * Only three of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the previous 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)
> ...


----------



## Haletown (29 Mar 2013)

Oh boy. Two days supply of fuel.  Guess the windmills aren't working out so well.  This is what happens when Public Policy is sacrificed to environmentalist beliefs.  

"As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hours’ worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time. It seems the perfect storm is upon us.

The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14 billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9949571/Its-payback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And more. We should all be aware that the same people will be back with some other environmental "issue" that can only be solved by massive State intervention in our personal lives and control of the economy and limitations on our freedoms. Funny that every problem they find always has the same solution....



It's already started.......Fracking and Oil Pipelines...........



Larry


----------



## Haletown (30 Mar 2013)

"Each year, an official estimate is made of the “excess winter mortality” – that is, the number of people dying of cold-related illnesses. Last winter was relatively mild, and still 24,000 perished. The indications are that this winter, which has dragged on so long and with such brutality, will claim 30,000 lives, making it one of the biggest killers in the country. And still, no one seems upset."

What happens when Greenie climate hysteria and fear mongering drive ludicrously stupid Public Policies.
But what is 30,000 dead humans compared to making Gaia happy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Mar 2013)

Considering that population control is one of the key tenets of the movement, why would they be concerned?


----------



## Haletown (31 Mar 2013)

For many years, the Warmongers had a very cosy relationship with the Press. Each side benefited from fear mongering scarr stories.  The Greenies got their message out and the Press had blaring headlines to attract eyeballs to their paid advertising.

But recent events might be a significant turning point. Government people are now attacking the Press for reporting the truth and the Press is sensing they have a new victim to kick around for awhile.  


"The official watchdog that advises the Government on greenhouse gas emissions targets has launched an astonishing attack on The Mail on Sunday – for accurately reporting that alarming predictions of global warming are wrong.

We disclosed that although highly influential computer models are still estimating huge rises in world temperatures, there has been no statistically significant increase for more than 16 years.
Despite our revelation earlier this month, backed up by a scientifically researched graph, the Committee on Climate Change still clings to flawed predictions."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html#ixzz2P82YeFRg 

We are well into the AGW endgame.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Mar 2013)

The End Game:

Global Warming Has Happened - and its all George Bush's fault.  (George I).  The only answer is more Government..... but now the enemy is the Insurance Industry.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/30/climate-change-is-here-ready-or-not-so-what-now.html


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2013)

More scientific fraud exposed. This sort of thing will contaminate all science and undo literally centuries of rational thought and the scientific method in our civilization:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/#more-27381



> *We’re not screwed?*
> 
> Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | 13/04/01 | Last Updated: 13/04/01 8:33 PM ET
> More from Special to Financial Post
> ...


----------



## Haletown (2 Apr 2013)

We should be happy these "scientists" are not in the pharmaceutical business of developing medicines.

With their level of ethics, there would be a lot of very bad drugs and medical compounds in circulation.

Quite sad how these young scientists can torque their ethics into such a furball, all in the name of environmental pursuits.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Apr 2013)

I will miss coral reefs. The dissolved CO2 has acidified the oceans slowly bleaching and killing the coral. The Ph of the ocean has changed. I loved snorkeling and diving. So many places are dead now and the nice ones are obviously dying back with spots of bleaching. Better see some now. They say by 2050 they will be gone, but it's already too late to save them so don't knock yourself out. Don't let your kids become marine biologists. Total waste of time and money now.


----------



## Haletown (2 Apr 2013)

"I will miss coral reefs."

And the Polar bears, don't forget the poor, Coca Cola loving Polar bears.

And snow in England. The poor English children will never see snow and never be able to truly understand Charles Dickens novels.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Apr 2013)

Ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. The dissolved CO2 has simply changed the PH of the ocean. They are only tangentially related.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Ocean acidification has nothing to do with global warming or climate change. The dissolved CO2 has simply changed the PH of the ocean. They are only tangentially related.



If it has noting to do with global warming or climate change, why post it here? Since the great argument of AGW alarmists has always been that increasing concentrations of CO2 is the cause of climate change, you are being a bit disingenious here.

At any rate, since plants love CO2, I'm sure the plankton are loving this. I actually sympathise with you about the coral, but we should be putting our time and attention to stopping industrial pollution running into the oceans, using posions and dynamite to "fish" the reefs and even the effectss of far too many people in and around the reefs.


----------



## Haletown (6 Apr 2013)

. . . From the "sooner or later, some kid yells out the Emperor is naked" files

"With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions?  Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere."


http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/04/03/global-warming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/

Reality is going mainstream these days.  The Greenies thought they finally had the killer app, went all in and promoted the hell out of a juvenile scientific theory that doesn't measure up but was perfect for a fear mongering hysteria based public relations campaign. 

Will anyone ever trust an environmentalist again?

Pity about the $$$$$$$ public dollars spent on useless public policy activities trying to reduce CO2.

That money would have bought a lot of public eduction & healthcare, built a lot of infrastructure, saved large parts of Ontario from the blight of wind turbines.


----------



## Haletown (23 Apr 2013)

The turning of the story continues, slowly public opinion gets re shaped, gradually reality imposes itself on ecological ideology.

"“With each passing year, it is becoming increasingly clear that global warming is not a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification, but a political ideology that has to be fiercely defended against any challenge. It is ironic that skeptics are called “deniers” when every fact that would tend to falsify global warming is immediately explained away by an industry of denial.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/23/the-real-deniers-of-climate-change/


----------



## Nemo888 (11 May 2013)

Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years 
http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html

Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better. This is not the 1957 geophysical year where scientists are still talking about the world's resources being inexhaustible. I'm embarrassed by our greed and short sightedness.

Not that North America matters that much anymore. _"As China’s economy booms, so do electricity needs.
Zhou Xizhou, director of the energy consulting firm IHS CERA in China, estimates that the rate of coal plant construction has slowed from about two a week to a still-daunting one a week — and will keep that pace for another five or six years."_


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years
> http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html
> 
> Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better.



Speak for yourself lad.  I was quite happy to burning dinosaurs and ancient bugs this past winter.  How did you make out freezing in the dark?

Burning 60 million years....?  Giveover.  How about burning a portion of stored carbon and converting into crops which are eaten by animals and people, which die and become......stored carbon?

Cycles lad, Cycles.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Global CO2 Level Reaches 400PPM, Highest in 3.6 Million Years
> http://www.voanews.com/content/global-co2-level-reaches-400ppm-highest-in-36-million-years/1658890.html
> 
> Climate change aside we really are dicks. Burning 60 million years of stored solar energy for the gain of two or three generations. Then leaving our descendants with a polluted degraded biosphere. We know better. This is not the 1957 geophysical year where scientists are still talking about the world's resources being inexhaustible. I'm embarrassed by our greed and short sightedness.
> ...



What is it like to live in a perpetual state of panic?

Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas- and one necessary for life.  It is, most emphatically, not pollution.

The 400ppm issue may, or may not be significant.  No one has really been able to go beyond correlation in causation that climate change (btw- climates change, all of the time) is being caused by the addition of carbon to the atmosphere.

My money is on any climate change being driven by the Sun and it's cycles- by far the largest factor in our climate system.  Orders of magnitude beyond anything else, actually.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 May 2013)

It took the earth roughly 60 million years to convert sunlight into what we now call fossil fuels. They are one of the most awesome resources in human history. Using that nonrenewable resource up and not leaving anything behind for our descendants is incredibly selfish. Ocean acidification is not disputed by anyone. Neither is overfishing, desertification, topsoil loss or traces of toxins reaching every corner of the planet. We are using up the planet like we are the last ones here. As you get older you will start to notice how much the environment is changing. I am responsible, not panicked. I am not the only person who matters on the planet.


----------



## Haletown (23 May 2013)

Even the best of intentions can lead to economic suicide.  

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130411-082127.html

Glad my Electric bill doesn't get generated (pardon the pun)  in Ontario.


----------



## ArmyRick (23 May 2013)

I agree with Nemo888 very much. We are using up and reaking havoc on our planet without forethought for future generations.


----------



## Haletown (24 May 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I agree with Nemo888 very much. We are using up and reaking havoc on our planet without forethought for future generations.



I gave up my cell phone so I can live guilt free.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 May 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Even the best of intentions can lead to economic suicide.
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/04/20130411-082127.html
> 
> Glad my Electric bill doesn't get generated (pardon the pun)  in Ontario.


On the other hand, Tesla - the company that the GOP keeps using as an example of the failure of green technology has just paid back it's $465 million government loan nine years early.


----------



## ArmyRick (24 May 2013)

OK, lets get real.

The major problems in the world (I have said it previously I believe in this thread) THERE are major issues in this world. Atmospheric Carbon is a part of the problem. Thats the key, a part of the problem.

I am a huge fan of Allan Savory and I have modelled my environmentally regenerating beef farm is modelled after his concepts. I am also a big fan of Greg Judy and Joel Salatin. 

These are some of the major issues in the world (One has to look at the environment as a whole)

1. desertification (A major contributor to global carbon levels)

2. Over dependence on fossil fuels (lets face it, this stuff is not clean and we have the technology NOW to decrease dependency on it)

3. Large and major crop fields (This is just bad bad news and really sad when most of that corn-soy-grain goes to feed ruminant animals that do not need it in the first place and trying to use crops as fuel alternatives). Conventional Crop fields typically leave too much exposed soil and uses too much in the way of chemicals. There are better alternatives.

4. Mismanagement of livestock (livestock can heal and repair grasslands, wooded areas, riparian areas, etc if managed by people)

5. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO foods) just plain old bad news with poor, poor results and damage to the environment, humans and animals.

6. Wind turbines. These look like a green good idea but they are in fact REALLY bad. There are many reasons why and I will not get into it here.

What are some good starting points to transforming our world to something we can give our children and grandchildren?

My points

1. Holistic Management of Livestock (heals the land and major sequestering of carbon). I am heavily involved in this now.

2. Solar, solar, solar. Sun's passive energy should be harnessed much more often. I have spoken to people who have put up solar panels and it is worth it. The power companies may not like it, but screw 'em. 

3. Mini-wind mills. Rural or even urban homes with much smaller and less invasive wind mills.

4. Pressure government to give subsidy to fossil fuel and crop fuel alternatives.

5. Better crop practices. We can ease up on chemicals and machinery (which is really expensive) and put people back on land working (more people need work). We can reduce corn growing by 99% if if we stop using corn for everything under the skies (livestock feed, vitamins, sugars, fuels, etc, etc). Crops that are needed are vegetables, orchards, fruits, etc, etc. 

This may sound unrealistic but I belong to organizations where we are making these changes and having great success. Its up to us when we purchase or buy food, product, etc to think about WHAT we are supporting with our dollars.

Or we can all be sheeple, and let things go on as they are.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2013)

Unfortunately, I am not prepared to spend $15\lb for ground beef or $7\loaf for bread to see your dream come true.


----------



## Haletown (24 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I am not prepared to spend $15\lb for ground beef or $7\loaf for bread to see your dream come true.



"Unfortunately" . . .  I would say it is rather smart of you to decide how to spend your money.  Much better than a government flunkie or a greenie zealot being allowed to decide for you.

It begs the question, why should we give taxpayer dollars to Tesla buyers? Where should we get the public funds to pay a $7500.00 sales subsidy to each purchaser of a Tesla Roadster?

Should the money come out of the Health Care bucket or the Public Education bucket?  Should we cut back on food inspectors, highway maintenance or military readiness?

There is always an opportunity cost, regardless of how virtuous the cause.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 May 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> It begs the question, why should we give taxpayer dollars to Tesla buyers? Where should we get the public funds to pay a $7500.00 sales subsidy to each purchaser of a Tesla Roadster?
> 
> Should the money come out of the Health Care bucket or the Public Education bucket?  Should we cut back on food inspectors, highway maintenance or military readiness?
> 
> There is always an opportunity cost, regardless of how virtuous the cause.


With interest, the government made money on their investment and American jobs were created.  In this case, it seems a wise decision.  The argument now seems to be that paying the loan back early will deprive the government of a further $270 million in dividends that they could have gotten if the loan was paid off at the proper time.  

First it was accused of being a failure, now they are being accused of using their success to somehow "cheat" the government out of dividends from warrants that were issued as insurance on the taxpayers investement.  :facepalm:


----------



## Haletown (24 May 2013)

Putting Tesla into perspective, the company has had some "success" but is also a risky business and  stock play . . . I know one day trader buddy who got caught is the short squeeze.  Good news that they paid back the funds to the Treasury, but the money was not generated by sales success (Q1 total auto sales in the US came in at 3.6m units and Tesla sold 4,750 , a miniscule market penetration)

The money to repay the loan came out of the stock play and the stock play has  resulted in a very large price run up, pushing the price up to just south of the $100 level.

The Bank of America, looking at the companies actual data, says the  stock is worth $39.  They warn of a Great Green Bubble that will trap Tesla . . .

http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/05/tesla-motors-inc-tsla-pt-raised-on-higher-net-cash-baml/

Let the Shorters play on.

Now I would love to own a Tesla, especially one of the high end jobs . .  it would be a real blast.  Not that practical, but lots of fun.

But I can't see buying into a company that has a business model that has a significant dependency on government support.  Especially governments that are running, stunningly huge deficits.

As of now, the company is neither a success or failure.  My money won't get invested there, despite the thrill of a short play.


----------



## jpjohnsn (24 May 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> But I can't see buying into a company that has a business model that has a significant dependency on government support.  Especially governments that are running, stunningly huge deficits.


*cough*Chrysler*cough*


----------



## ArmyRick (28 May 2013)

Recce guy, 

Let me fill you in on a few facts

1. Your commercial grocery store beef is extremely low quality and is SUBSIDIZED by government (In 2011, Ontario paid 165 million subsidy for beef), so your paying more than $3-4 a pound for ground beef at the store, BTW, there are loads of subsidy for large industrial (and usually destructive) agriculture. Remove all subsidies and I will laugh because then I will be the guy selling high quality and cheaper beef. Do you think corn fields and grain fields, fuel, large tractors, chemical fertilizers, seeds (GMO or regular) and maintenance is cheap? Far from it. My operation (and there are many more popping up in Ontario) is much lower input cost, environmentally regenerative and does not require subsidy.

2. Slaughter fees for a cattle (cow/steer/bull/heifer) is around $500-$600 a head and most of this goes to an inspection fee. This is ridiculous and in large plant cases where they hire they're own inspectors, it has not guaranteed food safety, far from it, look at the excel plant in Alberta last year. 

3. The more people that decide to go and buy generic food products of low quality, the more those very destructive ag industries will continue to thrive. This is the sum of our decisions.

Lets get one thing clear people ,vast plowed and tilled fields of crops is VERY harmful to the environment. There are other countries that have figured out way better and more efficient ways to farm. By concentrating farms into super huge industrial operations, the environmental damage is EXTREMELY high. Smaller farms (100-1000 acres) is much more man manageable. But that would cut out many of the middle businesses who make far too many decisions based on a financial bottom line.

We in Canada, are almost locked in a paradigm. We think we can not change things for the better through responsible agriculture but we can, EVERY one of us has to make a better decision at the grocery store or farmers market, full stop.

Also, feel free to complain about to your food companies, MP and MPPs about industrial agriculture.

The argument that small sustainable farming will not feed the world is complete bunk. The opposite is more true (larger companies are FAILING to meet food demands) but that would mean bigger corporations not making their $$$.

I can start another thread explaining in great detail about sustainable agriculture if interested.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I can start another thread explaining in great detail about sustainable agriculture if interested.



I am.
 I am of the mind that with advances in medicine there are going to be waaaaaaaay too many of us soon and the "mega-farm" is the only way we'll be able to feed ourselves.  I'd love to be shown that I am wrong.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 May 2013)

Will not be an immediate thing, I have livestock to tend to and children. I have no issues with showing people the other side of the story, Bruce. Will take me time too type it up and work on it, piece by piece.


----------



## Journeyman (28 May 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> .....and the "mega-farm" is the only way we'll be able to feed ourselves.



Solyent

Green


 :nod:


----------



## GR66 (28 May 2013)

The problem in general isn't with our use of resources, it is with our inefficient use of and incorrect costing of those resources.  Get rid of subsidies that distort the cost and value of goods and services.  Also force producers/consumers to pay the REAL cost of the things they use.  If use of a particular resource forces us as a society to spend money countering the effects of that use then factor in that cost off the top (i.e. if it costs us $100 to dispose of a television set in the landfill then the cost of a TV should be $100 more than it is now).

This will allow us to much more efficiently make our decisions as a society.  If the dropping of subsidies, marketing boards, farm tax credits, discounted "coloured" diesel fuel, tariffs on imports, proper pricing of water used, etc. causes the price of beef to go up by $10 per pound then we can decide if we really want beef that much.  It will also allow those innovative people who find better (cheaper/less impactful) ways of producing beef to reap the benefit of their innovations by making their products more competitive.  More "accurate" pricing of commodities (like energy) might force us to simply be more efficient in our use of that resource.  Saving a Kw Hour of electricity might be more cost effective than producing an additional Kw Hour through some damaging form of production (be that "dirty" carbon producing methods or "wasteful" and heavily subsidised "green" methods).  It will certainly be better for the environment as well if we use less/keep things longer/re-use and repurpose items in order to make them more cost effective.  I bet it would also be a great economic boost for a country with a well educated workforce and modern infrastructure going for it.


----------



## Jed (28 May 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> The problem in general isn't with our use of resources, it is with our inefficient use of and incorrect costing of those resources.  Get rid of subsidies that distort the cost and value of goods and services.  Also force producers/consumers to pay the REAL cost of the things they use.  If use of a particular resource forces us as a society to spend money countering the effects of that use then factor in that cost off the top (i.e. if it costs us $100 to dispose of a television set in the landfill then the cost of a TV should be $100 more than it is now).
> 
> This will allow us to much more efficiently make our decisions as a society.  If the dropping of subsidies, marketing boards, farm tax credits, discounted "coloured" diesel fuel, tariffs on imports, proper pricing of water used, etc. causes the price of beef to go up by $10 per pound then we can decide if we really want beef that much.  It will also allow those innovative people who find better (cheaper/less impactful) ways of producing beef to reap the benefit of their innovations by making their products more competitive.  More "accurate" pricing of commodities (like energy) might force us to simply be more efficient in our use of that resource.  Saving a Kw Hour of electricity might be more cost effective than producing an additional Kw Hour through some damaging form of production (be that "dirty" carbon producing methods or "wasteful" and heavily subsidised "green" methods).  It will certainly be better for the environment as well if we use less/keep things longer/re-use and repurpose items in order to make them more cost effective.  I bet it would also be a great economic boost for a country with a well educated workforce and modern infrastructure going for it.



This proposed solution is about as feasible and realistic as having all types of Christians, Muslims, etc. pray to their God in the same building.


----------



## GR66 (28 May 2013)

Hey, nobody said achieving perfection was easy!  LOL

Seriously though, I know we can't snap our fingers and solve this.  However if we identify the problem we can make a conscious decision to NOT continue creating more policies that take us down this path...and then we can slowly plug away at dismantling the system.  At least then we'd be moving in the right direction


----------



## Haletown (28 May 2013)

This pretty well sums it up . . .

"People, though, are simply not that stupid. They can readily see how the dire predictions that were appearing almost daily in the media – in the days when all the media was on-side – simply have not materialised. Progressively, we have seen colder and colder winters, right up to present where we are seeing snow in May, and unusual cold throughout the northern hemisphere."



http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83986


----------



## Kirkhill (28 May 2013)

From the same article:

My sense of the key elements 



> "the necessary political will for the tough choices that are needed"
> 
> "The action needed to meet the targets"
> 
> ...



Fill in the cause -  

1st society must be transformed

2nd action is needed

3rd mass mobilization must occur

4th public support must be obtained

5th tough choices


Create a crisis - generate fear - offer hope - don't let the crisis go to waste.


----------



## UnwiseCritic (29 May 2013)

People can be programmed, and the best way too program someone is to generate fear. And tell them that you have a solution and "will solve the problem, if you do what I tell you to do"

Global warming has had a lot of opposition from the get go as the science was shoddy at best. I went from gr.1 - gr.12 getting it shoved down my throat. Never fully bought into it, never really denied it. Until one day I picked up a National Geographic magazine bashing global warming. The earths cycles matched up perfectly with previous cycles. We were not on a collision course with armageddon. It also talked about how c02 emissions were not what was causing the heating of the earth it was radiation from the sun. 

Fun Facts about global warming.
The earth stopped heating up in 97/98
30000 scientists recently signed a petition stating there is no scientific evidence of global warming, as opposed to the 2500 believe there is
We are currently in solar cycle 24, nasa predicts the next one will be cooler
Taxpayers have spent 106 billion dollars to solve global warming

But things won't change becuase some people have made this their religion and have become very loud.


----------



## TheHead (29 May 2013)

> as opposed to the 2500 believe there is 30000 scientists recently signed a petition stating there is no scientific evidence of global warming, as opposed to the 2500 believe there is



I'd like to see your sources backing up this claim.  There is a global scientific consensus in regards to global warming.   Those 30,000 scientists are they in the field that relates to climate?  Also where do you get your 2500 figure from?  It's almost like you made that figure up since the 30,000 are the ones who supposedly signed a petition.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


*Edited because I fail at hyperlinks.


----------



## Haletown (29 May 2013)

consensus is not part of science, it is part of politics.  

The only thing that matters in science is data, real data, real numbers.

And the real numbers tell us the planet's atmosphere is not behaving as the scientific consensus says it would behave.  

I'd guess that 97% of scientists  who support AGW also depend on AGW for their pay check, career and fame.

Everyone has a choice, believe the data or believe the consensus and the computer models.  In the end it makes no difference what anyone wants to believe. Data will always prevail.


----------



## GR66 (29 May 2013)

I have very limited faith in our ability to understand the workings of complex systems.  The stock market, the brain, ecosystems, the environment, whatever.  We can collect "data" and observe changes but our powers of prediction and ability to accurately assign cause to effects is extremely limited.  That being said, I still do believe we need to change the way we do things.  Wasteful use of resources, careless production of various forms of waste and willful destruction of existing ecosystems I think quite logically will have negative long (and short) term effects on our health, economy, happiness and even our chance of survival.  AGW or not, we should strive to use less non-renewable fuels, husband our resources and cause less damage to our environment.  Doing so will ultimately benefit us all...and if the climate change scare group happens by dumb luck to be correct in their guesses then we'll help with that as well.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (29 May 2013)

> I'd like to see your sources backing up this claim.



I think he's talking about this one http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php



> Those 30,000 scientists are they in the field that relates to climate?


 Looks like over 3000 of them are.



> Also where do you get your 2500 figure from?



It's part of the methodology behind the NASA 97% figure. That number is *extremely* dodgy.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2013)

There are many other environmental problems.
In China, 'cancer villages' a reality of life http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/world/asia/china-cancer-villages-mckenzie/index.html

 Just because AGW is wrong why do we get to burn the 60 million years worth of stored carbon for the benefit of three generations? Just because they are wrong does not make burning that precious resource right. We don't get to use up the world like we are the only people who will ever live here. 

Global Warming is becoming a distraction from out unethical environmental stewardship.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ....
> Global Warming is becoming a distraction from out unethical environmental stewardship.
> 
> ....



Now Nemo, If you and your friends had stuck to that line for the last couple of decades, and accepted incremental change, then you would have found many others, including quite a number on this site, willing to walk with you.

Instead, you were impatient and played for the extravaganza.  Now you find that you, and Hollywood, can't maintain the steady stream of Blockbusters that such a strategy demands.

People are infinitely adaptable.  And eventually they accept the worst crisis and bash on regardless with just a low level whinge in the background about how "it weren't like this when I were a lad".

I too believe in doing what we can with what's available and as efficiently as possible.  Strangely enough efficiency translates into profits AND cleanliness.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 May 2013)

Nemo888, well said. We as a society must practice more environmental stewardship. For other folks, I will when I have time explain how farming in the Allan Savory-Joel Salatin-Greg Judy holistic principles WHEN I have time. I am about to get a second pasture and manage more cattle so time is very limited right now.


----------



## larry Strong (30 May 2013)

How big is your farm?




Larry


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (30 May 2013)

How much extra does your method cost to the consumer?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 May 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> *Now Nemo, If you and your friends had stuck to that line for the last couple of decades, and accepted incremental change, then you would have found many others, including quite a number on this site, willing to walk with you.*
> Instead, you were impatient and played for the extravaganza.  Now you find that you, and Hollywood, can't maintain the steady stream of Blockbusters that such a strategy demands.
> 
> People are infinitely adaptable.  And eventually they accept the worst crisis and bash on regardless with just a low level whinge in the background about how "it weren't like this when I were a lad".
> ...



+1

I think there is so much truth to this it isn't funny. 

One of the reasons why some of us are so against the AGW movement is that the self-aggrandizing, self-enriching lies of so many of these pseudo-scientists have taken funds away from what could've been really productive environmental projects to the point that their misdirection has made things environmentally worse than it otherwise would be.

If we weren't focused on CO2, would we have allowed the deforestation of Indonesian Virgin Rainforest to plant 'renewable' palm oil groves?  How about continued Brazilian deforestation of the Amazon basin?  How about smog days on the west coast caused exclusively by Chinese coal power plants which are never the target of the AGW advocates?  

How about GMO food?  How the hell did we take our eyes of that?

How many acres of virgin rainforest could have been protected?  How many more acres deforested land, reforested?  National Parks created?  Clean Water funding for municipalities to that we're once again able to swim in our rivers and lakes?  Clean air legislation to include the targeting of airborne heavy metals and particulates?

If you ask me AGW is one of the absolute worst things that's ever happened to the planet as it's created such a giant smoke screen to the far more serious problems.

I should add that no one appears to notice that the nation that's profited most from the AGW hysteria created is China as carbon costing and programs in North America and the EU make manufacturing in all those regions relatively even more expensive, while China is somehow exempted from any responsibility for its behaviour.  So in essence the same industrial capacity still exists as pre-AGW initiatives.  It's just been relocated from North America and the EU to China....and in doing so the pollution is actually worse instead of better.  But China is now stronger, and everyone else is struggling with unemployment and massive debts.  Brilliant!

For those who don't believe in coincidences, go do a quick Google-Fu on Maurice Strong & AGW....there's a lot of dots that connect.


M.


----------



## Haletown (7 Jun 2013)

Pointman skewers  . . . .  

"Even at home in areas of their own supposed expertise, the alarmists weren’t safe. The solid job of statistical work that Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre did to debunk Mann’s paper, which derived the iconic hockey stick, is a notable case in point. Using nothing more than statistical numeracy and an admirable degree of persistence, they took a hard look at what was supposed to be a landmark paper, and ended up with Mann’s head mounted atop his own hockey stick. When it comes down to anything to do with hockey, and two Canadians versus a slightly rotund little fellow from Massachusetts, my money’s on the two Canucks"

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/how-to-run-a-really-bad-infowar-campaign/


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jun 2013)

This post from Science Daily reports on a paper by Professor Qing-Bin Lu, a scientist at the University of Waterloo, that claims that CFCs and not CO2 caused global warning. It goes on to say that the reduction in CFC emissions has led to the recent cooling period. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing Provision of the Copyright Act.

Global Warming Caused by CFCs, Not Carbon Dioxide, Researcher Claims in Controversial Study


May 30, 2013 — Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to a researcher from the University of Waterloo in a controversial new study published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.


CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now suggests that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the researcher argues.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined -- matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays -- energy particles originating in space -- play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."

By demonstrating the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.

"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs -- a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses support Lu's CRE theory and point to the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."

Professor Lu's paper, "Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change," also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models, Lu argues.


----------



## Haletown (7 Jun 2013)

the latest Global Warming consensus   -  100% of the climate models are wrong.


My computer models say it should be rapidly warming up
The actual data says it is not.
Gradually models will yield to the dictates of data.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jun 2013)

Early this week at a site C meeting I was attending, a claim was made that due to climate change rainfall related inflow into the Williston Reservoir would increase by approx. 6-11%. Which would weaken BC Hydro case for the need of a new dam. Seems the more I hear about climate change, the better it is for Canada.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Jun 2013)

So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.



 : Yep.  The CO2 AGW crowd sure that got that one right- in the 1980s.


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Jun 2013)

But that doesn't explain the arctic sea ice that is still melting or rising sea levels. The problem is Mother Nature does not make deals. This is not arms control or free trade. If you screw up nature you die.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jun 2013)

Arctic and Antarctic sea ice levels (at least from my reading) are at or above historic levels during the winter.

I have come across no credible study which actually shows significant sea level rise occurring.

My point about CFCs was that it pre-dated the Global Warming Scare, back when much of the same crowd was actually worried about global cooling.  That a study has now found a correlation between CFCs and warming is very interesting. Obviously much more study needs to into this avenue.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> So the climate scientists that made us stop using cfc's saved our asses. They certainly hit that one out of the park.



Perspective is everything......

I don't like colder winters.  We need more hairspray.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Jun 2013)

It is 22cm of sea level rise in the last 100 years. The sea ice diminishing is even visible from space now. We are developing new trade routes from Europe to Asia because the ice has receded so much. The cause of the problem may be controversial in this small corner of the internet, but not the fact that it is receding.






CFC's were causing UV light to sterilize much of the Southern Hemisphere. Translucent organisms like phytoplankton were being wiped out. Phytoplankton is the largest food source and carbon sink on the entire planet. Global warming was the least of our problems back then.


----------



## Haletown (26 Jun 2013)

A most excellent summary of the economic perils of green energy . . . . this story should be  glued on the tower of every Wind Turbine in Ontario and tacked on McGuinty's forehead.

"Energy insiders have long known that the notion of ‘renewable energy’ is a romantic proposition – and an economic bust. But it is amazing what the lure of guaranteed ‘few strings attached’ government subsidies can achieve. Even the Big Oil companies bought into the renewables revolution, albeit mostly for PR reasons. Like Shell, however, many quickly abandoned their fledgling renewable arms. Post-2008, they knew, the subsidy regimes could not last. Neither was the public buying into the new PR message . . . 

 . . . And yet, aided by aggressive and heavily-funded green lobbies, leftist social engineers, appalling journalism, naive politicians and unscrupulous opportunistic renewable energy entrepreneurs, wind turbines and the photovoltaic industry quickly became established facts on the ground, giving the appearance of economic ‘viability’. Why else would government back them using our cash?"

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3827/the_great_renewables_scam_unravels


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (26 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It is 22cm of sea level rise in the last 100 years. The sea ice diminishing is even visible from space now. We are developing new trade routes from Europe to Asia because the ice has receded so much. The cause of the problem may be controversial in this small corner of the internet, but not the fact that it is receding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You really need to start reading more analysis from people who disagree with your positions, rather than just searching for then parroting a group of proven liars who happen to back up your world view.

You should also go pull the 2013 stats rather than referring to 2012, as in 2013 we're already 10% over the 2012 lows for the arctic, and the Antarctic is the 4th highest since 1979.

Germany just had the coldest March since something like 1812....

And always be mindful of 'why' some of the AGW sites use data sets that stop at dates earlier than this year.  It's not unintentional.  Michael Mann just got caught with another graph where he was fudging the data AGAIN.


Matthew.


----------



## jpjohnsn (26 Jun 2013)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> You really need to start reading more analysis from people who disagree with your positions, rather than just searching for then parroting a group of proven liars who happen to back up your world view.


Good advice, you should take it.  


> You should also go pull the 2013 stats rather than referring to 2012, as in 2013 we're already 10% over the 2012 lows for the arctic, and the Antarctic is the 4th highest since 1979.
> Germany just had the coldest March since something like 1812....
> And always be mindful of 'why' some of the AGW sites use data sets that stop at dates earlier than this year.  It's not unintentional.  Michael Mann just got caught with another graph where he was fudging the data AGAIN.


Cui Bono?  Good question.  Who benefits more, researchers or multinational corporations?

A good video of a talk by Dr Marshall Shepherd, President of the American Meteorlogical Society, Director of Atmospheric Studies at the University of Georgia and former NASA scientist.  He addresses many of your points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O019WPJ2Kjs


----------



## Haletown (28 Jun 2013)

The cost of saving Gaia . . . or  . . .  bend over Ontario, Dalton wants to make you suffer for your eco sins.

Over that period, about 4.8 terawatts hours (TWh) of surplus wind power was delivered to the grid, power the IESO promptly exported.  One TWh is enough to power over 100,000 average Ontario households for a year.  Effectively, the Ontario government system exported power to U.S. states at 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) while paying 13.5 cents to subsidize wind producers under the GEA’s feed-in-tariff regime. Since Ontario does not need this wind power, Ontario rate payers are paying $648-million for power that is exported for $115-million for a net loss to ratepayers of $533-million. For one year.


Do read the whole article.  

Helps explain why Ontario is now a Have Not province.



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/06/27/ontarios-power-trip-mcguintys-bigger-debacle/


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2013)

Sadly, "surplus" power must be exported or otherwise disposed of otherwise the grid would become destabilized and collapse. This has almost happened several times in Germany as their "green" energy program instals ever increasing amounts of wind turbines. Since the wind is variable, the energy is produced at effectively random intervals so far as the grid is concerned. In regular grids, baseline power is generated to cover the estimated basic load and various stand by options like gas fired turbines, hydro or buying and selling from other grids is used to balance the load and account for surges in demand during the 24 hr cycle.

Since there is no real technical or economical means of storing large amounts of electrical energy, this is an issue that literally _cannot_ be solved for now, short of dismantling the wind turbines.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2013)

Even the warmists are starting to see the writing on the wall:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/02/climate-caution-is-about-the-policies-not-the-science/



> *Climate Caution Is About the Policies, Not the Science*
> Earth-e1364501633968
> 
> Every few years the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change publishes a report that attempts to assess the state of climate science, as well as other technical and economic issues related to global warming policy. The last major report, the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), generated perhaps more controversy than was usual.
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Aug 2013)

Another high profile right wing Bush and Reagan appointee has jumped ship. Climate change is settled science if you actually follow real science, not tv news. More at the link. http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Aug 2013)

Well send some of that 'global warming' to Southern Ontario........


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Another high profile right wing Bush and Reagan appointee has jumped ship. Climate change is settled science if you actually follow real science, not tv news. More at the link. http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html



That was then......This is now.  Climate change is nothing new.  The history of the earth has thousands of climate changes, predating man.  Man is an insignificant contributor to climate change.


----------



## GR66 (16 Aug 2013)

And how many question whether the global warming is anthropogenic (human-induced) or is a result of natural cycles?  If it's NOT human-induced (or not primarily human-induced) then the strategies to deal with global warming are very different (prevention vs. mitigation of the effects).  The cause IS very important.  If it's due primarily to natural cycles then money spent on CO2 reduction are dollars wasted instead of spent on mitigating the effects.

Nice headline though.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Aug 2013)

GR66 said:
			
		

> And how many question whether the global warming is anthropogenic (human-induced) or is a result of natural cycles?  If it's NOT human-induced (or not primarily human-induced) then the strategies to deal with global warming are very different (prevention vs. mitigation of the effects).  The cause IS very important.  If it's due primarily to natural cycles then money spent on CO2 reduction are dollars wasted instead of spent on mitigating the effects.
> 
> Nice headline though.



And the good news is that mitigation dollars are equally valuable regardless of the cause of the change.  By contrast preventive dollars rely on being able to read the crystal ball accurately.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Another high profile right wing Bush and Reagan appointee has jumped ship. Climate change is settled science if you actually follow real science, not tv news. More at the link. http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html




Then explain to me why in the 70s scientists thought we were headed for another ice age... and that science was settled too!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2013)

When it comes to the earth, whatever man does, nature will rectify.

We don't control her, we can't predict her.

Any scientist that believes they can predict the future is on a fool's errand.

The earth will do what it wants.

Stopping coal emissions, CFCs, etc, is only prolonging the agony, and in the big scheme of millions of year, means bupkiss.

In the middle ages and at the start of the industrial revolution, we were already spewing carbon into the atmosphere in numbers that make today look like a girl scout campfire.

Nothing happened.

Climate change scientology is there not to make changes, but to make money.

Not one of those 'scientists' or Al Gore, would be in the business if they weren't making money off of fear mongering.

Mother nature will do what she wants, when she wants.

We don't have a say in the matter.


----------



## Haletown (17 Aug 2013)

You can believe in the global warming/climate change/extreme weather/Ack! We are all gonna die eco greenie fear mongering, or you can buy long underwear so you are ready for what's coming.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

Whatever.


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Another high profile right wing Bush and Reagan appointee has jumped ship. Climate change is settled science if you actually follow real science, not tv news. More at the link. http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html



You could meet and shake hands with 1000 drug dealers all smiling and claiming to be your friend.  Still doesn't make it so.  I am a denier of global warming.   In the worlds of late George Carlin.  
_
"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!"_

Where is the statistics proving global warming? The raw data on paper for the world to see?  Opinion articles are meaningless to me without hard data to back it up.


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When it comes to the earth, whatever man does, nature will rectify.
> We don't control her, we can't predict her.
> 
> Any scientist that believes they can predict the future is on a fool's errand.
> ...



The first part of the statement seems to be opinions. I could claim the opposite  and I don't think either of use could find anything to back up our statements. 

Though you could be referring to Lovelock and his Gaea self-aware self healing planet hypothesis?

That line about the middle ages though ... In Europe the population in the 1400's was deforesting the environment at an unsustainable rate, so much so that their would be more  wood in the foreseeable future.  Some speculate, and this might fit in with Lovelock, that the Black Death was the cure for the problem. Population plummeted, many towns and villages abandoned. Nature got the breathing space to recover.  

Regarding carbon release though not nearly as much as today. For example until fairly recent times, 1800's? the planet Venus, the day star was visible during the day.  Actually it still is. I should say much more visible without all the industrial smoke from the 1800's 

Suggestion: Could we rename this the Climate Change Superthread?  It might help favor several reasons:

Take some heat out of the discussion. e.g. I for one used to think Warming was real. Now not so sure. 

I think most people agree that climate change is happening and something should be done but by who, how and who pays are far from settled. 

For example: ERC posted on the Africa thread an article forecasting a grim long term outlook for Africa. 

There did not seem to be a solution, perhaps apart from the West withdrawing into fortress zones. 

I suggest a better response may be that if there is a broad consensus that climate change is happening, then a better solution might be something like a new Manhattan project to mitigate/reduce the effects. Fast forward development of technologies like "Frankenmeat", mass water desalinization, mass indoor farming and others on the horizon such as cold nuclear and advanced nanotech. 

Part of my source for this was an article by Spider Robinson, a SF writer/futurist, published immediately after 9/11 speculating the embarking on a path like this might lead to a better future.


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Then explain to me why in the 70s scientists thought we were headed for another ice age... and that science was settled too!



I seem to recall that centered around the amount of smoke, ash and debris that would be lifted very high into the atmosphere in the aftermath of anything other than a very limited nuclear exchange. Source data seemed to be based on very large Volcanic events such as Krakatowa. 

Some still believe and seem to make a good case that a supervolcano such as Yellowstone erupting, there are many others could still have such affect, and there is active debate about what to do about this as well.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Aug 2013)

Here's another example:

At one time everyone believed the world was flat and that the science on that topic was settled.

Of course the the deniers and heretics Copernicus, Galileo came along...


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Aug 2013)

It is actually ironic that you mention that :nod:

I was thinking of making the same comment, of course no one will know for some time, perhaps a long time. 

I do suggest though the climate change is a reality, heck its always changing. 

What,  if anything to do to mitigate effects is  up in the air.


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Aug 2013)

I will provide some examples of where public action was useful in mitigating a perceived theat. 

Phosphates in detergents - 70's

Acid Rain

Chemicals in Great Lakes - Love Canal

Elimination of certain chemicals damaging the Ozone layer.


----------



## kevincanada (17 Aug 2013)

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> I will provide some examples of where public action was useful in mitigating a perceived theat.
> 
> Phosphates in detergents - 70's
> 
> ...



Chemicals are obvious.  Putting burnt fuel into the air is obvious.  The less we do it equal better.  The guys beating the global warming drum come up with all kinds of examples but no proofs.  I particularly like the carbon dioxide one.  It's a green house gas!  Well.  I guess I better stop breathing since each breath I exhale I'm emitting a green house gas.

Another great one. the Ice Caps are melting!!  Meanwhile this photo and graph from NASA shows the Antarctic Ice cap. Yup it's growing.  See Link.  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369&src=twitter-iotd.


----------



## Inquisitor (17 Aug 2013)

kevincanada said:
			
		

> The guys beating the global warming drum come up with all kinds of examples but no proofs.  I particularly like the carbon dioxide one.  It's a green house gas!  Well.  I guess I better stop breathing since each breath I exhale I'm emitting a green house gas.
> 
> Another great one. the Ice Caps are melting!!  Meanwhile this photo and graph from NASA shows the Antarctic Ice cap. Yup it's growing.  See Link.  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369&src=twitter-iotd.



I agree that their are a lot of players that are lining their own pockets at others expense. The more I find out about Al Gore the more I despise him. 

Kyoto helped BRIC at the expense on North America. 

Thanks to the Mcguinty government Ontario went from some of the cheapest hydro in North America to some of the most expensive, a major factor in manufacturing cratering. 

Its good that some of the ice is coming back. 

I may be going off on a bit of a tangent on climate change, but I predict that  topics that will be getting a lot more attention  are Drought and access to Potable water and potential for abuse conflict.


----------



## kevincanada (18 Aug 2013)

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> I agree that their are a lot of players that are lining their own pockets at others expense. The more I find out about Al Gore the more I despise him.
> 
> Kyoto helped BRIC at the expense on North America.
> 
> ...



The ice was never lost as far as I know.  It cycles but I'm not a pro.  You see down years and you see up years.  Of course our CO count will be higher than other countries as we are a developed nation.  All robust manufacturing countries have higher CO emissions.   It can't be helped.   It makes sense to me that Canada opt out of the Kyoto protocol all together.  I recall reading a article a few years back in the reader digest where they did a break down of CO emissions versus production and CO emissions per capita.  At a per capita percentage we are on the high end of the chart of emissions.  Based on production levels we fared much better.  All other emission types, as in Toxic compounds, smoke etc.  We are one of the best countries in the world at keeping the levels low.

I won't get into Mcguinty costs, that's a different subject and one that is still unfolding to this day.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Aug 2013)

The bottom line is we are gambling all future generations for our own greed. Fossil fuels are stored solar energy.  6 million or so years worth. It is one of the most amazing natural resources humanity has ever found. Instead of being reasonable stewards of this nonrenewable resource we are deliberately burning it as fast as possible. If global warming turns out to be true we will be remembered as the biggest assholes in history. In the unlikely event that Global Warming is not a fact and 99%+ of those who study the environments are wrong we are still terrible excuses for human beings. If bloggins ate the entire battalions rations after hearing a rumour that food convoys could no longer get through what would you think of him?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The bottom line is we are gambling all future generations for our own greed. Fossil fuels are stored solar energy.  6 million or so years worth. It is one of the most amazing natural resources humanity has ever found. Instead of being reasonable stewards of this nonrenewable resource we are deliberately burning it as fast as possible. If global warming turns out to be true we will be remembered as the biggest assholes in history. In the unlikely event that Global Warming is not a fact and 99%+ of those who study the environments are wrong we are still terrible excuses for human beings. If bloggins ate the entire battalions rations after hearing a rumour that food convoys could no longer get through what would you think of him?



LOL

I think Bloggins had a hollow leg and one hell of a tap worm.

We are just as "greedy" today, as all past generations have been, in our search for betterment and improving our lives.  Over the centuries, we have improved our environment by doing away with all the smoke generating factories of the Industrial Age, and finding better means of creating power starting with the internal combustion engine, building Hydro electric dams, nuclear power, and recently further developing wind power and solar power.  If you want to damn us for progress, I pity you.  Would you have us throw away all research so that we can live in a log cabin in the back woods, wearing cloths from hemp crops, sheep's wool and eating fish from the stream and meat that we trapped for ourselves?  Or perhaps we should go further back and live in caves, to preserve the environment?


----------



## kevincanada (18 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The bottom line is we are gambling all future generations for our own greed. Fossil fuels are stored solar energy.  6 million or so years worth. It is one of the most amazing natural resources humanity has ever found. Instead of being reasonable stewards of this nonrenewable resource we are deliberately burning it as fast as possible. If global warming turns out to be true we will be remembered as the biggest assholes in history. In the unlikely event that Global Warming is not a fact and 99%+ of those who study the environments are wrong we are still terrible excuses for human beings. If bloggins ate the entire battalions rations after hearing a rumour that food convoys could no longer get through what would you think of him?



Greed and gambling with our future.  Where did I hear that before?  Everything is energy.  It's just how you use and convert it.  I'm all for cleaner and better methods of utilizing energy sources so we can live our lives and be productive.  I have to ask.  Show me a better way?  And I'll go that route and reduce my dependance on fossil fuel.   There is just as many studies that say global warming is false.  Look those up or my previous post where NASA has pictures showing a growing Ice Cap, not shrinking as the global warming conspirators claim.

I don't know who Bloggins is, since one person cannot eat that much food.  I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Aug 2013)

I am going against the grain here and agreeing with Nemo888. I have mentioned my opinions on Global climate disruption. Too many people here are being way too casual and denying its there or that it exist. 

Its like having a bad growth on your body and pretending its nothing until its too late.

My 2 cents.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Aug 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am going against the grain here and agreeing with Nemo888. I have mentioned my opinions on Global climate disruption. Too many people here are being way too casual and denying its there or that it exist.
> 
> Its like having a bad growth on your body and pretending its nothing until its too late.
> 
> My 2 cents.



The issue is not whether or not the climate is changing- climates changes all of the time, for all kinds of reasons.

The real issue is: is climate being negatively effected by human activity or is the climate system being driven by solar or other factors? A follow on issue: is the cure (cease use of all carbon based fuels) worse than the so-called disease? For example- just how habitable is Canada in the winter, without carbon fuels? Really.

So far, in this topic area, all that I have seen from AGW proponents are a number of really spectacular claims that have some pretty dubious science or statistical analysis or modelling behind them (once you actually scratch the surface of the hype).

I am of the opinion that carbon fuels will eventually run their course.  Once something better and cheaper arrive.  Until then- well, adapt.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Aug 2013)

When it comes to studies that were actually submitted for peer review only 1 in 581 reject global warming or endorse a cause other than human CO2 emissions. That is 33,690 investigators in the pro column and only 34 nays. To the best of our knowledge the earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. Not to act when the only downside is saving some valuable resources for future generations is shortsighted and pathological. The problem is greed compounded by scale. In the 1950 geophysical year they went on and on about the inexhaustible supply of fish in the ocean. They said very proudly that at current rates we could never make a dent in the bounty nature had given us. Then driftnets were invented and 15km swaths of life were dragged onto mobile factories. We have reached a similar scale transition with fossil fuels. CO2 is now finishing off the coral and other breeding grounds with ocean acidification. Sweden generated 77% of it's energy from oil in the 1970's. Now it is down to 32% and they plan to make that zero by 2020. 26% of it's energy comes from renewables already. There are much worse things than following the Swedish model.


----------



## Haletown (19 Aug 2013)

well if you want consensus . . . 100% of climate models have failed to predict what is actually happening to the climate.

Because as everyone knows, consensus is real science.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Another high profile right wing Bush and Reagan appointee has jumped ship. Climate change is settled science if you actually follow real science, not tv news. More at the link. http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html



Or, over a 21 year period 55 teams of scientists have produced, every month, an article which they published in their own journals.

13950 articles between 2012 and 1991 (21 years) equals 664 articles per month.

Assume that the journals are published monthly ( 12 per year)  and it only requires 55 teams to produce 13,950 articles.

As the teams also produce their own journals then it doesn't require much to swap articles with other teams: "I'll publish yours if you'll publish mine".

Climate Change also gets discussed in Geophysics, Archaeology, Physics, Meteorology and various generalist science organisations.  Are these included in your 50 articles per month?

There are a lot more than 50 articles published in disciplines that also concern themselves with Climate Change.


----------



## Haletown (19 Aug 2013)

Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, actually I mean Extreme  Weather is now passe, used up, lost its juice and it is time for the  multi $Billion dollar International Eco Greenie Industry to invent  a new scam to keep the rubes petrified and the money flowing.

I give you Al Gore's next great enviro Scheme & Scam.


----------



## jpjohnsn (19 Aug 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Global Warming, I mean Climate Change, actually I mean Extreme  Weather is now passe, used up, lost its juice and it is time for the  multi $Billion dollar International Eco Greenie Industry to invent  a new scam to keep the rubes petrified and the money flowing.


Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that it's the "Eco Greenie Industry" that's perpetrating the scams and not the multinational corporations like those run by the Koch Brothers perpetrating scams to spread disinformation to protect their bottom lines?


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Aug 2013)

Its not just cars, planes, trains, etc.   Industrial agriculture puts far more carbon into the atmosphere.

Allan Savory. Google him and watch any number of videos he has done. He is logical and well spoken, his arguments makes a heap of sense.


----------



## kevincanada (19 Aug 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that it's the "Eco Greenie Industry" that's perpetrating the scams and not the multinational corporations like those run by the Koch Brothers perpetrating scams to spread disinformation to protect their bottom lines?



Why can't it be both?


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Aug 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose that it's the "Eco Greenie Industry" that's perpetrating the scams and not the multinational corporations like those run by the Koch Brothers perpetrating scams to spread disinformation to protect their bottom lines?



That wouldn't be in any way similar to the Soros / Tides Foundation activities?


----------



## Haletown (20 Aug 2013)

kevincanada said:
			
		

> Why can't it be both?



According to Grrenpeace USA, the Koch family has, since 1997, funded the AGW denial machine to he tune of $67m.

Greenpeace, on the other hand, generates something south of $500m anually.  And Greenpeace, while it is the poster kiddie for the transnational environmental industry, is by no means the only multi hundred million dollar enviro organization.  Check out the Sierra Club and Tides.

Koch industries produces multiple useful products that are used by society and employs 70,000 people.  It exists to produce products that society deems useful and will pay for.

Greenpeace, in fact the entire environmental industry, exists to produce publicity stunts' photoshopped picturesof lonely polar bears and create fears about the future. They produce no useful products. 

Time is ticking on their credibility.  They figured they had the killer app with the global warming thingy and went all in.  They will have a difficult time explaining the non global warming that  has actually happened and continues to happen.  

Too bad about the staggering amounts  in public funds that be been diverted away from useful activities like Healthcare and Education to pay subsisidies for useless solar panels and  wind turbines.

Gawd I feel sorry for Ontario taxpayers.  Because when public policy is hijacked for someone's cause, there is always an opportunity cost.


----------



## Nemo888 (20 Aug 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Or, over a 21 year period 55 teams of scientists have produced, every month, an article which they published in their own journals.
> 
> 13950 articles between 2012 and 1991 (21 years) equals 664 articles per month.
> 
> ...



James Powell is no granola cruncher. He made his chops working for Reagan and Bush. I checked his methodology. The 13,950 affirmative articles have a total of 33,690_ individual _authors. The nays have a total of 34.  Only one in a thousand knowledgeable people disagree with CO2 emissions causing climate change. Will you gamble all future generations on odds like that?


----------



## Jed (21 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> James Powell is no granola cruncher. He made his chops working for Reagan and Bush. I checked his methodology. The 13,950 affirmative articles have a total of 33,690_ individual _authors. The nays have a total of 34.  Only one in a thousand knowledgeable people disagree with CO2 emissions causing climate change. Will you gamble all future generations on odds like that?



Wow! I must be one of the 1 in a 1000 (33690/34) that thinks this Manmade Global Warming is all BS!


----------



## kevincanada (21 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> James Powell is no granola cruncher. He made his chops working for Reagan and Bush. I checked his methodology. The 13,950 affirmative articles have a total of 33,690_ individual _authors. The nays have a total of 34.  Only one in a thousand knowledgeable people disagree with CO2 emissions causing climate change. Will you gamble all future generations on odds like that?



Instead of arguing statistics based on opinion articles.  Why not cough up a article or two so we have real debate going to see if any of the 33,690 are valid.  Also Al Gore worked for a President.  Clinton I believe it was.  Ironically he has made millions off of in my eyes instilling fear in a ill informed public.


----------



## kevincanada (21 Aug 2013)

Jed said:
			
		

> Wow! I must be one of the 1 in a 1000 (33690/34) that thinks this Manmade Global Warming is all BS!



I'm a nay also.  Oopsie.


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Aug 2013)

Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?

It seems almost EVERYWHERE I speak to people in Canadian Society, most people have little doubts that there is a serious malfunction between man's living and the environment (Keeping in mind, I don't talk much to soldier troops these days, army is no longer my full time occupation).

To some of you it would not matter HOW much we showed you, you choose to not believe it. We could have the best scientist argue well laid out facts and you guys simply dismiss them. Enough is enough, you can believe what you choose to BUT I am a betting man and the future Canadian generations will do something about it.

-If you think emitting tons of atmospheric carbon into the air through fuel emissions is no problem, then why do we have smog warnings? 
-If you think growing field upon field of corn (most of it NOT needed) and also causing carbon loss through soil depletion and the fuels used to grow and harvest it is not a problem, I got news for you. it is
-Desertification is a nasty problem (it contributes huge to atmospheric carbon)

Most of these problems are man made and the results of poor decision making on society's part. Once people are informed about something, then the ability to make a better choice is entirely up to them.

Yes, we can go on and on denying that our practices have little to no impact on the environment (I look at all negative practices as being part of a whole problem at large) and continue to gamble our grand children's future.

Yes, climate change does happen naturally but not at the epic scale and pace it is happening currently.

Simply put, I find the crowd here tend to be too far "right wing" and will choose to believe what they want to. 

I will stand against the typical army.ca opinion here. Roast away but guess what? Most of Canadian society doesn't deny Global Climate disruption.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?
> 
> It seems almost EVERYWHERE I speak to people in Canadian Society, most people have little doubts that there is a serious malfunction between man's living and the environment (Keeping in mind, I don't talk much to soldier troops these days, army is no longer my full time occupation).
> 
> ...



Thanks for your OPINION.

Please respect the fact that others may not share it.

Being emotional, using ad hominem attacks and attempting to make others, who do not share your OPINION, feel guilty serves no purpose.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?



This is why.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The issue is not whether or not the climate is changing- climates changes all of the time, for all kinds of reasons.
> 
> The real issue is: is climate being negatively effected by human activity or is the climate system being driven by solar or other factors? A follow on issue: is the cure (cease use of all carbon based fuels) worse than the so-called disease? For example- just how habitable is Canada in the winter, without carbon fuels? Really.
> 
> ...



Call me crazy, but if the Earth can go through Ice Ages every so often and that generally, the Earth has been ice free at the highest latitudes, then the 1-2 degree swings that I always hear about seem like a drop in the bucket for the Earth's ecosystem.

I have no doubt that man is having an impact on the climate, but I refuse to listen to the chicken little's out there, especially the ones cashing in on the whole thing.  As my friend Tacco alludes to, you the cure some recommend is worse than the symptoms we see.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Aug 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Enough is enough, you can believe what you choose


How very gracious of you.



> Simply put, I find the crowd here tend to be too far "right wing" and will choose to believe what they want to.


 Equally simply (and rationally) put, it must be nice in "left wing" wonderland, where everything is true and 'correct.' 



> Roast away


  :boring:



> Most of Canadian society doesn't deny Global Climate disruption.


 From my reading, here and elsewhere, (although as an interesting aside, this thread seems to have drawn more than its share of posters from my ignore list    )....anyway, most aren't denying Global Climate disruption -- we're simply doubting the degree of causality, especially since some of the precious graphs are starting to slip.

Because of that, many people are apparently not responding with a degree of  anic:  that you obviously feel is warranted.


.....and I'm OK with you believing whatever _you_ want as well, along with people wherever you believe them to be on the left-right political spectrum.



And as an avid motorcyclist, I haven't seen nearly as much of your vaunted global warming as I would have liked this summer; but then, I'm not into Suzuki's -- David or otherwise.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Aug 2013)

Rick,

I guess my sceptism on this subject stems from years of claims of doom from activists (with agendas) that are unsupported by good science (once you look into the background of their claims - and I have) or modelling that seems incapable of actually predicting anything.

I am tired of "big green"- and industry all of its own that has a really unhealthy authoritarian streak and which is completely intolerant of disenting opinion or of questioning their orthodoxy. It has all the trappings of an unreformed religion.

desertification, smog, the corn industry (you can blame that one on some enterprising farmers and US Congressmen who saw an opportunity in the Global Warming meme and forced through what has turned out to be one of the more disastrous environmental and economic policies of the past decade- negatively affecting both food and fuel prices on a global scale without actually doing anything positive about pollution or " global warming") are problems, but the have little or nothing to do with "global warming". The solution (carbon dioxidephobia) amounts, IMHO, to consigning 2-3 billion humans to either abject misery or death.  There is no way- absolutely none- that the current world population can be kept fed, clothed and housed without the use of carbon based fuel.   The thermodynamics of current renewables ( solar and wind) just do not work. They do not have anywhere close to the energy density of carbon based fuels.  We are still awaiting a new paradigm in energy density that will make the switch off of petroleum for transportation logical.

I like your work on farming methods- I really do.  I think you are doing good work raising food and keeping land and soil healthy, which are virtues all by themselves.  I just don't think that you should buy into global warming scare tactics. And give the sceptics some credit.  We are not idiots.


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Aug 2013)

To respond to a few things.

I am not a left wing person by any stretch of the imagination. My friends and family would laugh if they ever heard someone refer to me as left wing. I simply said "Too far right".  I am not a believer in absolutes. 

I agree, we can NOT predict with certainty but I would say more of a generalization. I agree there are those out there using scare tactics for their own gain or want to be "radical about something".

That is not where I am coming from. I believe that we will not see the full negative consequences of our actions because we will simply not live long enough. I have doubts my sons will truly see the effects. However down the road, I do believe someone's generation will suffer if we do not START taking action now and gradually change our ways over the next several generations.

I am a believer of gradual change done over a period of time rather than a "shock" overnight and drastic change to our way of living (that sudden shock change can have its own negative effects).

I do believe very strongly there is environmental problems (many of them) and that are/will hamper our health and as such, our quality of life. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away, first step is to acknowledge it. Then we can put it into place a sound plan or series of plans.


----------



## OldTanker (21 Aug 2013)

This is such an emotional issue I am reluctant to get involved, however perhaps this is the time to add my perspective. For the record, I am a professional emergency manager and have been for about 15 years. One of the major activities I have become involved in over the past seven or eight years is climate change adaptation planning. I am not a scientist, but I work with people who's scientific credentials are unassailable. I accept that there are opposing points-of-view out there, but from the work I have done, and the reading and studies I have been involved with the issue is this: we are going through a period of global warming. Whether this is cyclical or not is largely irrelevant from the work I do. The weather is changing, and for huge swaths of the world, for the worse. Ironically, there are areas of Canada where climate change will improve living, and more importantly, agricultural conditions. But there are more places in Canada where this change will offer significant challenges. For example we still don't have a good handle on the extent of sea-level rise. The original modelling we did was based simply on the expansion of the seas due to temperature increase. We are now starting to appreciate that the melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will also add to the rate of sea level rise. In time this will cause huge problems in areas like Vancouver and other BC ports. I am not as familiar with the effects on the East Coast but imagine they would be similar. We are seeing more, and more severe, summer storms. Yes, there have always been storms in Canada but what we are seeing, and what is scientifically irrefutable, is that as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour. Eventually the atmosphere cannot retain this water and what goes up, must come down. And what we are starting to see, and have for some time, are increased heavy-rainfall events. As the atmosphere continues to warm, this will continue to be a challenge. As we have seen in Calgary, the mitigation strategy is simple to state - don't build on flood plains - but extremely difficult and costly to implement. Is man responsible for this climate change? I have my own ideas but to avoid a slagging match let me just say this - whatever man is doing regarding carbon emissions is not improving what may very well be a naturally-occurring climate swing. In other words, we are making a bad situation worse. Of course the challenge is trying to ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. Can we reduce the effect of climate change by reducing our use of carbon fuels? Or do we just accept the fact that our climate is changing, largely for the worse, and that we simply can't do anything to mitigate the change and will have to live with the consequences? Humanity will adapt, it always has, but can we reduce the effects through less use of carbon-based fuels? That, I think is the key issue here and the one most people find difficult to address.  To accept the reality of climate change and to rationally try to mitigate and adapt does not make one a left-winger, or tree-huger or any other type of stereotypical generalization.


----------



## Haletown (21 Aug 2013)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> This is such an emotional issue I am reluctant to get . . . . We are now starting to appreciate that the melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will also add to the rate of sea level rise. In time this will cause huge problems in areas like Vancouver and other BC ports. I am not as familiar with the effects on the East Coast but imagine they would be similar. We are seeing more,



The Antarctic Ice cap is currently expanding in both mass and extent . . . It just set a record today for largest ice  on this date.

The Grrenland Ice Cap has been very slowly receding and has not accelerated in recent times. The Arctic ice cap is doing what it has been doing for centuries and it appears it has started it's normal aggregation cycle.

And as for Vancouver flooding . . .  Complete nonsense to believe it will rise 500mm by 2050 when it has risen maybe 50mm in the last 100 years.

Here is the actual data for the last 100 years  . . 


http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php

This is how public policy gets hijacked and serious  public money gets wasted trying to solve fears that do not exist.


----------



## jpjohnsn (21 Aug 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> The Antarctic Ice cap is currently expanding in both mass and extent . . . It just set a record today for largest ice  on this date.
> 
> The Grrenland Ice Cap has been very slowly receding and has not accelerated in recent times. The Arctic ice cap is doing what it has been doing for centuries and it appears it has started it's normal aggregation cycle.
> 
> ...


To be absolutely clear, antarctic sea ice is increasing but the land ice is melting at an increasing rate.  The loss of the mass of land ice is not being offset by the increase in sea ice mass.  The net result is a loss overall.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Aug 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> To be absolutely clear, antarctic sea ice is increasing but the land ice is melting at an increasing rate.  The loss of the mass of land ice is not being offset by the increase in sea ice mass.  The net result is a loss overall.




Does this imbalance mean that the earth may rotate off its axis?     >


----------



## Inquisitor (21 Aug 2013)

to add on to old tankers last post. There are reports that a warming climate tends to lead to increased conflict. Seems to make sense, less access to potable water, less grazing, less food in general tends to lead to zero-sum, your gain is my loss perceptions.  Additionally just being in an uncomfortable environment tends to lead to crankiness. (Turns up A/C)


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Aug 2013)

As weather patterns become more erratic it is only a matter of time before two of the world's breadbaskets are hit with extreme weather in a single year. Then things will get interesting. The army may have lots of work in the not so distant future.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> As weather patterns become more erratic it is only a matter of time before two of the world's breadbaskets are hit with extreme weather in a single year. Then things will get interesting. The army may have lots of work in the not so distant future.



Interesting you mention that. The single biggest contributor to world hunger today is the conversion of sustenance farmland into bio-fuel farmland. The result is that grain prices have gone up and in many countries bread is no longer available. There is also less grain available for humanitarian aid.


----------



## GDawg (21 Aug 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Interesting you mention that. The single biggest contributor to world hunger today is the conversion of sustenance farmland into bio-fuel farmland. The result is that grain prices have gone up and in many countries bread is no longer available. There is also less grain available for humanitarian aid.



Is there a credible source for this assertion? Obviously armed conflict and weather are dominant forces behind famine as well.


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Aug 2013)

There is some truth to the statement. The US used 40% of it's corn production to produce biofuel last year. That would be 1,537,500,000,000 pounds of corn or feeding 1.4 billion people a pound of corn three times a day. It has driven up corn prices. Then Mexicans bought rice because they ironically couldn't afford corn which is indigenous and their staple food. Converting trillions of pounds of food to fuel SUV's while people starve is as strange as it sounds.


----------



## GR66 (22 Aug 2013)

Sadly it's the rhetoric that gets in the way of solutions.  I have my doubts that the current cycle of climate change is primarily caused by human activity (although we may be helping the process along), but the fixation with so many on a specific human cause - our excessive burning of fossil fuels - results in time wasted in pointless argument and misguided solutions.

I strongly believe that our general abuse of the environment is going to bite us on our collective asses big time.  We make horrible land use choices, dump toxic substances into the air, land and water, use massive amounts of non-renewable resources, follow unsustainable agricultural practices, reuse/recycle almost none of what we create, turn the sea into a desert, and yes, burn too much fossil fuels.  

The anthropogenic global warming crowd has us fixated on growing more corn to add to our gasoline, putting up expensive windmills that create a fraction of the power we need, and changing our taxation system.  If we could get away from the rhetoric we could instead focus on long term, efficient use of our resources in order to make ourselves both wealthier AND better stewards of our environment.  

Stop subsidies that distort the economic decisions we make and instead see that we're paying the REAL price for the things we use.  If we eventually start to pay the cost upfront for things like the cost of disposing of the items we purchase, or the cost to repair the damages to the environment caused by the processes we've used then we will make more sustainable choices.  Companies will have to become more efficient to compete.  If it costs more to build a subdivision on productive farm land than to build on reclaimed former industrial lands then wiser choices will be made.  When we become fixated on "we're burning too much oil" we lose sight of the bigger picture.


----------



## GDawg (22 Aug 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> There is some truth to the statement. The US used 40% of it's corn production to produce biofuel last year. That would be 1,537,500,000,000 pounds of corn or feeding 1.4 billion people a pound of corn three times a day. It has driven up corn prices. Then Mexicans bought rice because they ironically couldn't afford corn which is indigenous and their staple food. Converting trillions of pounds of food to fuel SUV's while people starve is as strange as it sounds.



I'm not doubting the original statement outright, I was surprised to read that bio-fuel was the lead cause. Food supply/prices aren't a simple, monolithic thing, and what the American's are doing within their own borders can't necessarily be linked to famine elsewhere because of the global market. Futures speculation and outright profiteering are strong factors in food prices as well. 

The idea of food crops being diverted to fuel production (particularly in lean years) and natural habitat being destroyed to grow corn or soy to produce bio-fuel is pretty stupid. As the technology improves, the impact bio-fuel has on the food market will lessen, but I highly doubt that this will mark an end to high food prices or 'biblical scale' famines.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2013)

GDawg said:
			
		

> I'm not doubting the original statement outright, I was surprised to read that bio-fuel was the lead cause. Food supply/prices aren't a simple, monolithic thing, and what the American's are doing within their own borders can't necessarily be linked to famine elsewhere because of the global market. Futures speculation and outright profiteering are strong factors in food prices as well.
> 
> The idea of food crops being diverted to fuel production (particularly in lean years) and natural habitat being destroyed to grow corn or soy to produce bio-fuel is pretty stupid. As the technology improves, the impact bio-fuel has on the food market will lessen, but I highly doubt that this will mark an end to high food prices or 'biblical scale' famines.



This is not just an American problem.  Look out West at how many farmers are changing their crops from wheat to other more "profitable" crops.  Farmers, like all other members of our society, have the right to choose how they make a living.  It is not cheap to run a farm, and to stay out of debt, they will of course plant what will be the most profitable crop.  Ethics and morals have been trumped by financial survival.


----------



## OldTanker (22 Aug 2013)

And the situation only becomes more complicated when you start looking at this from a geopolitical and economic perspective. Consider the desertification that is in progress in North Africa. As this starts to displace people from their traditional lands, where do they go? There are islands, in fact full nations such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, that will likely be totally submerged in 50 years. Where does an entire nation go? Are the countries of the world that are arguably adding to, if not causing, global warning responsible to take some of these people in as "climate refugees"? And if so, where do they put them?  There are some parts of Canada, for example the Peace River country of Alberta and BC that are likely to become more inhabitable as the climate gets warmer and growing seasons lengthen. Should Canada be developing special polices concerning climate change refugees and how to rationally settle them?  

As we lose prime agricultural land to climate change (i.e. eventually much of Southern Alberta) how do we compensate? Do we make our priority for the remaining land housing (for refugees?) or agriculture? A microcosm of that problem exists right now in the Fraser Valley. Essentially the only areas left for housing are some of the best agricultural lands in the world. Can we afford to sacrifice agricultural land that is needed to replace dwindling world production for more housing for those displace by climate change? And who makes this decision? And when?

As a practical example of climate change adaptation risk-management planning, and notwithstanding the dispute over the rate of sea level rise in Vancouver harbour noted earlier, if I was responsible for port operations, I would want to know

a. what has been the historical model for sea level rise in my area?
b. what is the RANGE of projected sea level rise looking into the foreseeable future?
c. how much of this increase can my existing infrastructure accommodate?
d. how long will it take me to upgrade, replace or move my existing infrastructure to adapt to sea level rise if the projections exceed my ability to accommodate? and 
e. what are the likely decision timelines?

This is not overreaction, or panic, or left-wing tree-hugging. This is simply good business and rational risk-management. Some governments are addressing this in detail, some have their heads in the sand.

We are beyond the stage of doing nothing. Cherry picking data to "prove" that climate change and global warming isn't happening is as useful as the suggestion we return to a society of hunter-gatherers with no reliance on fossil fuels. Neither extreme is useful. The overwhelming evidence is that SOMETHING is happening, and even if we don't know all the causes, nor can we predict with 100% certainly future developments, we are seeing changes to our environment, and by extension our society, that need to be addressed. And probably sooner rather than before it is too late.

It is difficult to get politicians to make decisions that extend beyond their next mandate under normal circumstances, even more difficult to get them to make hard decisions ranging out 50 years, which are often based, admittedly,  on weak data. Unfortunately we are dealing with science that is based on modelling, and somethings these models are not as accurate as we would like. However, our responsibility is to make the best estimates based on the best science we have and provide our policy makers with the best advice we can.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Aug 2013)

It may be difficult to get politicians to make decisions based on what might happen in 50 years if they don't act.

On the other hand it is less difficult to get politicians to make decisions to buy insurance policies and plan for reaction forces.



After the floods in Alberta I heard a lot of informed comment about "how could politicians allow people to build in flood plains....don't those idiots know better".

As a one time resident of the Lower Mainland, and thus inhabitant of BC's largest permanent clearcut for 15 years,  I couldn't help but wonder how politicians permitted development on the tsunami prone and unstable silty flood plains of Richmond and Delta, on the barren clearcut slopes of North Vancouver,  in the Volcanic shadows of Mounts Baker and Washington and on the earthquake prone fault lines of the Pacific Rim.

Seems to me the logical thing to do is evacuate Vancouver and move the inhabitants somewhere else for their own good and for the security of my purse.  (Just don't send them to Alberta... we can't afford them  ;D )

PS WRT Southern Alberta - you may be right about the impact of climate change.  Except that this year is one of the greenest years I have seen and I have been in and out of this region since 1980.  There are sloughs floating ducks and hedged with bullrushes that have never existed previously.  And this is about year 3 for this set of conditions.  

Anecdote:  Three years ago, by highway 24, a farmer bought a new irrigation pivot to irrigate some bottom land that was lovely and flat but bone dry.  The next year the pivot was bogged down, and has remained that way due to the bottom land become a half-section lake that has endured for over two years.







An irrigation pivot.

The Fraser Valley isn't the Prairies.  We have space and we can see whatever is coming at us.

It doesn't take much space to create the high density housing that your Vancouver refugees seem to prefer.


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2013)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> As a practical example of climate change adaptation risk-management planning, and notwithstanding the dispute over the rate of sea level rise in Vancouver harbour noted earlier, if I was responsible for port operations, I would want to know



Not much of a dispute over the actual data about sea level change  . . .   the numbers are the numbers.  What is up for debate is the accuracy of the forecasts.  We now have decades of forecasts based on   the General Circulation Models and not a single one of them has ever produced a forecast that came anywhere close to being accurate.   Even the  IPCC admits their models have failed to predict what has really happened. 

I live within spitting distance of the Vancouver harbour so I have skin in this game.  I have have some contacts in City Hall engineering and they are appalled at the decisions being made by the environmentalist clique hired in by Mayor Robertson -  Vancouver has a well staffed and funded Climate Change Department now.  The engineers have no voice and the Climate Change office at City Hall treats the model based forecasts as 100% factual.  Public Policy has been hijacked by people who ignore data, but believe eco doomsday is just around the corner.  By the way, if you get to visit Vancouver and walk the False Creek seawall you will notice all these blue bands painted on lamp poles and the Cambie St bridge supports that are supposed to show us where sea level will be in 100 years - they go up 5m  above current datum.  A city worker told me it is an "art installation" and cost $700k.  Can't confirm that number but it would not surprise me.  It is well within the capability of Mayor Moonbeam and the rest of the Vision Party that currently occupies City Hall.

So we can use forecasts driven by  failed models that have proven to be simply wrong to drive a public policy that would divert very large amounts of public funds into activities that are not required, or we can apply some common sense, monitor the actual data and  make plans based on reality rather than scary stories based on the output of failed GCMs about what might, maybe, could possibly happen somewhere in the future. 

But if society decides to buy into the need to act now, the fun will begin when society realizes the mitigation efforts will be extremely expensive and we have to pay for them.  Because there is no bucket of money in some government office ready to be shoveled off the truck. The money will come from current allocations.  

And you can be damned sure there will be screams and howls to take DND's budget to pay for stuff deemed necessary by environmentalists.


----------



## Haletown (22 Aug 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?



The IPCC does not concur.  Our current climate and weather is happening well within normal and historical bounds, in fact we are in a fairly calm period of time when it comes to weather extremes.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

What we have is extreme media coverage of pretty much normal normal weather.

3 puffs of wind in the eastern Atlantic and CNN goes into hurricane watch.

Tornado coverage is so extensive most people believe the numbers and intensity of tornadoes  is increasing.  In fact we are at historic lows.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png

Same for tropical cyclones, especially in the Atlantic.

Watch the news today and you will think forest fires are massive and record setting  . . . but the actual data, the official record shows the opposite  in 2013.

http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm


Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane and not a super storm . . . just a good old fashioned  Nor'easter  that hit at the wrong time (high tide) and stalled over a coastal flood zone.  Nothing to do with any perceived climate change or CO2 in the atmosphere.  Happened many times before, it will happen again, despite what the IPCC says.


If it is on TV or in newspapers it is likely wrong.  The mass media needs scary stories, breathlessly reported to keep the eyeballs on page and the clicks happening.  Doesn't mean it is true or what is actually happening.


----------



## OldTanker (22 Aug 2013)

This is an excellent summary. But its important to read it all, in detail.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Haletown (24 Aug 2013)

Commone sense, meet breath if fresh air.



Replies of Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. to Questions from Senate EPW
21 August 2013


Questions from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

1) In your written testimony, you stated:

“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

In your opinion as a science-policy expert, is it also misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?
PIELKE REPLY: Yes. Both such claims are misleading and incorrect.
2) Who funds your research currently? Please supply a full list for the record.
PIELKE REPLY: I currently have one active grant. It is a small grant from the Nathan Cummings Foundation for a project looking at the role of philanthropy in policy and politics (it has nothing to do with climate or extreme events), drawing on an engagement model I proposed in my book, The Honest Broker (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Also, at the University of Colorado, I am a Fellow of CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences) which is a NOAA Joint Institute.
Questions from Senator David Vitter


1) Dr. Pielke, as I read Mr. Nutter’s testimony, he appeared to be trying to tell us that businesses face a disaster that is happening now. But according to a recent Lloyd’s of London survey of almost 600 corporate executives about the risks faced by their business, they ranked climate change #32 behind “piracy” but ahead of “space weather.” High taxation was ranked #1. Regulation was ranked #5. Why do you think they placed climate change at #32?
PIELKE REPLY: Human-caused climate change likely ranks low in the Lloyd’s 2013 Risk Index because the vast majority of impacts associated with such changes that would be of direct concern to global businesses in 2013 are presently small or even undetectable at present in the context of historical climate variability, as discussed in my testimony.
2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?
PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.
3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.

a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.
b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.
c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.
4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)
PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge."


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html


----------



## Haletown (24 Aug 2013)

Look, over there, that pig is flying!


"Dorking 'green' group in favour of fracking"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23794663


----------



## Haletown (28 Aug 2013)

From the "people who will not be getting Christmas cards from Al Gore or David Suzuki"   file.

"The Earth’s climate, he said, is a dynamic and continually-changing system. “Human societies have lived and thriven under every conceivable climate, and modern technology makes adaptation to changing weather conditions entirely routine.”

The increasing fraction of CO2 in the air could be expected to result in some warming, but it had been accepted that “the benefits of food production and the relief of starvation overwhelm concerns about the potential climate changes induced by land-surface modification.” He said the panel thought it essential to ask whether similar reasoning applied to global fossil-energy production."


So sayeth the World Federation of Scientists.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/#more-92552


----------



## GAP (1 Sep 2013)

North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught 
http://www.sail-world.com/Canada/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early. Douglas Pohl tells the story:

The Passage has become blocked with 5/10 concentrated drifting sea ice at both the eastern and at the western ends of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. At least 22 yachts and other vessels are in the Arctic at the moment. Some who were less advanced have retreated and others have abandoned their vessels along the way. Still others are caught in the ice in an unfolding, unresolved drama.

The real question is if and when the Canadian Coast Guard(CCG) decides to take early action to help the yachts exit the Arctic before freeze-up... or will they wait until it becomes an emergency rescue operation?

The first blockage area is at Prince Regent Inlet in position 73.7880535N, -89.2529297W which became blocked on 27th August with 5/10 ice concentration with 7/10 ice pushing.

This effectively closes the 2013 Northwest Passage without Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker escorts for transit. The alternative is a very technical and risky southern navigation through Fury & Hecla Strait mostly blocked with sea ice.

Currently there is a commercial cruise ship on a west to east passage which will reach Prince Regent Inlet in another day. It is unknown if there is a CCG icebreaker in the area to provide assistance since government ships do not provide Automatic Identification Service (AIS) to public AIS websites.

Since one of the Canadian Coast Guard’s prime missions is to provide icebreaking for commercial shipping it will be interesting to see if Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Government views this as an opportunity for good public relations to help recreational yachts transiting the Northwest Passage.

Another choke-point stopping marine traffic is on the western Canadian Arctic at Cape Bathurst in position 70.6672443N, -128.2763672W which became blocked on 26th August with 2/10 ice concentration and quickly filled with 5/10 ice on 27th August and today has 8/10 ice pushing towards Cape Bathurst. Latest word is the ice is retreating at an agonizing 1 nautical mile per day northward. 
more on link


----------



## FJAG (5 Sep 2013)

Interesting article on the problems with the current state of the Wind and Solar industry in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

 :cheers:


----------



## Haletown (5 Sep 2013)

The Germans are slowly waking up to the great subsidized electricity scam.

"For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

Substitute "Ontario" for "Germany"  and the scam is the same.


And in the USA, some speaking truth to power

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f4ace657-9490-4f4c-86f3-25d367e2085c


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Sep 2013)

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange

The World Bank is now considering climate change and it's effects to be the biggest economic threat of the 21st century. These guys aren't leftists, they're economists who support many policies that we could consider broadly to be "right" (austerity, structural adjustment and so on). The idea that some big green conspiracy has unduly influenced them is laughable. The money in renewables is nothing compared to the money in the fossil fuels industry, and I would add that the fossil fuel industry has shaped the policy of many countries for decades, while "green" energy is a new a comer. 

Below is a link to a great interview that explains why the "debate" on climate change is somehow still a debate.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-ending-the-silence-on-climate-change/

You really have to think about what you are suggesting when you say climate change is natural, or it's not happening. You are suggesting there's a cabal of wind turbine manufactuers or something similar that now have more influence in politics than the petroleum industry. You are suggesting that 97% of the world's serious scientists are wrong, have been paid off or are acting in the interests of their own career. You are suggesting our satellites are all wrong, or we are reading the data incorrectly. Ort you're suggesting that the political left has invented a global crisis to enact socialist economic policies or something of the like.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense unless you are ideologically driven to point of putting blinders on. Is it because action on climate change would require collaborative global efforts? Do you just love the internal combustion engine that much? It's tragic that this is somehow a political issue. I am no scientist, but I understand politics and economics and if politicians, scientists and economists the world over (and across the political spectrum for the most part) are sounding the warning, I believe them. I just don't believe the MOTIVATION for creating such a conspiracy exists. And unless you have access to data that no one else seems to have, or you yourself are a climate scientist, it doesn't make sense to think otherwise. 

Here's a handy link that shoots down all the main arguments against anthropomorphic climate change. I would encourage all you deniers to find the rebuttals to the arguments you might have.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/


----------



## Journeyman (6 Sep 2013)

OK, not one of you people wringing your hands or gnashing your teeth over global warming were with me on a motorcycle on the 401 last night.

It's only the beginning of September, but it was fucking COLD!    


So you can all bite me; bring on the global warming!  The polar bears will adapt.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2013)

Sigh

Kilo, if Norse settlers could croft farm in 1100 AD in Greenland (as frarms exposed by retreating glaciers tell us), but it is too cold to do any sort of farming in Greenland today, then what does that tell you about climate change?

If George Washington could cross the frozen rivers with armies towing heavy wagons of supplies and cannon to defeat the British in the 1700's, but George Mead faced ice free rivers in the 1860's, so had to use boats and bridges if he wanted to cross, what does that tell you about climate change?

If spacecraft orbiting the planet Mars track long term temperature changes similar to those of Earth, what does that suggest about the origin of climate change?

An extraordinary amount of money has been spent promoting the idea of climate change, with the potential of even vaster amounts of money being spent to "fight" climate change. Human beings flock to incentives (in this case to get the money), and that, my friend, is the true source of climate change "consensus": the lure of "free" money, power and privilage.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Sep 2013)

All good points, in that they make immediate sense. But they are all directly and specifically addressed, and easily countered with properly referenced data in the last link I posted. 

I agree that humans flock to incentives and money, power and privilege. But does this not explain the oil industry's vested interest clouding the debate surrounding climate change in order to protect its status? An extraordinary amount of money ALREADY exists in the fossil fuels industry, and they are spending it to counter real science. If we agree that people are opportunistic, I would say the easy opportunity lies in protecting ones own interests, not inventing a worldwide scientific hoax (if this were even possible) to create a whole industry. That makes absolutely no sense.

I find conspiracy theories surrounding global warming are quite similar to those surrounding 9/11. Just as there's no way the US government planned the attacks and somehow kept the hundreds of people who would have been involved quiet for 12 years, there's NO way 97% of the world's scientists are part of some sort of crazed economic "get rich quick" scheme, knowingly or unknowingly. Just perform a simple cost benefit analysis and it's obvious who the winners and losers are in this debate. The simplest answer is usually the right one.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> All good points, in that they make immediate sense. But they are all directly and specifically addressed, and easily countered with properly referenced data in the last link I posted.
> 
> I agree that humans flock to incentives and money, power and privilege. But does this not explain the oil industry's vested interest clouding the debate surrounding climate change in order to protect its status? An extraordinary amount of money ALREADY exists in the fossil fuels industry, and they are spending it to counter real science. If we agree that people are opportunistic, I would say the easy opportunity lies in protecting ones own interests, not inventing a worldwide scientific hoax (if this were even possible) to create a whole industry. That makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> I find conspiracy theories surrounding global warming are quite similar to those surrounding 9/11. Just as there's no way the US government planned the attacks and somehow kept the hundreds of people who would have been involved quiet for 12 years, there's NO way *97% of the world's scientists* are part of some sort of crazed economic "get rich quick" scheme, knowingly or unknowingly. Just perform a simple cost benefit analysis and it's obvious who the winners and losers are in this debate. The simplest answer is usually the right one.



It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.



That redoubt of leftist conspiracies, NASA has some info: 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

This seems like a pretty comprehensive list no? Who is missing?

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

This seems like a pretty comprehensive list no? Who is missing?


----------



## Haletown (7 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.



It was actually a much slicker con than that. 


"Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.

Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be discerned from the text of the paper.

An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus referred to is trivial:
• that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas
• that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.

Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper.

The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.


http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf


Remember Cook is a cartoonist by profession, he has no science credentials.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Sep 2013)

And here is a direct and scientific refutation of Montford's book. Look at the credentials of the authors on this site compared to Montford's.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/


----------



## Haletown (7 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And here is a direct and scientific refutation of Montford's book. Look at the credentials of the authors on this site compared to Montford's.
> 
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/



Do you have an opinion on why 100% of the climate models have failed to predict what is actually happening in the atmosphere?

Do you think we should continue to make public policies about and direct billions of public dollars into CO2 reduction schemes based on models that have 100% failure rate?


----------



## ArmyRick (7 Sep 2013)

Not all CO2 reduction schemes have a 100 percent failure rate. I know some work. Others I
I do not have enough knowledge about to make an informed opinion.

Not all green options are a good idea. Wind turbines are a good idea with unintended negative consequences.


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Not all CO2 reduction schemes have a 100 percent failure rate. I know some work. Others I
> I do not have enough knowledge about to make an informed opinion.
> 
> Not all green options are a good idea. Wind turbines are a good idea with unintended negative consequences.



What has a 100% failure rate are the computer models used to justify CO2 reduction schemes.  The models are used justify a theory that does not hold water.  Public policy has been changed based on the forecasted results that have not come to pass.

Agreed there are many ways to reduce CO2.  The question is  - why do we want to take public funds, funds that  could pay for schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure and spend it recu one CO2 when CO2 is  is a very, very minor  greenhouse gas and is not the thermostat for the planet?

Just look at what is happening in Ontario right now - $billions are beng diverted in wind turbines and solar panels that are not saving the planet and are neither effective or efficient.  That money would buy a lot of health care, pay for a lot of teachers, pave a lot of potholed roads and repair crumbling overpasses, repair leaking sewer systems.

Because there is always an opportunity cost.


----------



## GAP (8 Sep 2013)

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html?ICO=most_read_module
    Almost a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
    BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
    Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month

By David Rose  7 September 2013

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
more on link


----------



## Haletown (8 Sep 2013)

Thank Gawd for experts, especially ones that get more R&D money if there predictions are of the "falling sky" variety.




http://polarportal.dk/en/arctic-sea-ice/nbsp/sea-ice-extent/


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Sep 2013)

This above is one of the most commonly used and easily countered arguments. Yes we had a cooler summer of the most part. I live in Toronto and we went nearly a month July 19-August 12) without the temperature exceeding 27 degrees. And apparently less ice melted up north. This doesn't mean an overall trend is reversing. The weather has ups and downs, and larger scale trends. Climate change is a larger scale, longer term trend.

This article shows how the author of the Daily Mail piece above has distorted data in the past by focusing in the more immediate trends while ignoring the larger data.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/18/global_warming_denial_debunking_misleading_climate_change_claims_by_david.html



Here's the ACTUAL source of the data cited in that Daily Mail article, NASA itself. There's detailed data on the sea ice since they started taking measurements.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


Note the FIRST PARAGRAPH.



> "Sea ice continued its late-season summer decline through August at a near-average pace. Ice extent is still well above last year’s level, but below the 1981 to 2010 average. Open water was observed in the ice cover close to the North Pole, while in the Antarctic, sea ice has been at a record high the past few days."



This is an institution who solidly supports the theory of anthropomorphic climate change, and they haven't changed their tune with this data which I emphasize, THEY GATHERED. And yet this same data is misinterpreted (purposely) for our consumption in a paper known for its skepticism around global warming and by an author who has a history of misrepresenting data to support his own unfounded ideas.

I would add that this argument (in all of its forms) against climate change is also quite handily dismissed in the Rebuttals link I posted above.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Sep 2013)

This image shows the overall average ice extent year through year. As you can see, there are several upticks in ice coverage, while the larger trend shows a decline of coverage by 10% a decade.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> It was actually a much slicker con than that.
> 
> 
> "Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.
> ...




For more on scientific consensus look here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Sep 2013)

They don't publish because journals don't accept the papers. 13950:24 is an extremely suspicious ratio that borders on 100% that smacks of censorship. Again, if you don't allow dissenting voices, you're not going to hear them.


----------



## jpjohnsn (8 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> They don't publish because journals don't accept the papers.


And your proof for this assertion is?


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2013)

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> And your proof for this assertion is?



The sheer weight of numbers. Given the vociferousness of the climate skepticism community, there have to be more than 24 papers submitted for consideration. There's no way that 1/10 of 1% represents the opposing view.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The sheer weight of numbers. Given the vociferousness of the climate skepticism community, there have to be more than 24 papers submitted for consideration. There's no way that 1/10 of 1% represents the opposing view.



That's not proof at all. Here's the link embedded in the above article to the original post about the study:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart

The author addresses your point specifically more than once: 



> "Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature."





> "Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."





> "Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.
> 
> A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.
> "



Scientists are curious by nature. The incredible irony (and the this illustrates the terrifying Orwellian nature of the denial arguments) is that it would actually be a CAREER MAKER if you could disprove anthropomorphic climate change. No one in the scientific community takes such arguments seriously simply because the _the science isn't there._

I would add that your final point ModlrMike, "There's no way that 1/10 of 1% represents the opposing view" is EXACTLY what we are debating here. There IS no scientific debate left, it's all an illusion. A masterstroke of PR.  Certain sectors of our political economy have a vested interest in casting doubt on climate change, and again, I think it's far more likely that the petroleum industry has paid for "scientists" to go on TV and shill for them than some other unknown interest to have hijacked 97% of the world's scientific opinion. Take for example the Heartland Institute. These guys are essentially a PR agency/think tank who just a few years ago were denying the link between smoking and lung cancer on behalf of the tobacco industry. They are now at the forefront of the denial movement. Given that track record, I would argue that money, not science is the prime motivation here.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2013)

You claim 24 papers, I'll claim 1100:

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Mr/Mrs/Ms Kilo_302

I can respect your belief in consensus subsituting for science.  I do however, have a high degree of curiosity about your answers to the questions posed previously.

"Do you have an opinion on why 100% of the climate models have failed to predict what is actually happening in the atmosphere?

Do you think we should continue to make public policies about and direct billions of public dollars into CO2 reduction schemes based on models that have 100% failure rate?"

I can agree to disagree about what the consensus study means and what the 97% of scientists agreed about. It is what is actually happening, what the real data shows what is happening that deserves your insight.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You claim 24 papers, I'll claim 1100:
> 
> 1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm



This collection of papers has been modified several times, and the methodology is suspect.

http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/poptechs-list-of-confusion/




			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Mr/Mrs/Ms Kilo_302
> 
> I can respect your belief in consensus subsituting for science.  I do however, have a high degree of curiosity about your answers to the questions posed previously.
> 
> ...




I am not substituting consensus for science, there is _scientific consensus._ 

1. Define "failed." Most predictions for say a rise in temperature provide a range (for example 2 degrees to 5 degrees Celsius) also over a range of decades during which we can expect to see that change. Scientists themselves admit they cannot be 100% certain, as there many variables. And as I have said on this thread before, a scientific theory can only disproven, not proven. Climate scientists have admitted being wrong in the past, as they will in the future. In fact, they are now saying they may have been wrong about the speed of the change. It's happening quicker than we thought.

2. Again, define "100% failure rate." What  data are you referencing? Do you honestly believe that you have a) access to data that NASA (or hundreds of other well respected insitutions) do not? or 
b) that you are somehow qualified to decide that 100% of the studies are failures and we should not be basing public policy on them? 

I am not a scientist, but the onus is on YOU to provide evidence, not me. The _scientific_ consensus is that climate change is occuring, and human activity is its primary cause. The question should actually be,

 "Do you think we should continue to direct billions of public dollars into C02 PRODUCING energy projects based on the claims of a very tiny minority of voices (many of them not real scientists) with ties to the very industry that would profit from this continued subsidization?"

It's really quite simple. Follow the money.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Failure is self evident.  Not a single GCM has come anywhere close to predicting what is actually happening as measured by data.   They have all failed in their predictive value.  They have all failed by significant orders of magnitude.    You can believe the theory or you can believe the data, but not both.


I do not know anyone who has ever taken even an intro course in Climatology that does not know climate  has and always will change and that CO2 has an ability to act with an insulation capability.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will slow down heat  transfer to space and will cause a slight increase in global atmospheric temperature.   There is zero evidence for any catastrophic changes in climate or any changes that are outside historical norms. 


But that is not what the AGW theory states.  


You do know what the theory states I assume?


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Failure is self evident.  Not a single GCM has come anywhere close to predicting what is actually happening as measured by data.   They have all failed in their predictive value.  They have all failed by significant orders of magnitude.    You can believe the theory or you can believe the data, but not both.
> 
> 
> I do not know anyone who has ever taken even an intro course in Climatology that does not know climate  has and always will change and that CO2 has an ability to act with an insulation capability.  Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will slow down heat  transfer to space and will cause a slight increase in global atmospheric temperature.   There is zero evidence for any catastrophic changes in climate or any changes that are outside historical norms.
> ...



Of course the AGW doesn't state "There is zero evidence for any catastrophic changes in climate or any changes that are outside historical norms." I'm not sure how that helps your point. 


Again, define "failure". Define a "siginificant order of magitude." If a climate model is off by a degree, but still accurately reflects an increase in temperature, is that a failure? I am sure that climate specialists the world over who have seen these  "failed" GCMs would not be sounding the alarm if they didn't bear out a dangerous warming trend.

There is zero evidence? That sounds suspiciously like an opinion. Again, which studies are you citing?  Do you think for a second that scientists who have spent their entire lives studying climate and atmosphere are not aware of the data that you have access to?  Are you somehow more qualified than highly tenured specialists at NASA and the like? 

Haletown, you are depriving the world of important knowledge by posting these revelations on a discussion board. You must contact NASA post-haste and tell them their models are all wrong! :


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

I shall leave you to your beliefs.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> I shall leave you to your beliefs.



Right, me and 

1.Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
2.Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
3.Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
4.Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
5.Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala 
6.Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
7.Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
8.Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
9.Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
10.Académie des Sciences, France
11.Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
12.Academy of Athens
13.Academy of Science of Mozambique
14.Academy of Science of South Africa
15.Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
16.Academy of Sciences Malaysia
17.Academy of Sciences of Moldova
18.Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
19.Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
20.Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
21.Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
22.Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
23.Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
24.African Academy of Sciences
25.Albanian Academy of Sciences
26.Amazon Environmental Research Institute
27.American Academy of Pediatrics
28.American Anthropological Association
29.American Association for the Advancement of Science
30.American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
31.American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians 
32.American Astronomical Society
33.American Chemical Society
34.American College of Preventive Medicine
35.American Fisheries Society
36.American Geophysical Union
37.American Institute of Biological Sciences
38.American Institute of Physics
39.American Meteorological Society
40.American Physical Society
41.American Public Health Association
42.American Quaternary Association
43.American Society for Microbiology
44.American Society of Agronomy
45.American Society of Civil Engineers
46.American Society of Plant Biologists
47.American Statistical Association
48.Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
49.Australian Academy of Science
50.Australian Bureau of Meteorology
51.Australian Coral Reef Society
52.Australian Institute of Marine Science
53.Australian Institute of Physics
54.Australian Marine Sciences Association
55.Australian Medical Association
56.Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society  
57.Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
58.Botanical Society of America
59.Brazilian Academy of Sciences
60.British Antarctic Survey
61.Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
62.California Academy of Sciences
63.Cameroon Academy of Sciences
64.Canadian Association of Physicists
65.Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
66.Canadian Geophysical Union
67.Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
68.Canadian Society of Soil Science
69.Canadian Society of Zoologists
70.Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
71.Center for International Forestry Research
72.Chinese Academy of Sciences
73.Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
74.Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
75.Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
76.Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
77.Crop Science Society of America
78.Cuban Academy of Sciences
79.Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
80.Ecological Society of America
81.Ecological Society of Australia
82.Environmental Protection Agency
83.European Academy of Sciences and Arts
84.European Federation of Geologists
85.European Geosciences Union
86.European Physical Society
87.European Science Foundation
88.Federation of American Scientists
89.French Academy of Sciences
90.Geological Society of America
91.Geological Society of Australia
92.Geological Society of London
93.Georgian Academy of Sciences  
94.German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina  
95.Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
96.Indian National Science Academy
97.Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
98.Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
99.Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
100.Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
101.Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
102.InterAcademy Council
103.International Alliance of Research Universities
104.International Arctic Science Committee
105.International Association for Great Lakes Research
106.International Council for Science
107.International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
108.International Research Institute for Climate and Society
109.International Union for Quaternary Research
110.International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
111.International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
112.Islamic World Academy of Sciences
113.Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
114.Kenya National Academy of Sciences
115.Korean Academy of Science and Technology
116.Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
117.l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
118.Latin American Academy of Sciences
119.Latvian Academy of Sciences
120.Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
121.Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
122.Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
123.Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
124.National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
125.National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
126.National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
127.National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
128.National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
129.National Aeronautics and Space Administration  
130.National Association of Geoscience Teachers
131.National Association of State Foresters
132.National Center for Atmospheric Research  
133.National Council of Engineers Australia
134.National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
135.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
136.National Research Council
137.National Science Foundation
138.Natural England
139.Natural Environment Research Council, UK
140.Natural Science Collections Alliance
141.Network of African Science Academies
142.New York Academy of Sciences
143.Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
144.Nigerian Academy of Sciences
145.Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
146.Oklahoma Climatological Survey
147.Organization of Biological Field Stations
148.Pakistan Academy of Sciences
149.Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
150.Pew Center on Global Climate Change
151.Polish Academy of Sciences
152.Romanian Academy
153.Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
154.Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
155.Royal Astronomical Society, UK
156.Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
157.Royal Irish Academy
158.Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
159.Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
160.Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
161.Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
162.Royal Society of Canada
163.Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
164.Royal Society of the United Kingdom
165.Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
166.Russian Academy of Sciences
167.Science and Technology, Australia  
168.Science Council of Japan
169.Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
170.Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
171.Scripps Institution of Oceanography
172.Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
173.Slovak Academy of Sciences
174.Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
175.Society for Ecological Restoration International
176.Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
177.Society of American Foresters   
178.Society of Biology (UK)   
179.Society of Biology, UK
180.Society of Systematic Biologists
181.Soil Science Society of America  
182.Sudan Academy of Sciences
183.Sudanese National Academy of Science
184.Tanzania Academy of Sciences
185.The Wildlife Society (international)
186.Turkish Academy of Sciences
187.Uganda National Academy of Sciences
188.Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
189.United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
190.University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
191.Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
192.World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
193.World Federation of Public Health Associations
194.World Forestry Congress
195.World Health Organization
196.World Meteorological Organization
197.Zambia Academy of Sciences
198.Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


And let's not forget the major American institutions: 


Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2


American Association for the Advancement of Science

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3


American Chemical Society

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4


American Geophysical Union

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5


American Medical Association

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6



American Meteorological Society

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7


American Physical Society

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8


The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


You should probably send these guys an email.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Sep 2013)

I also choose to believe in Global Climate change/disruption/etc. And in this society there is a huge crowd of us "nut jobs" buying into this. I am not arguing with anybody here about it anymore, I have simply made up my mind. 

Kilo_302, I wouldn't bother arguing it here anymore. people choose to believe what they want to.

I also have a another general human explanation to this. It would not matter how much evidence, facts or theories that you put forward about HUMAN impact on the global climate (and the environment as a whole, everything should be viewed in a symbiotic relationship), its not good news and most people can not deal well with bad news. Its my opinion so don't ask for facts, studies, etc but people in general have a poor mental mechanism with having to face change. We as a race, MUST change our ways or we are dooming our future generations to live in terrible world. 

believe what you want.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> we are dooming our future generations to live in terrible world.
> 
> believe what you want.



..and yet my kids can swim in water I sure couldn't and don't have 'smog days' like I did when I was thier age.   Fishing is back and better than ever in Lake Ontario and folks even catch the occasional game fish in a river near where I live that was nothing but carp and chemicals before.

Now, lets get into the recycling of things we never even dreamed of, never mind doing which saves resources like never before.

Yup,...I've doomed them............


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

I agree ArmyRick, and in fact there is a slew of literature pertaining to humanity's poor track record of dealing with longterm problems that require us to change as a society. If the past is any indicator, we are totally f#&$%d.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I agree ArmyRick, and in fact there is a slew of literature pertaining to humanity's poor track record of dealing with longterm problems that require us to change as a society. If the past is any indicator, we are totally f#&$%d.



You mean like cars that don't blow out blue smoke by the ton anymore??......no wait......... :


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2013)

I have to agree with Bruce.  We have become very different in the ways we deal with the environment.  All the panic that the Environmentalists are trying to raise today is really for show and line their "Environmental Project" pockets.  Gone are the days when anyone could bury 45 gal drums of PCBs and walk away.  Gone are the days where pesticides and herbicides are freely distributed and applied.  Hell!  My once beautiful city is a sea of yellow every year as dandelions bloom and spread their seed.  Gone are the days where kids played in the fog of the trucks spraying for mosquito control.  Gone are the days of cars without seatbelts.  Change is happening.  If not to the speed that you consider the optimal; well tough luck.  Get off your high horse and Chive on.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

I'm not sure how to respond these points. Are they arguments? Are you guys just listing off things that have happened in your lifetime? That's great that folks can catch fish in a river near your house. Really, it is. And yes, now we have seatbelts and it's true, in many ways environmental regulations have improved. But unfortunately your anecdotes don't change reality that catastrophic evironmental change will happen this century, and we are already seeing those effects.


----------



## Jed (9 Sep 2013)

Kilo302; As my wifes granddad used to say to the stressed out neighbour who came running across the field saying the world's gonna end:  Yah, Yah, Yah, but you still have time for a cup of coffee.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Sep 2013)

I'm sure if I had a farm on Greenland 700 years ago catastrophic evironmental change came in a different form.

I guess it serves them right for not blowing tons upon tons of CO2 gases into the air................might have saved themselves.


----------



## GR66 (9 Sep 2013)

I'm leery of peeking out over the battlements in this debate, but what the hell, I'm a glutton for punishment...

I agree with Bruce and George that we are much better than we were even in the recent past at dealing with many of the more obvious negative impacts we have on the environment.  Many beaches (Toronto), lakes (acid rain), streams (chemical dumping) and former industrial sites (PCB's, etc.) are in vastly greater condition than when I was my kids ages.  No major industrial project goes forward without extensive environmental impact statements and public/media scrutiny.  Clearly we are getting better at many of these obvious issues.

Where (in my opinion) we fare much worse is in addressing (and even acknowledging) the less obvious, systemic effects we have on our environment.  Good, productive agricultural land is still steadily plowed under to build homes and shopping centres.  Sprawling subdivisions continue to be built at the (current) end of already congested commuter routes with little or no thought given to the relationship between where people live and where they work.  We struggle to find additional sources of energy to use rather than working to reduce the amount we currently use (or waste).  Agro business is becoming more like a manufacturing process that consumes inputs like fuel, soil nutrients and water with little thought to long-term sustainability.  We demand faster and faster improvements to all of our "things" without coherent plans on how to reuse or dispose of all the items that have become obsolete.

All these failings do have serious impacts on both our environment and our own physical/economic well being.  However these are the issues that we tend not to address because none of them are as obvious as fish floating belly up down a stream, sludge and garbage washing up on the beach, or leafless trees dying from acid rain.  These problems are also in many ways more difficult to solve because solving them would require all of us, collectively as a society, taking a long hard look at how we organize ourselves and how we lead our daily lives.

Are we "f#&$%d" as Kilo suggests?  I'm hopeful that we're not.  While I don't doubt that things will likely get worse before they get much better, I do think that we are better poised now with our general literacy, education and ability to communicate and act together than at any other time in human history.  In other ages humanity has faced dire environmental issues like soil exhaustion, desertification, deforestation (loss of fuel), etc. and while devastating we have come through to bounce back stronger than before.  

The climate will change whether we like it or not.  Our actions may speed up and amplify these effects (or who knows....possibly even slow down or mitigate them if you believe reports about long-term global cooling trends) but overall I think that a single-minded focus on reducing CO2 emissions is simply distracting us from an even more important self-examination of what our relationship should be with our natural environment.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ......... But unfortunately your anecdotes don't change reality that catastrophic evironmental change will happen this century, and we are already seeing those effects.



Now that is something that I don't believe that you, nor anyone else, can safely predict with 100% certainty of ever happening.  

As for the real issues on the environment:  Baby steps.  

We could always stop the world and let you off.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'm sure if I had a farm on Greenland 700 years ago catastrophic evironmental change came in a different form.
> 
> I guess it serves them right for not blowing tons upon tons of CO2 gases into the air................might have saved themselves.



Never happened according the IPCC.  The Medieval Warm period was disappeared in the IPCC TAR.  It was there in the first and second reports but went into the Climate Witness Protection Program for the third report.

By the fourth report the IPCC had to Mann up to hide the decline so they could  play hockey.

But then they disappeared the Hockey Stick.  It is still MIA, but it is really KIA.

The soon to be released Fifth Report should be interesting reading.  They have to deal with that whole global warming pause thingy and that is much, much more difficult to disappear than the entire Medieval Warm Period.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

Pleny of info here, and a few different projections based on emissions as well. You will notice that even if we stabilize at 450ppm, we are still looking at a significant rise in average temperature over the coming century. Tell a farmer in Kansas or Texas that the effects won't be catastrophic. They already were this past summer. 

In Canada, we may for the most part get off scot free. But of course that doesn't take into account the mass of climate refugees from Central American and the Southern US. Globally, we're looking at staples such as rice taking a massive hit in production all while demand is rising. Things will get ugly very quickly. I would argue that action is urgent given the fact that there is a delay between carbon levels in the atmosphere and effects on climate. We could already be past the tipping the point where positive feedback kicks in.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Sep 2013)

I wish you people would stop interrupting.     

I'm trying to get a complete page of "You are ignoring this user."


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I wish you people would stop interrupting.
> 
> I'm trying to get a complete page of "You are ignoring this user."



Just count the interuptions as .....as.....as.....damn, I'm being ignored again....


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Experts . . . What would we do without them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz3ZdPbdKo

Missed it by that much!

Or about 6,000,000 km2.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Kansas, where some people, believe the crops are suffering

"BALDWIN CITY, Kan. — In 70-plus years of working the earth, Max Moore can hardly remember a wheat crop this rich.

“We were so busy this last month” during the harvest, he said, “we couldn’t look sideways.”


Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2013/07/12/2885910/finally-kansas-wheat-is-a-cash.html#storylink=cpy"


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

And of course the experts have told us that forest fires would be much worse because of global warming.

http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm


Missed it by that much.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2013)

My  :2c: on the "scientific consensus"

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Attention is drawn to Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

And more experts, basing their conclusions on consensus, agreed  global warming would cause more and bigger hurricanes.

Despite Al Gore  inventing a new Category 6 for hurricanes, their prediction missed it by that much.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2013)

Recent reports say that the Arctic is seeing a 60% increase in ice this year.  Also reports that 17 yachts attempting the NW Passage are now trapped in ice.

http://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/arctic-summers-ice-free-by-2013/1051280


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

And the experts told us, no doubt because they all agreed with each other and therefore had a consensus, that tornadoes would get bigger and more frequent.


Missed it by that much.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

And the experts told us, no doubt because they all agreed with each other and therefore had a consensus, that as CO2 increased, temperatures would skyrocket.



Missed it by that much.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Kansas, where some people, believe the crops are suffering
> 
> "BALDWIN CITY, Kan. — In 70-plus years of working the earth, Max Moore can hardly remember a wheat crop this rich.
> 
> ...



You can't be serious. The last two summers saw record drought in Texas and Kansas. Just because some areas had bumper crops does not mean there is  not a problem. You clearly don't understand how climate change, or even the climate works. Changes will mean life has to adapt, and that is not an easy thing. Some areas will see more rain, and some will see less. Kansas and Texas have seen far less. I could post a thousand stories about the drought in the Mid West for every one that you could find about a bumper crop. 

From that Commie-climate-change-cheering rag, The Wall Street Journal: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130905-708229.html




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Recent reports say that the Arctic is seeing a 60% increase in ice this year.  Also reports that 17 yachts attempting the NW Passage are now trapped in ice.
> 
> http://edmondsbeacon.villagesoup.com/p/arctic-summers-ice-free-by-2013/1051280



George we covered the ice issue a dozen posts ago. Yes there is more ice this year as we had a cooler summer. But the overall trend is clearly negative. I posted several graphs illustrating both facts.  Also, "Edmond's Beacon" as a source? Right...

And to you AND Haletown, I also posted a link that rebuts ALL of your above arguments. Here it is again: 

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

As you can see, pretty much every argument commonly made by climate change skeptics is thoroughly debunked with impeccable sources. All of the examples you both have just posted are either a) anecdotal, or b) data that does not go far back enough to illustrate the overall trend
c) or the data is just plain skewed out of all context



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My  :2c: on the "scientific consensus"
> 
> Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
> 
> Attention is drawn to Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.



Several points: 

1. that paper is examining medical science, not climate science (there is a difference)

and it has been debunked itself. See below from the Wiki on the author (yes the original paper by Goodman and Greenland is cited):

"Statisticians Goodman and Greenland agreed that "many medical research findings are less definitive than readers suspect" but found major flaws in Ioannidis's methods, noting that Ioannidis (who did not collaborate with any statisticians on the article) appeared to have confused alpha level with p value and also built the assumption that most findings are likely to be false into his reasoning, thereby making his logic circular. Therefore Goodman and Greenland rejected Ioannidis' claim as unsupportable by the methods used."

2. Climate science is multidisciplinary. We are seeing data from geologists, biologists, atmospheric specialists, etc all lining up, and often independently from one another. I'll repeat.   These teams are NOT competing for the same breakthrough, which Corollary 6 is clearly referring to.


----------



## Haletown (9 Sep 2013)

Some people think if the New York Times or CBC says there wee record droughts across the USA recently then it must be true.

Other people realize journalists are for the most part clueless, challenged by numbers and prefer to re-print Greenpeace Fund Raising propaganda and pass it off as news.

Other people, who know what the PMDI is, actually go and check the data.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You can't be serious. The last two summers saw record drought in Texas and Kansas. Just because some areas had bumper crops does not mean there is  not a problem. You clearly don't understand how climate change, or even the climate works. Changes will mean life has to adapt, and that is not an easy thing. Some areas will see more rain, and some will see less. Kansas and Texas have seen far less. I could post a thousand stories about the drought in the Mid West for every one that you could find about a bumper crop.
> 
> From that Commie-climate-change-cheering rag, The Wall Street Journal:
> 
> ...



 :

All I can say, is like Chicken Little, you are running off in a panic over something that is absolutely natural.  So there is a drought in Texas and there are bumper crops somewhere else.  This is not indicative of anything other than the peculiarities of Mother Nature.  Stop trying to analyse it as indicating a Catastrophic Event.  If you were around in 1932, you would be doing much more of the same as you are doing now, if not much worse.  The Dust Bowls of the Dirty Thirties came and went and the World did not come to an end.  Get off you friggin high horse and Chive on....Put the tinfoil away and try to show some semblance of normalcy.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Some people think if the New York Times or CHC says there wee record droughts across the USA recently then it must be true.
> 
> Other people realize journalists are for the most part clueless, challenged by numbers and prefer to re-print Greenpeace Fund Raising propaganda and pass it off as news.
> 
> Other people, who know what the PMDI is, actually go and check the data.



So just so we are clear, you are saying that there hasn't been a record breaking drought in the Midwest US? 




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> All I can say, is like Chicken Little, you are running off in a panic over something that is absolutely natural.  So there is a drought in Texas and there are bumper crops somewhere else.  This is not indicative of anything other than the peculiarities of Mother Nature.  Stop trying to analyse it as indicating a Catastrophic Event.  If you were around in 1932, you would be doing much more of the same as you are doing now, if not much worse.  The Dust Bowls of the Dirty Thirties came and went and the World did not come to an end.  Get off you friggin high horse and Chive on....Put the tinfoil away and try to show some semblance of normalcy.



George, (none of what you said is actually an argument), but SCIENCE is saying this could be a catastrophic event. And I am quite confident most scientists have taken the drought from the 1930s into account. I'm not the one wearing tinfoil here. People who think climate change is the product of a socialist conspiracy, a "green" conspiracy or whatever else ARE crazy. Now you just seem to think it's not a big deal, that's not crazy, but its wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.

I fail to see how I am on a "high horse." Is that because I have the temerity to debate and use real sources? 

And as far as "normalcy" goes, I would argue "normal" is being to able look at information, look at its sources, look at who benefits from what, and make an informed decision. This thread is titled "The Global Warming Super Thread" is it not a normal thing to debate global warming here?


----------



## Dissident (10 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> . People who think climate change is the product of a socialist conspiracy, a "green" conspiracy or whatever else ARE crazy. Now you just seem to think it's not a big deal, that's not crazy, but its wishful thinking or blissful ignorance.



It was pointed out earlier in this thread that scientist are not immune to the lure of easy money (and social status) and have a vested interest in the Global Warming Theory. It is not a conspiracy, it is just a normal reaction to an incentive. (On a tangent, if you have not done so you can read "Freakonomics" on how incentives can have interesting effects on behaviors)

In five or ten years from now I want you to remember this thread, when AGW has come and passed and the enviro-alarmist discover the next great pending cataclysm.


----------



## jpjohnsn (10 Sep 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> It was pointed out earlier in this thread that scientist are not immune to the lure of easy money (and social status) and have a vested interest in the Global Warming Theory. It is not a conspiracy, it is just a normal reaction to an incentive. (On a tangent, if you have not done so you can read "Freakonomics" on how incentives can have interesting effects on behaviors)
> 
> In five or ten years from now I want you to remember this thread, when AGW has come and passed and the enviro-alarmist discover the next great pending cataclysm.


Invoking circumstantial ad hominem arguments questioning the motives of the scientists is a dead end.  The "easy money" you speak of isn't there in any kind of quantity enough to motivate all of the thousands of researchers within the hundreds of teams - more than a few of whom work for agencies within governments who are hostile to their findings - to make it worth their while.

If you are going to appeal to motive -  what about the minority of scientists who are in the employ of industries who dispute the notion of AGW or, indeed, the industries themselves who have a vested interested in protecting their profit margin?  You don't have to pay off huge groups of people, you only have to pay off (or, at least encourage a few alternate theories) to a few to sow confusion.

See how easy it is?  It's a double-edged sword since one can claim and counter-claim in ever-desceasing circles.  That's why it's considered a fallacy.


----------



## Dissident (10 Sep 2013)

That's a fair enough point, but you yourself are using a strawman's argument.

He declared that we claimed some sort of conspiracy, others pointed out (and I agree) that no Conspiracy needs to exist as the simple answer lies in the Global Warming scientific community responding, naturally, to the draw of research money and other fringe incentive.

I, for one, was not defending research or people on either side of the debate.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Sep 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> That's a fair enough point, but you yourself are using a strawman's argument.
> 
> He declared that we claimed some sort of conspiracy, others pointed out (and I agree) that no Conspiracy needs to exist as the simple answer lies in the Global Warming scientific community responding, naturally, to the draw of research money and other fringe incentive.
> 
> I, for one, was not defending research or people on either side of the debate.



NinerSix, I wasn't saying ALL "deniers" believe in a conspiracy theory. Many claim a conspiracy, others claim that the data is simply wrong (probably the weakest argument, because those who use it are rarely trained in science at all) and others claim that it's the draw of money or prestige. That argument is also false for the following reasons:

1. The biggest career boost to a scientist(s) is to publish findings that disprove a currently accepted theory. If the overwhelming majority of scientists believe climate change is a threat, and is man made, and there was data out there that showed otherwise, _it would be published and it would be the most important paper of the decade._  Just look at all the of big "discoveries" of the past century. Each one turned previous theories on their heads, and the teams involved were celebrated, received more funding and went down in history. So if 97% of scientists believe one thing, you'd better believe that someone, somewhere by now would have published a peer reviewed paper claiming the opposite _if it were possible._ The prestige would be enormous.


2. To jpjohnsn's point, follow the money. The "lure" of research money versus the money made available by the petroleum industry and other interests is not enough to sway literally thousands of institutions and research teams. Furthermore, for the data to be that skewed or incorrect across different nations, different disicplines, and different timelines you WOULD need some sort of conspiracy to achieve that level of consensus. It does not, nor can it, add up.


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

This should be a good read.  Her first book exposed the IPCC, pitched as a policy neutral scientific body, as being, in reality, heavily infiltrated by non scientist environmental activists.  Highly recommend book.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/09/laframboises-new-book-on-the-ipcc/

Ths new book is obviously timed to hit the bookstores at the same time as the IPCC Fifth Report.  


There is just so much corruption, distortion and fear mongering in the environmental industry, but after a long period of creating environmental hysteria, the message eventually wears thin on the public as they realize that no one has actually seen a piece of falling sky.  

Global Warming as a political weapon is in decline and will never recover.  The multi $billion international environmental industry went all in on what they thought was the killer app, but now they have a significant branding problem as their credibility is on the line.

It will only get worse as people realize the staggering amount of public money that has been diverted from health, education, roads and infrastructure  and spent on useless projects that pay homage to Gaia but produce no value for society.

The Green fad has peaked and wil never recover.  They will fight a hard rear guard action to preserve their lip lock on the public teat, but as debts in Western nations increase and  decisions need to be made about closing hospitals or removing subsidies for wind farms, citizens will decide what is best for them and it won't be to make wind turbine owners rich.


Such a wonderful grift, gotta give the enviros full credit for a great campaign.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Sep 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

An article by Judith Curry. The final paragraph:  



> Lomborg seems to have missed it, but a sensible debate has begun on how to best respond to global warming -- in national and local governments, universities and the private sector -- in the U.S. and around the world. There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. Lomborg is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

So you start off thinking you are saving the world from global warming and nothing could go wrong with being a do-gooder.

Oooopsie!

"Getting rid of biofuel programs would cut Europe’s food costs in half by 2020, and lower global food prices by 15 percent. That’s according to a new report, commissioned by the EU’s own Joint Research Center (JRC), released ahead of a critical European Parliament vote on Wednesday to cap biofuels’ contributions to the EU’s 2020 green targets."

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/eu-report-brussels-biofuels-poli-news-530293


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

Waaaaaaaay back in 2007, Judith Curry was still a Warmista.

She has since admitted she was wrong and has come around to being very skeptical of the whole IPCC shmozzle and most of her fellow Climatologists.

She now agrees with even denier Republicans.  No Christmas cards for her from Mann or Hansen, that's for sure.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/05/u-s-republicans-critical-thinking-on-climate-change/#more-12844


Because it is difficult staying current.


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

Australia comes to its senses and the new PM is not waiting around.

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/coalition-starts-axing-australias-carbon-bureaucrat-machinery/

"[The Australian]  PUBLIC servants are drawing up plans to collapse 33 climate change schemes run by seven departments and eight agencies into just three bodies run by two departments under a substantial rewrite of the administration of carbon abatement schemes under the Coalition."


Take note Mr. Harper.  Now if we could just Ontario to come to its senses.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Sep 2013)

You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

The AGW theory states there is a direct linear relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature.

The famous consensus of scientists says this  is true.  And a consensus cannot be wrong.

Ever.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Sep 2013)

Consensus only means general agreement. One can just as easily be wrong as right.

If everyone's thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking.
         - George S Patton


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Consensus only means general agreement. One can just as easily be wrong as right.
> 
> If everyone's thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking.
> - George S Patton



Exactly  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.



Pot calling Kettle on picking sources.....LOL!


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

CimateProgress is a very fair and unbiased (sarc/off) source of climate change information.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/13/207334/science-kiehl-ncar-paleoclimate-lessons-from-earths-hot-past/

They claim we are well on the way to more than doubling CO2 by the end of this century, which would result in a minimum 6 degree C increase in the global temperature.  

Thus speaketh the Consensus.

Meanwhile, in the real world of data, in this case satellite data, the temperature has gone up by .16 degrees C since 1979.

That is POINT 16 of a degree in the last 34 years.  

Thank goodness for all those scientists that are part of the consensus, scientists with no dog in the fight, scientists that get funded based on the perceived importance of their research, scientists who only care about telling  us what is actually happening as opposed to what their ever so precious computer models predict will happen.


----------



## Haletown (10 Sep 2013)

Many people, Lizzie May being most notable,  regularly refer to "CO2 pollution".

She will be shocked, shocked! I tell you to find out the Government of Ontario encourgaes farmers in that province to poison our food supply with massive quantities of CO2 pollution.


http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm



What is the world coming to when our governments poison our food.

I wonder if the consensus knows about this?


----------



## jpjohnsn (10 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Many people, Lizzie May being most notable,  regularly refer to "CO2 pollution".
> 
> She will be shocked, shocked! I tell you to find out the Government of Ontario encourgaes farmers in that province to poison our food supply with massive quantities of CO2 pollution.
> 
> ...


Continuum fallacies are not valid arguments.  Using the word pollution is imprecise but not completely incorrect within their argument as to the effect of excess CO2 in the environment.


----------



## armyvern (12 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You are cherry picking sources. These views are NOT representative of the vast majority of scientists. Or anyone for that matter. And you are not addressing specific arguments. If it's a question of finding and posting skeptical articles this could go on forever. Address the data, address the actual discussion.



Wait a minute!! YOU are the one who sourced her work; he just pointed out to you that she has since stated she erred with her opinion.

This -  :facepalm: - is the only facepalm icon on the site, but your gaff above is definitively worth a double facepalm and -300.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2013)

Rather interesting observation on solar activity. Solar observation has been undertaken on a scientific basis since the the time of Galileo, and the last time the Sun went "quiet" for long periods of time it coincided with perhaps the most devastating climactic change in modern history: "The Little Ice Age"

Look up Maunder Minimum

http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=11&month=09&year=2013



> *Realtime Space Weather Photo Gallery*
> 
> ALMOST-BLANK SUN: 2013 is supposed to be a year of solar maximum. Indeed, the sun's magnetic field is poised to flip, a long-held sign that Solar Max has arrived. But if this is Solar Max, it looks a lot like Solar Min. The face of the sun is almost completely blank:
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

The IPCC AR5 is coming out soon. Some good background info from Climate Audit/Steve McIntyre on the process and some key players.  Steve took the summer off so it is good to have him back in the debate.


And another post from Donna LaFramboise highlighting the 50:1 documentary.


http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/09/11/the-important-50-to-1-project/

Topher makes so much sense.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

Debate in Parliament, unfortunately not ours.

Australia has a new government and is cutting off the money going to global warming stuff.  A few days later has a debate and David Cameron will face a challenge to switch their Party plank to remove their support for the Climate Change Act (2008)

Sanity is returning.  The politicos are waking up to fact that they have been played.  The rollback has begun.  

Wonder if Lizzie May, in her quiet moments, wonders if she has hitched her political career to a dud theory?



Good exchange in the UK Parliament.    


"Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I am delighted to be one of the four remaining MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act in the previous Parliament, all of whom are in the room today. Although my hon. Friend rightly wants to chastise the Government, does he acknowledge that the Act, which has done so much to add to people’s energy bills, was actually steered through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who is now Leader of the Opposition? Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Labour party has played a huge part in increasing energy bills, and that it is no good for Labour Members to complain about fuel poverty when they have created so much of it?

David T. C. Davies: Indeed, I do agree. I am sorry that I was not a member of the famous five who voted against the Act in 2008, but I hope I will now do something to put that right. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) here, because he helped to steer the opposition to the Act at the time.

I must confess that I was one of those who accepted the arguments that were made—I supported the Act when it was passed. Of course, part 1 clearly states that the Act is open to amendment if the science changes or if significant developments in science become clear. I contend that, given what we now know about climate science, we have a strong argument for reconsidering the Act with a view to either revoking it completely or drastically amending it.

Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the Act is without doubt the most foolish piece of statute that any of us here is likely to see in Parliament? Does he further agree that the very principle of unilaterally re-embarking on a crash programme of carbon reduction can only have the effect of exporting our energy-intensive industries to places where they may emit more carbon, and that carbon reduction will have only a nugatory effect on the problem because, as he correctly states, the Chinese are increasing carbon emissions faster than we are succeeding in reducing them?

David T. C. Davies: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. He is jumping a little ahead of what I was going to say and has saved me the trouble of saying it, but he is absolutely right. It is ludicrous for us to embark on drastic reductions of carbon dioxide at huge cost to our manufacturing and other industries when nobody else will follow.

A lot has been said about how the science is settled and how anyone who denies the science is some sort of climate change denier, which is nonsense. The very last thing I want to do is to deny that the climate changes. In fact, the climate has been changing probably ever since the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago. The real deniers are those who deny that change took place before about 300 years ago.

Philip Davies: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I promise not to interrupt him again.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that although the issue used to be called “global warming”, when the globe stopped warming the fanatics changed the name to “climate change” because nobody can ever deny that the climate changes? As he has just acknowledged, the climate always changes, and by changing the name they admitted that their previous hypothesis was wrong.

David T. C. Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.

Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op): I thank the hon. Gentleman for very kindly giving way so early in his speech. I know that I will have some minutes to speak at the end of the debate, but I want to ask him this question now. Why does he believe that 97% of more than 4,000 peer-reviewed studies by climate scientists over the past two years agree, first, that climate change is happening, and secondly, that it is man-made?

David T. C. Davies: First, as I have just said, climate change is happening, just as it has always happened. Secondly, we must consider the nature of what has been suggested is going on. Carbon dioxide is a warming gas—that is a scientific fact. There has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since we started industrialising—that is also a fact. Where I beg to differ is that it is not proven that the carbon dioxide that has gone into the atmosphere is responsible for the relatively small amount of warming that has taken place since industrialisation. The total amount of warming that we are talking about is some 0.8° C; it is a very small amount in the scheme of things.

When we started to industrialise, we were coming out of a very cool period known as the little ice age; it was so cold that the Thames used to freeze over and they used to have ice fairs on it. That is part of a pattern of cooling and warming that has been going on for several thousand years. We had a warm period during Roman times, and things became cooler again during the dark ages before becoming warmer during the mediaeval warm period. The temperature then became cooler before it started warming up again.

Some of the 0.8° rise has to be down to the fact that we were going to warm up whatever happened, because we were coming out of a cool period. Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) able to tell me how much of that 0.8° rise is a result of the natural warming that should have taken place? Perhaps she could also tell me why we cannot make a straightforward correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature. If she is right, as the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere increases, temperatures ought to increase, but that is not what happened at all. We have seen increases and decreases. Temperatures went up in the first half of the last century, but after the second world war, as we industrialised and started to pour much larger amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, temperatures went down again until, in the 1970s, everyone was predicting a forthcoming ice age. Temperatures then started to increase again until about 1997. Since then there has been absolutely no increase in temperature whatsoever, and that is with all the industrialisation" going on in China and India.

More at the link

http://www.thegwpf.org/mps-attack-impact-climate-change-act-families-industry/


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wait a minute!! YOU are the one who sourced her work; he just pointed out to you that she has since stated she erred with her opinion.
> 
> This -  :facepalm: - is the only facepalm icon on the site, but your gaff above is definitively worth a double facepalm and -300.



Actually I was responding to an earlier post that featured the above author. When I say "cherrypicking", I mean that the articles being posted have also cherrypicked or skewed the data they are citing to further a specific point of view. No one has posted anything from sources even approaching the credibility of the sources I have posted. And again, in one of my earlier posts, I had a link that scientifically discounts every argument that has been made on this thread before or since. And yet the solar activity theory has just reared its head again. This isn't a discussion if people aren't reading the actual sources.

Thanks for coming out though, and thanks for the "mil point" "penalty"  :. And the face palm. 

Here is that link again for your reading pleasure:

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Actually I was responding to an earlier post that featured the above author. When I say "cherrypicking", I mean that the articles being posted have also cherrypicked or skewed the data they are citing to further a specific point of view. No one has posted anything from sources even approaching the credibility of the sources I have posted. And again, in one of my earlier posts, I had a link that scientifically discounts every argument that has been made on this thread before or since. And yet the solar activity theory has just reared its head again. This isn't a discussion if people aren't reading the actual sources.



Seriously?  And you haven't been "Cherrypicking"? 

As for discussion, people are just as entitled to "cherrypick" their points as you are.   If they find fault with your sources, why is it that you accuse them of using falsified or imperfect research, yet will not admit that yours may be just as faulty.  Our discussions with you are equal to talking to a brick wall.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

No, you are the brick wall. You do not address specific arguments, and the sources you use are largely from opinion based websites. None of them stand up to academic muster which I would argue should the standard in any debate. If people can use discredited sources as evidence, or somehow opinion pieces and blog posts count the same as NASA, this debate is no longer a debate.

Again, I am addressing arguments that you are actually making, and rebutting them with evidence. If you can't acknowledge the sources I am citing YOU are the brick wall. Because in the face of scientific evidence you clinging to belief. Which is the root of this debate, and now that we are here there is no point in continuing.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Sep 2013)

NASA said what?

www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/


----------



## Journeyman (12 Sep 2013)

> www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/
> 
> The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.


I doubt it.

My 'research' suggests that the mindless   :argument:   will continue unabated.    :boring:


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

Pfft, James Taylor works for the Heartland Institute. 



> The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.


'

According to who, the author?

Journeyman I agree the debate will continue on this site, and but in the real world, amongst trained scientists, there is no debate. That has been the mission of the petroleum industry. To muddy the waters just enough so that the general public perceives that there is doubt. And from some of the opinions on this site, mission accomplished.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Sep 2013)

No warming for 15 years...

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2398753/Why-HAS-global-warming-slowed-Scientists-admit-dont-know-why.html


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

Again, The Daily Mail has been caught several times fudging data and is well known for its ideological opposition to the idea of climate change. Notice how the institutions whose data the article is citing have NOT changed their minds. I very much doubt that the Daily Mail employs specialists who are more qualifed at interpreting data and drawing conclusions than the Met or NASA.


----------



## Sub_Guy (12 Sep 2013)

You really are on the ball Kilo.

As it has been stated over and over, no one is looking to change anyone's mind, but there is a wealth of data out there, and at the end of the day we don't know as much as we think we do about our own planet.

It is very hard to throw my hat behind the "consensus" when I have been hearing nothing but doom and gloom for almost 20 years.  Yet there always seems to be an excuse why it isn't happening the way it is supposed to (according to computer modelling)

Glaciers are melting, and will continue to do so, because they have been melting since the last ice age, which is a fact.   I am sitting in an area that was once covered in thick ice, but now I am in shorts, that too is a fact.
Climate change is always going on, the earth is always changing.  What's next, installing some sort of device to prevent the tectonic plates from shifting?


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

I have only just skimmed this yet,

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/Dealing%20in%20Doubt%202013%20-%20Greenpeace%20report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20Denial%20Machine.pdf


. . . but it has a degree of desperate, knowing they are losing  odour  about it.  Same old, same old smears, distortions and consensus is science arguments.

Greenpeace is very good at PR so this might just be preemptive strike because they know they are losing the argument about the Pause and the press is starting to work against them.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Glaciers are melting, and will continue to do so, because they have been melting since the last ice age, which is a fact.   I am sitting in an area that was once covered in thick ice, but now I am in shorts, that too is a fact.
> Climate change is always going on, the earth is always changing.  What's next, installing some sort of device to prevent the tectonic plates from shifting?



Probably about 10,000ft deep in ice.  About a year ago I was doing some work with university Co--Op students. One was a global warming devotee and we chatted a few times about what was happening.  I told him about the glacial history and how the Canadian geomorphological landscape happened.

Wouldn't believe me.  He had been well educated to understand, to believe that our climate has been generally stable and consistent and that it is only recently that man made CO2 is the sole cause of current climate fluctuations. Fluctuations, AKA climate change is caused by CO2.  

Our public education system chose to teach him from a very selective and non inclusive knowledge base of the history of Earth's climate. They were not educating, they were delivering the message of a cause they believed in.  They wanted to him to come to a narrow, biased set of beliefs and opinions and not to be taught anything that did not support their beliefs and cause.

I could not dissuade him from his beliefs but did leave him a link for an online Intro Geomorph course he could look at.

He probably has not changed his mind but I think I torqued his cognitive dissonance level enough to put  a dent in his beliefs.

Some people just take longer to go with facts and data instead of beliefs.

Life is a series of lessons.
Lessons will be repeated until learned.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

Haletown, you just posted a paper that proves you wrong and has citations and data to back it up!



> but it has a degree of desperate, knowing they are losing  odour  about it.  Same old, same old smears, distortions and consensus is science arguments.
> 
> Greenpeace is very good at PR so this might just be preemptive strike because they know they are losing the argument about the Pause and the press is starting to work against them.



So prove that it's full of smears, distortions etc. There's facts and figures in there. You're just blowing hot air at this point.  TRY and prove anything in that report wrong.



> Some people just take longer to go with facts and data instead of beliefs.



Again, are you including that giant list of respected scientific institutions that I posted a while back in this group of "some people?" They are all wrong? They are all blindly following beliefs? These are the world's best, and you think YOU know better? That's supremely arrogant. Tragically arrogant. It's madness. You might as well believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories.



> Our public education system chose to teach him from a very selective and non inclusive knowledge base of the history of Earth's climate. They were not educating, they were delivering the message of a cause they believed in.  They wanted to him to come to a narrow, biased set of beliefs and opinions and not to be taught anything that did not support their beliefs and cause.



As I have demonstrated several times, it is the deniers who selectively use data. Serious climatologists understand the climate shifts without human input. Was this fellow you speak about unaware of the last ice age? I can't believe that. Of course the climate naturally shifts, but as recent data has shown, the shift is happening more rapidly and it's directly correlated to human activity.



 TRY and prove anything in that report wrong.


----------



## Scott (12 Sep 2013)

I'm getting sick of seeing one dude all over this thread telling everyone else how wrong they are. Others are starting to get tired of it as well, judging by the  feedback I am seeing.

Kilo, take a time out. Serious. Not an admin action, just saying - walk away for a while.

Scott
Staff


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

Ahh remember the good old days whe the consensus was that the Earth was flat, or the Sun revolved around Earth, geologists were nuts for postulating Plate Tectonics or physicians believed ulcers were caused by stress ?

They were the good old days, when consensus proved everyone wrong.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> I'm getting sick of seeing one dude all over this thread telling everyone else how wrong they are. Others are starting to get tired of it as well, judging by the  feedback I am seeing.
> 
> Kilo, take a time out. Serious. Not an admin action, just saying - walk away for a while.
> 
> ...



Well that's the risk people run when they use flawed data from laughable sources and are well, just plain wrong. No sense in trying to draw water from a stone however. Walking away. I would add that I have received a few PMs from members who were more than glad to see someone successfully argue for the truth.

Another discussion heroically halted by another kind of "consensus" huh?

Cheers.


----------



## jpjohnsn (12 Sep 2013)

Scott said:
			
		

> I'm getting sick of seeing one dude all over this thread telling everyone else how wrong they are. Others are starting to get tired of it as well, judging by the  feedback I am seeing.
> 
> Kilo, take a time out. Serious. Not an admin action, just saying - walk away for a while.
> 
> ...


Well, if you are looking for feedback, I'm far from sick of Kilo's posts.  If it seems it's one guy, alone, it's because there's nothing that needs adding to his posts - he's pretty much spot on. 

For future reference, how does one debate those who oppose AGW without saying that they their view is wrong?


----------



## OldTanker (12 Sep 2013)

And I concur with jpjohnson. I get the sense that if you don't agree with the pack, the pack chases you away. Frankly, I see lots of merit in Kilo's posts.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Sep 2013)

I have no dog in this fight.  I don't think the issue is Kilo's posts.  I think the issue is, is that Kilo just continually "pooh poohs" all opposing posts by accusing people of "cherry picking" or saying they are not from valid sources.  

Case in point: 





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's the risk people run when they use flawed data from laughable sources and are well, just plain wrong.



If you want to debate, then debate.  But saying "I'm right and you're wrong" isn't debating.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Scott (12 Sep 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't think the issue is Kilo's posts.  I think the issue is, is that Kilo just continually "pooh poohs" all opposing posts by accusing people of "cherry picking" or saying they are not from valid sources.
> 
> Case in point:
> If you want to debate, then debate.  But saying "I'm right and you're wrong" isn't debating.
> ...



Exactly what I was getting at, thanks.


----------



## Scott (12 Sep 2013)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> And I concur with jpjohnson. I get the sense that if you don't agree with the pack, the pack chases you away. Frankly, I see lots of merit in Kilo's posts.



Wrong. I respond to  person's tone in their posts, as was pointed out to me. I have no dog in this fight either and would far prefer to ignore this thread. 



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's the risk people run when they use flawed data from laughable sources and are well, just plain wrong. No sense in trying to draw water from a stone however. Walking away. I would add that I have received a few PMs from members who were more than glad to see someone successfully argue for the truth.
> 
> Another discussion heroically halted by another kind of "consensus" huh?
> 
> Cheers.



Kilo, martyr yourself all you want, or act like a dick all you want. There are many getting tired of your attitude, that's what I came in here about. You want to walk away, fine, that's your decision. Much of this here is "how" you say something, nothing to do with which group you belong to. But keep beating that drum all you like, I'll listen less and less.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

If anyone has been offended by my tone I sincerely apologize. However when I have in the past taken issue with others' tones toward me I have been told I have "thin skin." It seems you can't win if you disagree. For the record from here on in I will try to be more civil. But I will others to the same standard.


----------



## Scott (12 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If anyone has been offended by my tone I sincerely apologize. However when I have in the past taken issue with others' tones toward me I have been told I have "thin skin." It seems you can't win if you disagree. For the record from here on in I will try to be more civil. But I will others to the same standard.



I am speaking about *you* and *your posts* right now. Please do not deflect.

If you have issues with something someone posts then report it, like everyone else is encouraged to.

Now, if you want to get back to discussing the topic at hand. Nicely.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I have no dog in this fight.  I don't think the issue is Kilo's posts.  I think the issue is, is that Kilo just continually "pooh poohs" all opposing posts by accusing people of "cherry picking" or saying they are not from valid sources.
> 
> Case in point:
> If you want to debate, then debate.  But saying "I'm right and you're wrong" isn't debating.
> ...





I disagree. While I could have worded it more appropriately, this discussion IS about sources. I would point out that my sources are all either primary academic sources or articles that reference primary sources. The "opposing side's" sources are not nearly as valid. If we cannot discuss sources then the discussion cannot happen.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If we cannot discuss sources then the discussion cannot happen.



But I thought the science was settled. Hardly a valid starting point for a discussion.


----------



## cavalryman (12 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree. While I could have worded it more appropriately, this discussion IS about sources. I would point out that my sources are all either primary academic sources or articles that reference primary sources. The "opposing side's" sources are not nearly as valid. If we cannot discuss sources then the discussion cannot happen.



Is there a point in having a discussion with you if you dismiss the validity of sources you disagree with right off the bat?   True scientific debate is humble before humanity's ignorance.  Not arrogant and it is the arrogance of the climate alarmists that causes many thoughtful people to question the assertions put forth.  In relation to this your earlier post where you state that the correlation of human activity to climate change is proven, I'd just point out that you make the layman's mistake of equating correlation to causation. While the correlation may be significant enough to warrant investigation, no one has of yet provided scientific evidence of causation.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

An excellent source, which apparently is important.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf

117 predictions - three were sort of accurate and the other 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

The predictions are made by climate models and the consensus believes they are valid models.

Models say global warming is rapidly warming the planet's atmosphere.
Data says the planet's atmosphere is barely warming at all.
Gradually belief in the faux reality of computer models gets replaced by actual reality.

Just takes time.


----------



## Haletown (12 Sep 2013)

Another really good source, the IPCC!  The voice of the consensus, the best source for the best scientific projections.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif

Blink graph . . .  It builds a nice picture.  Even includes the ex post facto "adjustments" made to earlier predictions.


----------



## Haletown (15 Sep 2013)

Judith Curry (2013) comments on the leaks of the IPCC AR5 to "friendly" journalists.  She observes they have increased their certainty levels while admitting they can't explain what they were so wrong in their predictions.

Go figure.  The science is not settled as we have heard so many times as the reason to make public policies to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/15/leaked-ipcc-report-discussed-in-the-msm/#more-12988.


What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’

What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.


What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly  (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’

What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion  of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and  its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement  is highly questionable.


What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’

What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is  real, it admits that its climate models  totally failed to predict it.


What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’

What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is  real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.


What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’

What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.

What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast  to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’

What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.


What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’

What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.


----------



## FJAG (15 Sep 2013)

Further article discussing the upcoming IPCC report which will drastically revise the rate of global warming downward;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

 :cold:


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2013)

What was it I said about consensus?


----------



## Haletown (15 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What was it I said about consensus?




99.9% of scientists used to have a consensus that the Earth was flat?


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2013)

I did say that, but I was thinking more along these lines:



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Consensus only means general agreement. One can just as easily be wrong as right.


----------



## Haletown (16 Sep 2013)

The cost of  CO2 hobgoblins and green genies . . . .    

“(Reuters) – Germany’s transition to renewable energy may cost up to 1 trillion euros ($1.34 trillion) in the next two decades, the environment minister said on Wednesday, piling pressure on his opponents to back plans to cap power price rises before the election.

With an eye on the September vote, Peter Altmaier, one of conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel’s most trusted ministers, has outlined plans to rein in subsidies for renewable power which have pushed up consumers’ electricity bills.

However, his plans may be doomed as the opposition Social Democrats (SPD) and Greens have reservations and could block legislation in the Bundesrat upper house.

“The costs of our energy reform and restructuring of energy provision could amount to around 1 trillion euros by the end of the 2030s,” Altmaier told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.”



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/20/us-germany-energy-idUSBRE91J0AV20130220


----------



## FJAG (16 Sep 2013)

I've found a new term that describes me well; "Climate Change Agnostic". 

_Like anyone else, there are things I’m qualified to speak on with some authority, but most things are outside my field of expertise. One thing I’m certainly not qualified to judge is whether the Earth is gradually getting warmer, and if it is, whether mankind is responsible. I just don’t have the educational tools and breadth of experience to make an informed judgment there, and the overwhelming majority of humanity is going to be in the same boat. Call us the climate change agnostics — our minds are open, but we’re not sold yet.  ... Matt Gurney, National Post_

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/matt-gurney-climate-scientists-it-wont-matter-if-youre-right-in-the-end-if-no-one-believes-you/

Matt makes good points and doesn't even go so far as to say that while the upcoming IPCC report acknowledges a significant step back from its projected data, their conclusions remain as alarmist as ever without explaining why that is so considering the new data.

I'll add one further point: Until they make their rationale clear, we shouldn't spend one nickel on numerous esoteric concepts such as carbon credits.


----------



## GDawg (17 Sep 2013)

Ocean acidification is a wee bit harder to deny than 'global warming'.



> Ocean acidification, the lesser-known twin of climate change, threatens to scramble marine life on a scale almost too big to fathom.



http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/


----------



## Scott (17 Sep 2013)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Ocean acidification is a wee bit harder to deny than 'global warming'.
> 
> http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/



All those melting ice caps will balance the acid. Dude, problem solved.


----------



## ArmyRick (18 Sep 2013)

Again and again, face the facts people. There is serious global climate disruptions and environmental damages. End story. All this blither and blather about "we once thought the earth was flat.." 

Guess what? Allan Savory brought that one up in one of his presentations. Lets do a paradigm shift here. How about all you people in denial that there is nothing wrong with MANs impact on the earth are the ones that have "the world is flat" mindset. Its you people that will hopefully wake up one day and see things for what they are.

I have stated these things before and I will re-emphasize them here again (my beliefs)
-People choose to believe what they want to (not what really is in front of them)
-We, mankind, must first acknowledge the problem (its really one problem at a whole, MANs negative impact on the earth)
-We do not need to PANIC and over react or make knee jerk reactions. We need very well thought out solutions that will work for a sustainable future and these solutions can be implemented in a short, medium and long term basis
-There is corporate and other interest in NOT changing things for the better (As an example how long did Tobacco companies ignore or deny that cigarettes were damaging to people's health? I am sure there are loads of Petrol, Industrial agriculture, manufacturing, large scale fishing that do not want to change)

Deny our impact? Hurt your grandchildren and their children.


----------



## Jed (18 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Deny our impact? Hurt your grandchildren and their children.



Tough times make tough people.  8)


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Deny our impact? Hurt your grandchildren and their children.



I don't deny our impact, I dispute the extent that climate alarmists claim. That being said, I refuse to sit in my cold, dark house in a -40 Winnipeg winter because some self righteous tw*t in California says it's good for the planet.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't deny our impact, I dispute the extent that climate alarmists claim. That being said, I refuse to sit in my cold, dark house in a -40 Winnipeg winter because some self righteous tw*t in California says it's good for the planet.


Exactly.  I have no doubt that the climate, writ large, is changing.  I _do_ have doubts as to how much panicking is required.

Right now, I'm very much in the "don't care" camp.  

Fortunately, there appears to be lots of folks willing to wring their hands and gnash their teeth on my behalf.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Deny our impact? Hurt your grandchildren and their children.



Here is the problem. 

Canada and its emissions could disappear off the face off the planet, and nothing will change, that is a hard fact.  If we are impacting climate change, then the huge emitters have to cut back (USA, China, India, etc), the smaller countries are just along for the ride.

Most of our energy already comes from green sources anyway, combine that with the size of our forests we probably could be considered a carbon neutral country.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2013)

Global warming will end life on earth (but don't panic, you've got 3.5bn years left!)

    University of East Anglia scientists predict the Sun will wipe out all life on the planet
    The celestial body will heat up so much that Earth will no longer be the right temperature to support life
    But current 'goldilocks' conditions will last for at least another 1.75bn years

By Fiona Macrae Science Correspondent  18 September 2013
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2424741/Global-warming-end-life-earth-dont-panic-youve-got-3-5bn-years-left.html

The end of the world is not nigh. Life will thrive on Earth for at least another 1.75billion years and perhaps as many as 3.5billion.

Beyond then, the Sun will have become so hot that nothing will be able to survive, scientists believe.

Ever since it was formed our planet has been at just the right distance from the Sun to make it habitable.

Being in this ‘Goldilocks’ zone has allowed oceans to develop in temperatures neither too hot to boil the water away, or too cold to freeze it into permanent ice.

The problem is, however, that stars become hotter over time, ensuring that the habitable period cannot last.

As the stars emit more heat, any surface water on nearby planets dries up and without water nothing can survive.

At this point, the Earth will have ‘moved’ out of the habitable zone even though its position will be exactly the same.

The prediction comes from experts at the University of East Anglia, who believe the world can expect between 6.3billion and 7.8billion years of ‘Goldilocks’ conditions from its birth around 4.55billion years ago. 

That means there can only be 1.75billion to 3.5billion years of life left. Andrew Rushby, a researcher at the university, said: ‘After this point, the Earth would be in the hot zone of the Sun, with temperatures so high that the seas would evaporate.
more on link


----------



## Haletown (19 Sep 2013)

Meanwhile, in Australia . . .


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (19 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Again and again, face the facts people. There is serious global climate disruptions and environmental damages. End story. All this blither and blather about "we once thought the earth was flat.."
> 
> Guess what? Allan Savory brought that one up in one of his presentations. Lets do a paradigm shift here. How about all you people in denial that there is nothing wrong with MANs impact on the earth are the ones that have "the world is flat" mindset. Its you people that will hopefully wake up one day and see things for what they are.
> 
> ...




Excuse me there Oh High & Mighty One, but I think you're way off....

If you've read some of the commentary here from the skeptics, it's not "Oh, we don't want to spend money on environmental issues."  

It's "Global Warming is a giant scam and a tremendous waste of funds that could be used for better things."

So ask me if I want to spend a $1 billion per annum on bird-chopping windmills and CO2 credits to China or if I'd like it to go to habitat preservation and waste water treatment and you'll get my response any time.

On top of that, I'm actually okay if we increase environmental spending.

I just don't want it to go to some of these big conglomerates who are also responsible for bulldozing rainforests so they can build "renewable bio diesel" plantations and the massive of expansion of GMO food without proper testing.

So before you try to paint all of us skeptics with such a wide and evil brush, you better be sure to listen to what we're arguing for and against.  



Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2013)

:goodpost:


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Sep 2013)

Allow me to add a little fuel to the fire:


Efficient lighting equals higher heat bills: study

The original study (PDF file)
Benchmarking of energy savings associated with energy efficient lighting in houses


----------



## ArmyRick (20 Sep 2013)

Wind Turbines? Don't agree. 100% against them. NOT ONCE DID I PROMOTE THEM.

Carbon Credits? Absolutely useless. Basically permission to be destructive if you have enough money. NOT ONCE DID I PROMOTE THEM.

Yes, Canada could eliminate all of its combustion engines and other carbon source engines and not put but a tiny dent in the world of carbon emissions. However, auto and engine emissions are not even at the top of the dirty list.

I also, time and time again, say gradual changes. I also said, first step is acknowledging the problem. So what are the things I would like to see done?
-Clean up and stop "chemical" cropping in Agriculture. Its very expensive, destructive and causes massive carbon loss. Phase in better alternatives over a 10-30 year period (Canada has some very massive farms)
-Clean up and stop Concentrated Animal feed operations in Agriculture. Its very polluting, extremely hard on animals and again, lots of nasty pollution. Some of you have read about my farm work (there are more and more of us popping up). 
-Reduce or eliminate the subsidies for large scale farm operations as mentioned in the first two. That would be a riot! No one would pay $12 a pound for feedlot hamburger and $4 for chemical tomato. 
-Encourage new technologies such as hybrid engines or more electric cars. Maybe even government tax break for doing so. 
-Encourage more aggressive use of solar power. The sun shines every day and its a simple and easy way to harness energy. Again, there should be tax breaks for doing so.
-Get rid of wind turbines. Google it and you will find a massive list of not good things about wind turbines. We have plenty in my neighbourhood and nobody wants them
-Clear cut patches of massive dense over grown forest in this country. What the hell are you on, Rick? Wait for it. Harvest the wood for useful stuff, leave firebreaks and then when major forest fires breakout, hopefully reduce spread of forest fire. A major forest fire puts HUGE amounts of carbon. If we thin out the forest or leave open trails, could slow down the spread of fire. Not to mention, allow hunters, trappers, snowmobilers, etc a trail through these woods or even allow some savanah grasslands in the thick forest. Maybe get large herds of elk and bison to maintain them. Hunters like this idea? Remember dense thick grassland sequesters carbon back to the soil.
-Discourage large scale fishing operations or encourage sustainable fish farming operations with complete built in mini-eco systems

Thats just a few ideas right there. There are loads of them. You think I am on some sort of high and mighty moral mountain? Sorry, I am a very humble man. However I am always been well known, in military and civilian life, for acknowledging the problem at hand. Note my previous post, we do not need to panic, over react or make knee jerk reactions. We need good minds to come up with long term solutions. And there is probably $$$ to made in doing so.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Sep 2013)

ArmyRick,

You railed against everyone who was a Global Warming Skeptic as flat-earth proponents and basically painted us all as 'bad guys'.

If that is not your position and you are open to those of who question the net benefit of "Global Warming Policies" such as carbon credits to China, wind turbines, etc. in contrast to re-allocation to a "Clean Lakes & Rivers" program, a dramatic increase in the amount of protected green space both urban and rural, and expansion of Provincial & National Parks, etc. then I think you need to re-state your position....because your opening rant which I replied to sounded NOTHING like that.


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2013)

The IPCC is finally forced to admit the obvious, but cannot explain what is happening or why. This is ironic since they were able to "explain" every climate and weather anomily when the claim was the temperature was rising; obviously the science is not settled, and I would welcome some real climate science so stupit s**t like the global warming alarmism does not happen again and we can start to understand what is _really_ going on. Sadly, the alarmists have probably damaged the credibility of climactic studies for a generation.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/the-climate-change-report-will-confirm.html#more



> *The Climate change report will confirm that the rate of warming has slowed or been flat since 1998*
> 
> Climatologists and climate-change deniers agree on at least one thing this week: everyone is awaiting the landmark U.N. report on climate change that will be presented at next week's meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (24 Sep 2013)

Don't you just love the comforting, supportive environmentalist community....... :

Jail leaders who question climate change: Suzuki
September 24, 2013 13:03
Video Link

In an interview in Australia, David Suzuki said that politicians who deny climate change chould be jailed for criminal negligence.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Sep 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Don't you just love the comforting, supportive environmentalist community....... :


Only varying in degree from the 2 or 3 "I'm right and everyone else is an idiot" Army.ca poster.   :boring:



I guess they're not happy with Margaret Wendt's _Globe & Mail_ post today.....


> A funny thing happened since that blockbuster UN report in 2007 called for urgent action on global warming. The world stopped warming up.
> 
> This fact is a monumental PR headache for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is set to issue the first part of its next report on Friday. It’s hard to call for urgent action when nothing much is happening.


Rest of comment at link


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2013)

St David of Suzuki reveals his true worth as a "scientist" who supports and promots the "consensus": he has no idea of what he is talking about. I suspect that the thousands of "scientists" who signed on to say the support the consensus are equally ignorant of the actual facts, and since science is all about examining the facts and using them to make and test hypothesis against the real world, most of these people deserve to be stripped of their ability to call themselves scientists anymore:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/david_suzuki_proves_hes_pig_ignorant_about_global_warming/



> *David Suzuki proves he’s pig ignorant about global warming*
> 
> Andrew Bolt
> SEPTEMBER 24 2013
> ...



Best part about the Internet age: this sort of evidence stays around forever, so the next time St David opens his mouth....


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Sep 2013)




----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2013)

Really? Who's using a strawman now?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Sep 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

>



Seriously? That's your argument?

 :rofl:


Talk about the desperation of hoping the sinking ship will get you to the shore :


----------



## Haletown (27 Sep 2013)

AR5 SPM . . .   The Coles notes version.

"Ross McKitrick says:
September 27, 2013 at 5:32 am
SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/reactions-to-ipcc-ar5-summary-for-policy-makers/#more-94762


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Sep 2013)

Here's another series of arguments debunking the typical denial claims, many of which have been posted on this thread:

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc

"The IPCC's leaked draft report says scientists have "low confidence" in their understanding of what's going on with Antarctic sea ice. It also predicts, with "low confidence," that this ice too will decline by the end of the century. In other words: Antarctica is complicated, remote, and little understood.

All of which, incidentally, highlights why you should trust scientists on climate change: They know what they don't know and are honest about it, as the Antarctica case shows. That's why, when they express 95 percent confidence that humans are driving global warming (in the same report that confesses a relative lack of understanding of what's happening with Antarctic sea ice), it is worth paying attention."


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Sep 2013)

This thread is one of the saddest on this site.  I can't think of a single prominent scientist still in the denial camp. Even the guys working for the Heartland Institute have quit and jumped ship. No one with an academic background disputes this anymore. Only the USA is in denial of climate change. This tiny echo chamber is becoming more shrill as more and more people file out to join the scientific consensus. 

Good luck staying immune to facts forever.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report

 It's still our fault
Sep 27th 2013, 10:40 by J.P. | STOCKHOLM

IT HAS been a long time coming. But then the fifth assessment of the state of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body, was a behemoth of an undertaking. It runs to thousands of pages, involved hundreds of scientists and was exhaustively checked and triple-checked by hundredds of other boffins and government officials to whom they report—and whose policies are often based on what they read. The first tranche of the multi-volume report—an executive summary of the physical science—was released in Stockholm on September 27th. And it is categorical in its conclusion: climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause.

It may be the last report of its kind: a growing chorus of experts thinks a more frequent, less bally-hooed and more up-to-date assessments would be more useful. It is certainly the first since negotiations for a global treaty reining in carbon emissions collapsed in Copenhagen in 2009; the first since questions were raised about the integrity of the IPCC itself following mistaken claims about the speed of glacier melt in the Himalayas and, most important, the first since evidence became incontrovertible that global surface air temperatures have risen much less quickly in the past 15 years than the IPCC had expected. A lot is riding on its findings, from the public credibility of climate science to the chances of a new global treaty.

The report is more definitive than in the past about the role of people in causing climate change. It say that it is "extremely likely"—IPCC speak for having a probability of over 95%—that man is responsible. This contrasts with the tentative tone of the early IPCC reports. “The observed increase [in surface air temperatures] could be largely due to this natural variability,” said the first one, in 1990. The next report in 1995 merely suggested a link between rising temperatures and human activity. That link was deemed “likely” (which means probability of 66%) in 2001, and “very likely” (90%) in 2007.

The latest iteration identifies radiative forcing, the difference between the amount of heat coming into the climate and the amount reflected back, as the immediate cause of warming. Radiative forcing is expressed in watts per square metre (W/m2), a unit of energy. A rise indicates that heat is building up in the system.

Total radiative forcing from man-made sources since 1750 (ie, before industrialisation) has risen from 0.29-0.85W/m2 in 1950 to 0.64-1.86W/m2 in 1980 to 1.13-3.33W/m2 in 2011. The average has jumped from 0.57 to 1.25 to 2.29, respectively—a four-fold increase in 60 years. The big change recently, the report points out, is that the cooling effect of aerosols seems to have been less strong than it used to be. But there is no sign that the rise in radiative forcing has slowed during the past 15 years of flat surface temperatures. The best estimate for total man-made radiative forcing in 2011 is 43% above 2005 levels.

Of course, more heat does not necessarily equal perceptible climate change. The IPCC admits the pause in the rise of surface air temperatures is real. “The rate of warming over the past 15 years,” it says, “[is] 0.05ºC per decade...smaller than the rate calculated since 1951.” In its 2007 report the panel had said the rate of warming was 0.2ºC per decade in 1990-2005 (four times the current rate). It predicted that this would continue for the next two decades.

But it plays down the long-term significance of the shift, saying that “due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.” The start of the recent 15-year trend, in 1998, was a year of a strong worldwide fluctutation in the climate known as El Niño. This produced a temperature spike.

Still, all the extra heat implied by higher radiative forcing has to go somewhere. It isn’t going into the air. It is possible that not all that much is going into the surface waters of the oceans, either. The report says that “it is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0-700 metres increased more slowly during 2003-2010 than during 1993-2002.” That only leaves one other heat sink: the deep oceans below 700 metres, where it could be locked up in the deep oceans without affecting other parts of the climate.

And indeed, most of the extra heat does go into the oceans, which is not surprising given that they cover two thirds of Earth’s surface and have a much greater capacity to absorb heat than the air does. “Ocean warming,” the report says, “is largest near the surface and the upper 75 metres warmed by 0.11ºC per decade over the period 1971-2010.” It adds that more than 60% of the net energy increase in the climate system is stored in the upper ocean (0-700 metres)...and about 30% is stored in the ocean below 700 metres.

In fact, vasty deeps are a plausible candidate to explain the pause in surface air temperatures. The trouble is that measurements deep down, while improving, remain patchy. The IPCC says that it is likely that the ocean warmed from 3,000 metres to the bottom in 1992-2005 and that heat will penetrate from the surface down. Moreover, in a report earlier this month in Nature (published too late to make it into the IPCC report), Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, in San Diego, suggests that a cooling trend in an area of the eastern equatorial Pacific ocean may be “the cause of the pause”. But at the moment, this conclusion remains tentative.

Global warming is, then, continuing unabated in the watery world. It is not clear whether the trend itself has changed dramatically since 1990 or whether the rise is due to improved measurements, which have enabled scientists to gauge more exactly what has been going on. Probably the latter. The new assessment says that, since the fourth report in 2007, "instrumental biases in upper-ocean temperature records have been identified and reduced, enhancing confidence in the assessment of change."

Either way, the trend is worrying. Since water, like almost everything else, expands as it gets hotter, its rising temperature causes sea levels to rise. It is "very likely", the report adds, “that the mean rate of global averaged sea level rise was 1.7mm a year between 1901 and 2010, 2.0mm a year between 1971 and 2010 and 3.2mm a year between 1993 and 2010.” The rate of sea-level rise all but doubled between the start of the 20th century and its end. That is a significant change and one that the first IPCC assessment report in 1990 had little inkling of. That report reckoned that “the average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1.0-2.0 mm a year. There is no firm evidence of acceleration in sea level rise during this century.” The rate is now thought to be higher—and growing.

New instruments are providing better information about the rate at which ice sheets and glaciers are melting, too. In particular, the launch of the twin GRACE satellites has provided more detail about how much ice there actually is. GRACE, which stands for Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, enables the mass of objects on Earth to be worked out more precisely by measuring tiny changes in their gravitation pull. The report says that “the average rate of ice loss from glaciers around the world, excluding glaciers on the periphery of the ice sheets, was very likely 226Gt [trillion tonnes] a year over the period 1971-2009 and very likely 275Gt a year over the period 1993-2009.”

In other words, it has speeded up. The Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic sea ice and the Arctic sea ice have all lost mass (got thinner). The extent of the Arctic sea ice has shrunk by 3.5-4.1% a decade in 1979-2012, more than was estimated in 2007, and the summer sea-ice minimum is shrinking by about 10% a decade, though this year’s summer ice melt was smaller than last year’s.

What does that mean for the future? The report uses four new sets of scenarios for greenhouse-gas concentrations to claim that “global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5ºC relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2ºC for the two high scenarios.” The 2ºC mark is widely considered to be the dividing line between warming which is just about tolerable and that which is dangerous.

For the first time, the IPCC gives some credence to the possibility that Earth’s climate may not be responding to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases quite as sharply as was once thought. The response is referred to as “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and defined as the rise in surface temperatures in the long term which accompanies a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. In its previous report, the IPCC put this at between 2ºC and 4.5 ºC, with a most likely figure of 3ºC. But recent work, partly influenced by the pause in temperatures, has suggested sensitivity might be somewhat lower. The IPCC’s new range of 1.5-4.5ºC (the same as in its first report) reflects the new consensus (though some new research puts the upper bound of sensitivity below 4.5ºC).

The IPCC also decided to scrap its central “best guess”. Perhaps this is meant to reflect uncertainty in the science. If so, some scientists argue, then perhaps it should not have increased its confidence that man is the main cause of global warming.

In theory, a lower climate sensitivity means temperatures would rise more slowly for any given amount of extra radiative forcing. Earth might hence have a little more time to adjust to a changing climate. But whether such breathing space actually exists depends on how many tonnes of greenhouse gases people are putting into the atmosphere. So, for the first time, the IPCC has set what is usually called a carbon budget. To have a two-thirds chance of keeping global warming below 2ºC, it says, “will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay between 0 and about 1,000 [trillion tonnes]”.

The world has already blown through just over half that amount (531 trillion tonnes) by 2011. At current rates of greenhouse-gas emission, the rest of the budget will have been spent before 2040. The odds of keeping the eventual rise in global temperatures to below 2ºC will lengthen—even if climate sensitivity is lower than was thought and even if the pause in surface air temperatures persists for a while. As Thomas Stocker, the co-chair of the report depressingly put it: “we are committed to climate change…for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.”


----------



## FJAG (27 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> All of which, incidentally, highlights why you should trust scientists on climate change: They know what they don't know and are honest about it . . .



Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.

Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.

When it comes to honesty in science I have only one criteria. Scientists should never express their conclusions in absolute terms when the evidence is equivocal. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny that there are human generated greenhouse emissions which play a part in global warming. Where I see the problem is that there are many factors and effects that the band wagon scientists cannot explain (such as Antarctic ice recovery, lack of increased hurricanes, declining temperature rise in the face of increased CO2 levels and basically why their 2007 award winning computer models didn't work). The fact of the matter is that there has been climate change long before humans emitted greenhouse gases.

I say this half facetiously but the whole Climate Change rhetoric reminds me of the religious concept of "Intelligent Design". In Intelligent Design every time that a scientist cannot establish a clear link of evolutionary progression, the proponents say well that's clear proof of an intervention by an intelligent creator. Same for Global Warming. Any time its proponents can't find a clear scientific explanation for a warming trend, its written off as a result of human induced greenhouse gases. My hope is that there will now be more concerted study of the various anomalies recorded in the data and we can get on with "honest" scientists studying just what is really going on without all the scaremongering.

 :stirpot:

[url}http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/26/9000-nobel-pretenders/[/url]


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.
> 
> Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.
> 
> ...




That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know else does?


----------



## Jed (27 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Back in 2007 the Nobel committee awarded a shared Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the IPCC re climate change. IPCC's chairman wrote to IPCC affiliated academics that this "makes each of you Nobel Laureates." There were some 9,000 contributors to the report. Many of these individuals now refer to themselves, or allow themselves to be referred to as "Nobel Laureates. Several years later the Nobel committee made it clear that only IPCC as an organization had received the prize and not any individual. The IPCC posted a disclaimer on its web site that it was incorrect for any one official or scientist who worked on the report to call themselves a "Nobel Laureate". IPCC did not issue a press release or send a message to its contributors to correct their misunderstanding/misuse of the honour.
> 
> Honesty. Sorry. These folks are fallible people like all of us. I've had years of working on boards and committees and have long ago learned to watch out for people who volunteer to do a job. While many are individuals who truly want to help out and share the task, many are also there to pad their resumes or to try to influence/hijack the committee to propound their own particular agendas.
> 
> ...




Now that is a very apt analogy.

Just as I accept Darwin's teachings and yet at the same time have a strong faith and belief in God, I remain very sceptical of the consensus of these so called objective and critically thinking Climatology Scientists.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know else does?



Perhaps if these thousands of scientists had been more outspoken when zealots hijacked the agenda, I might be more willing to trust their word now. Or are "deniers" still to be jailed?

Meh. Climates change.  By definition.  

Better to adapt, like our ancestors did after the last ice age.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Sep 2013)

The IPCC was 66% sure in 2001, 90% sure in 2007 and currently 95% certain. 

If a panel of the world's best doctors were 95% sure you had terminal cancer that could be cured by simple lifestyle changes wouldn't you make them?


----------



## FJAG (27 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That is suggesting that you are somehow more qualified than thousands of scientists to interpret the data. There are plausible explanations for each of the trends you mentioned, but they aren't 100% on them, so they haven't published those theories yet. If you read the link I posted, and the others earlier on this thread, each of your points is addressed, and rebutted. You can still disagree, but that would mean you have access to information know no else does?



FTFY

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I am suggestion that I am "somewhat more qualified than thousands of scientists". It's their computer models and predictions which fail to explain the data. I claim no expertise whatsoever.

I've been following the thread and the links (even yours to Chris Mooney at MotherJones - he's got a BA in English, not in science. He makes his living on the backs of controversial science and politics. I don't consider him an expert but just a reporter with an agenda who reports what he thinks is relevant.). The simple fact is that there is a lot of scientific literature out there, most pro, some con, and one has to take much of it on faith - but not blind faith. One ought to be sceptical, even in the face of consensus, when it is apparent that there are players in the game with vested interests. 

I'm usually on the side of science without much scepticism, but let's face it in the history of science there have been literally thousands of cases of consensus on a scientific issue which subsequently fell to the wayside when better data became available. I sense--I don't say that I know, or even that I suspect--I just sense that there's more to Global Warming than the scientists have a handle on. 

Maybe it's because in the 1970s I was told we'd run out of oil by 1984; or maybe its because I detest Gore so much that I was even glad to see that dimwit Bush beat him; all I know in the end is that if you're going to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, you'd better be sure that there are flames, not just a 0.12 degree rise in temperature a decade over the last seventy years (Oh yeah, except the last 15 years where the rate is only 0.05/decade).

Anyway, my post wasn't to call myself an expert on the topic but only to point out that a bunch of these folks called themselves, or let themselves be called Nobel Laureates when they had merely been one of thousands of scientists who contributed to a report that got the Peace Prize (and note it was the Peace Prize and not a scientific prize). It reminded me that academia was a "publish or perish" environment and that sometimes one had to take great care about the positions such folks take when they gang up on their dissenting peers--especially when you personally don't have the qualifications to interpret the data--and especially when billions or  trillions of dollars are at stake. 

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (27 Sep 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The IPCC was 66% sure in 2001, 90% sure in 2007 and currently 95% certain.
> 
> If a panel of the world's best doctors were 95% sure you had terminal cancer that could be cured by simple lifestyle changes wouldn't you make them?



Your analogy fails on the words "simple lifestyle changes".

:cheers:


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Sep 2013)

I said simple, not to be confused with easy. I lived off grid for a few years. It wasn't that bad. If my kids needed me to make that sacrifice so they could enjoy the same sustainable lifestyle I'd have to be a right prick to refuse. I'm not the last bloody generation on earth.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2013)

David Suzuki is exactly the reason we should be sckeptical.

As a geneticist who studied mutations in fruit flies, he is only qualified to speak on that subject as an expert. He is quite free to offer an opinion (as is everyone else), but having him claim some sort of special privilage or expertise isn't born out by the facts (see above for his embarrasing performance in Australia). Having him expound on climate as an expert makes as much sense as him coming to Gagetown and instructing on a machine gun course.

The vast majority of people involved are only offering *opinions, not facts and analysis*. And I note with interest that when people do look at facts and analysis (historical data like the European Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, real temperature data from 1998-present not matching the computer predictions, the actual amounts of arctic ice vs the predicted models, the temperature of other planets in the solar system etc.) they get shouted down the loudest, even though they are using the scientific method.

Makes you wonder....


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> David Suzuki is exactly the reason we should be sckeptical.
> 
> As a geneticist who studied mutations in fruit flies, he is only qualified to speak on that subject as an expert. He is quite free to offer an opinion (as is everyone else), but having him claim some sort of special privilage or expertise isn't born out by the facts (see above for his embarrasing performance in Australia). Having him expound on climate as an expert makes as much sense as him coming to Gagetown and instructing on a machine gun course.
> 
> ...



Yes but the latest report addresses all the concerns you just raised. As do the links I have posted repeatedly in this thread. Everyone knows that the planet as not warmed as much in the last 15 years, and many believe that's because the oceans are bearing the brunt, and we do  not measure average global temperature in the ocean. And yes arctic ice extent is larger this year than it was the last. But we don't roll a dice 50 times and only measure the last 3 rolls to obtain an average number. This is pretty basic stuff here. 

The latest report admits what we don't know, and is still unequivocal in its assertion that warming is caused by human activity and IS happening. Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met. Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the European Warm period? 

Though I have to admit it would be hilarious if Suzuki DID show up to Gagetown and turned out to be an expert machine gunner.


----------



## Jed (28 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yes but the latest report addresses all the concerns you just raised. As do the links I have posted repeatedly in this thread. Everyone knows that the planet as not warmed as much in the last 15 years, and many believe that's because the oceans are bearing the brunt, and we do  not measure average global temperature in the ocean. And yes arctic ice extent is larger this year than it was the last. But we don't roll a dice 50 times and only measure the last 3 rolls to obtain an average number. This is pretty basic stuff here.
> 
> The latest report admits what we don't know, and is still unequivocal in its assertion that warming is caused by human activity and IS happening. Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met. Are you suggesting that scientists are not aware of the European Warm period?
> 
> Though I have to admit it would be hilarious if Suzuki DID show up to Gagetown and turned out to be an expert machine gunner.



If he does, let's appoint him NCO of the butt party.  8)


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Sep 2013)

Here is a link that I posted earlier. It refutes, I think, all of the main arguments against the notion of anthropomorphic climate change. I would encourage those of you who have reasonable science based arguments to find your argument at the link and read the associated rebuttal. The rebuttals are well sourced, using mainly scientific _primary documents. 

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

Here also is a link to the executive summary from the latest IPCC report, just so we all know what we are referencing.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf_


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Nothing I have seen on this thread suggests that anyone here is more qualified or has access to a different set of data than the likes of NASA or the Met.



The reason you don't see that is because none of us are trying to convince you of the rightness of our opinions. All we are doing is explaining why we are still sceptical. 

I appreciate the fact that you feel a burning desire to convert us to the righteousness of your cause. I honestly don't mind it although some of the articles which you post like the one from grist.org remind me of those little Watchtower flyers that get passed out at the corner of the street to try to convert one to becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I give them about the same amount of credence (have you even noticed that the blogger who wrote those articles describes himself as a "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" ?)   

That said I think, as a generality, most of us here on the dark side don't deny the general concepts of Global Warming. What we are is sceptical as to the drama it has engendered and whether it merits some of the extreme solutions being propounded. You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.  :brickwall:

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.



Today's Kirkhill Award for the most gloriously mixed metaphor goes to .....

 ;D  :cheers:

By the way I agree with your points.


----------



## cavalryman (28 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That said I think, as a generality, most of us here on the dark side don't deny the general concepts of Global Warming. What we are is sceptical as to the drama it has engendered and whether it merits some of the extreme solutions being propounded. You'll have a hard row to hoe to get us on board.  :brickwall:



Very well said!  Probably the most accurate statement of the entire thread  ;D


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The reason you don't see that is because none of us are trying to convince you of the rightness of our opinions. All we are doing is explaining why we are still sceptical.
> 
> I appreciate the fact that you feel a burning desire to convert us to the righteousness of your cause. I honestly don't mind it although some of the articles which you post like the one from grist.org remind me of those little Watchtower flyers that get passed out at the corner of the street to try to convert one to becoming a Jehovah's Witness. I give them about the same amount of credence (have you even noticed that the blogger who wrote those articles describes himself as a "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer" ?)
> 
> ...




I am certainly aware of the author's lack of credentials. What he has done is placed all the arguments in one place. But everything is sourced well, which is what I have been emphasizing.  I also don't think the solutions are all that extreme. If without climate concerns, emissions cause thousands of deaths, have been linked to respiratory illness and a host of other problems. Just today for example, a US study was released that found the cost of wind energy per kilowatt is cheaper than that of coal once other associated costs are counted. By embracing these "extreme" solutions we are really just improving the conditions in which we live. And still saving lives.


----------



## Haletown (28 Sep 2013)

the global warming thingy is so over, a dead end of public policy initiatives.  AR5 SPM gets released and within 24 hours is virtually out of the news cycle.  

Nobody gives  a crap anymore. The Euros are pulling back from their shoot  themselves in the foot energy policies, the world is just awash in hydrocarbons and ordinary people are beyond fed up with the incessent far mongering and green hysteria. Folks just want to get on with enjoying life rather than know-tow to some self anointed doomsday cultists who believe Al Gore made a truthful documentary.

You can believe the IPCC and their vaunted computer models or you can believe reality as measured by actual temperature data.  But you cannot believe both.  

Your choice, have a nice life.  And pray for Ontario because the nutters running that economy onto the rocks are still chugging from the global warming cup of climate hysteria.

Can't wait until w start shipping Alberta oil by rail to the BC coast and then over to China.  Going to make this lady reprise her angst that she felt when she was photographed at NDP HQ the night Christy Clark spanked the BC NDP.


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> . . .  And pray for Ontario because the nutters running that economy onto the rocks are still chugging from the global warming cup of climate hysteria. . . .



Yes please do. 

I live down here in SW Ontario on the shores of Lake Erie. From my front porch I can see 18 wind turbines, the closest is 750m away (I've measured it on Google Earth). I quite frankly don't mind them but am worried about how they impact my property value because quite a few people have concerns about them. (I can't hear them; I doubt that they impact my health with electro-magnetic radiation; and I figure any bird that flies into the blades will result in Darwinian natural selection in favour of those birds who don't)

What pisses me off the most is that their power costs Hydro One about four times as much as hydro/nuclear power and that, notwithstanding their proximity to my house, I have a monthly "delivery" cost on my hydro bill that typically exceeds my actual power consumption costs by about 10-15%.   :clubinhand:


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2013)

I feel your pain FJAG.

Every day when I go down to the gym or over the causeway in Kingston I see the forest of wind turbines on Wolfe Island standing like the Martian Tripods from "War of the Worlds". There is one consant in my observations: they are usually still during peak demand times and are spinning merrily during off peak times.

I hope the State of New York is enjoying the $.04 KW/h price they are paying for the wind turbine energy, since we have to dump it during off peak times to keep the grid stable (even more ironic when there are two perfectly good thermal generators down the road that provide 8% of the _entire_ grid demand for the Province), while consumers are stuck with paying  $.135 KWh for wind vice the $.08 KWh for conventional sources. 

Kilo, once you track those price differentials and realize the ONLY reason they exist is to line the pockets of Green crony capitalists (or pay for their mistakes) then you will understand the real and deep opposition to global warming moonshine. Since the Vikings didn't cause global warming when they were farming Greenland, and NASA isn't causing Martian warming by idling their rovers, then it is a pretty big stretch to think that the smaller amounts of global warming in the 20th century have much, if anything, to do with human agency.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Sep 2013)

I understand the aesthetic complaints about wind, my cottage is on the Bruce Peninnsula and there are plans for turbines right across the lake from us. It would spoil our view, and probably affect our property value. But isn't mountain top removal more radical? Or fracking (which can contaminate drinking water for miles around)? We like to have our energy "out of sight, out of mind" but that's not the reality for people who live close to these projects. There's also the argument to be made that seeing the source of our energy might push us to conserve (conserve...conservative?) a bit more. 

On a related note, here's an article which points out how the latest conclusions of the IPCC are actually conservative, as they always have been:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming


----------



## FJAG (29 Sep 2013)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I live down here in SW Ontario on the shores of Lake Erie. From my front porch I can see 18 wind turbines . . .



I wrote that last night in the dark having mentally taken an inventory. This morning I recounted and in fact can see 43 from my front porch. From my back deck I can look SW along the shoreline towards Pelee and see fifty to a hundred more (not today its too hazy but at night the whole shoreline is covered by blinking red lights.

I'm sorry to hear that Wolfe Island and the Bruce Peninsula have them. I haven't been to either place in the last four years but I guess I should have expected it considering how quickly they sprang up here once the reins were released. There is another project going in of some 120 which luckily (for me) they'll be over the horizon from me. I should note as well somewhat selfishly that as these things become ever more common they'll have less impact on property values simply because you won't be able to get lakefront property without them being nearby and the average person (who currently follow a NIMBY line) will become more used to them and will simply have no choice but to accept them.

 :cheers:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Sep 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I understand the aesthetic complaints about wind, my cottage is on the Bruce Peninnsula and there are plans for turbines right across the lake from us. It would spoil our view, and probably affect our property value. But isn't mountain top removal more radical? Or fracking (which can contaminate drinking water for miles around)? We like to have our energy "out of sight, out of mind" but that's not the reality for people who live close to these projects. There's also the argument to be made that seeing the source of our energy might push us to conserve (conserve...conservative?) a bit more.
> 
> On a related note, here's an article which points out how the latest conclusions of the IPCC are actually conservative, as they always have been:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-change-report-global-warming



Sorry, but fracking  does not do anything to well water.  The frack zone is thousands of feet below the well water zone.  Fracking has been going on for decades in Alberta and other places- the well water is fine.  I don't expect you to believe me, but there it is.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2013)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sorry, but fracking  does not do anything to well water.  The frack zone is thousands of feet below the well water zone.  Fracking has been going on for decades in Alberta and other places- the well water is fine.  I don't expect you to believe me, but there it is.



I second that. I've been in and out of Southern Alberta since 1980.  Canadian Fracmaster has been at it since 1976 and Calfrac since 1999.  No methane in the wells.

Of course, as in Pennsylvania, there are surface flares in places like Turner Valley, which prompted people to start drilling there in the first place.

God/Gaia are never as tidy in their planning and execution as we might like them to be.


----------



## Scott (29 Sep 2013)

Well water contamination, almost always, is linked to piss poor well construction. No doubt there are a few who have suffered ill effects from fracking, but the number of real victims is far, far less than what the anti-fracking lobby would have you believe.


----------



## larry Strong (29 Sep 2013)

I can remember working as a member of a service rig crew in Central Alberta when Dresser Titan would come on location and frack wells we were completing, especially in the foothills. This would be back in the early/mid seventies. I have photo's of the lease covered in pumpers on the top of a mountain just south of Calgary, we were completing an 18000 foot well.

Contrary to popular belief it does not create a huge cavern that will collapse below us.......



Larry


----------



## a_majoor (29 Sep 2013)

Interesting that Kilo talks about the aesthetic issues surrounding wind turbines before changing tack, but fails to address the rather important issues like cost, availability vs demand times and (implied but not states in my post, should work on that) the massive costs to the Ontario taxpayer to cover the above market pricing for wind power and the considerable losses when forced to dump excess off peak power.

While this isn't a personal attack on Kilo per se (I realize my style and tone probably make it look that way), this is the other issue when dealing with alarmists: the "deflect and change subject" technique when dealing with points raised by the skeptical community.


----------



## Haletown (29 Sep 2013)

Judith Curry (2013) is following the AR5  SPM.    

"The Australian media continues with thought provoking articles on climate change.  This week, there are two good articles in Australian Financial Times, which are unfortunately behind paywall.  These two articles provide a good summary of the issues that policy makers need to grapple with in responding to the the IPCC report and addressing climate change.  Here are some excerpts:

Why the pause? IPCC report is unconvincing

These reports underpin a now vast industry in research grants, environment lobby firms and advisory businesses of all types.

The reports also provide the basis for billions of dollars in trading climate credits, many thousands of well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, and an enormous green energy industry.

The IPCC report was never going to undermine the science on which all this funding floats, with the various leaked drafts of this key report remaining bullish on global warming. But early reports indicate that it will explain away the troublesome and widely acknowledged 15-year pause in temperatures.

But the existence of the pause is now too widely known for any sleight of hand in the report so the IPCC and its band of supporters will be in damage control mode for some time.

Anyone who has dealt with forecasts produced by experts with impressive credentials in any field, or who knows anything about the inglorious history of forecasting, would not be surprised by a forecast in such a young field being wrong in the short term. The idea is for scientists to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and take another look at the theory.

Climate scientists, however, cannot afford the luxury of admitting even a minor failure. A vast industry depends on the IPCC forecasts.""


http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/29/2-from-the-australian-financial-review/#more-13162


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Sep 2013)

What happens if the "pause" continues? If year over year temperatures stay within the statistical norms?


----------



## FJAG (29 Sep 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> "The Australian media continues with thought provoking articles on climate change.  This week, there are two good articles in Australian Financial Times, which are unfortunately behind paywall.  These two articles provide a good summary of the issues that policy makers need to grapple with in responding to the the IPCC report and addressing climate change.
> http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/29/2-from-the-australian-financial-review/#more-13162



Australia voted in a big way in their last fed election to dismantle the carbon tax system brought in by the previous Labour government. Here's a recent article from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/29/australian-voters-energetically-reject-concocted-climate-crisis-and-carbon-tax-disasters/

The task however is not easy. Under the scheme, farmers had been receiving fairly hefty credits for the 'carbon sinks' that their green spaces provided and they have become quite dependant on the additional carbon incomes they were receiving. Any dismantlement scheme will have to cater to that.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/tax-gone-but-hunt-for-carbon-cash-not-forgotten-minister-emissions/story-fn9qr68y-1226721300567

One thing is for sure. A country that was generally green friendly has responded with a massive backlash against the government that imposed a carbon tax scheme.

 :cheers:


----------



## Haletown (30 Sep 2013)

Good idea.  Saves a lot of people the problem of when to get sterilized or promise to never fly again because we all have to do our bit to save Gaia.



"Scientists Recommend Having Earth Put Down"




http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/scientists-recommend-having-earth-put-down/


----------



## Scott (30 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What happens if the "pause" continues? If year over year temperatures stay within the statistical norms?



Someone will find something else to whine about.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2013)

A MIT scientist puts the whole "consensus" thing into focus. Remember, in science if there is a falsifiable claim and it is proven wrong, then the claim goes in the dustbin. If too many of the claims which support the hypothesis are thrown out (or the one major one on which it rests) then the hypothisis is lso thrown out:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/



> *Top MIT scientist: Newest UN climate report is ‘hilariously’ flawed*
> 1:27 PM 09/29/2013
> 
> Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What happens if the "pause" continues? If year over year temperatures stay within the statistical norms?



Corollary to my first question: at what point does the "pause" become the norm?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Corollary to my first question: at what point does the "pause" become the norm?



More fun with St David of Suzuki. On the CTV "news ticker" the Suzuki Insititute claimed the IPCC report "proved" that climate change was "amplified" in Canada. So a 15 year pause was "amplified"? I'm still trying to understand what sort of mathematical manipulation multiplied by zero equals "amplification".

Must have something to do with _irrationa_l numbers......


----------



## FJAG (1 Oct 2013)

Sceptics to the IPCC process are starting to get some press time

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/30/ipcc-climate-global-warming/

 :cheers:


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Oct 2013)

RE the price of wind power versus coal:


http://inhabitat.com/for-u-s-rewnewable-energy-is-cheaper-than-coal-study-finds/


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Oct 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More fun with St David of Suzuki. On the CTV "news ticker" the Suzuki Insititute claimed the IPCC report "proved" that climate change was "amplified" in Canada. So a 15 year pause was "amplified"? I'm still trying to understand what sort of mathematical manipulation multiplied by zero equals "amplification".
> 
> Must have something to do with _irrationa_l numbers......



The pause in the process of warming does not mean the effects disappeared. The effects are amplified in the arctic and northern regions, hence the rise in temperature at the north pole versus a smaller increase globally.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2013)

Amplified as in the increase in arctic ice, I suppose. 

I'm sure all those people trapped in the NW passage are waiting for a bit of amplification right now.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Oct 2013)

Solar panels are now 1/100th the price they were in the 1970's and are as reliable as a hammer. Prices per watt has been dropping like a stone for over 40 years. It is very possible we will see solar become the cheapest form of electricity generation if we live long enough.

Burning dinosaurs obviously has no future.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Oct 2013)

(Can a mod turn my ability to edit posts back on.)

Germany managed to get 34 percent of its electricity from wind and solar over a 24-hour period .

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-wind-solar-push-power-prices-way-down-on-sunday/150/537/73470/


----------



## larry Strong (2 Oct 2013)

Here are some passages from "Der Spiegel".



> The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer’s electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour — a 20-percent price hike. German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe.
> 
> But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany.





> Even well-informed citizens can no longer keep track of all the additional costs being imposed on them. According to government sources, the surcharge to finance the power grids will increase by 0.2 to 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour next year.
> 
> On top of that, consumers pay a host of taxes, surcharges and fees that would make any consumer’s head spin. Former Environment Minister Jürgen Tritten of the Green Party once claimed that switching Germany to renewable energy wasn’t going to cost citizens more than one scoop of ice cream. Today his successor Altmaier admits consumers are paying enough to “eat everything on the ice cream menu.”



Perhaps the most shocking part of the story is that Germans are being forced to pay $26 billion in subsidies to get less than $4 billion of green energy.



> For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project.




I'll burn dinosaurs till the cows come home, before I shell out money for that carp......


More at the link


http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html



Larry


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2013)

Things are much easier to do when things are warmer, and plants grow much better as well. When you factor that sort of information into your thinking, the story gets changed considerably:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/10/an-unbiased-economic-scorecard-shows.html



> *An unbiased economic scorecard shows that global warming provides a net 1.3% GDP gain so far*
> 
> How Much have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050 was editted by Bjørn Lomborg with many contributors They use an unbiased or at least a consistent methodology to assess the impact of global problems from 1900 to today and project forward to 2050.
> 
> ...



Of course the authors still follow the AGW trope, but similar inferences can be made using proxies like population growth rates when you compare the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, where there is absolutely no possibility of human impact on climate.


----------



## Haletown (15 Oct 2013)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Here are some passages from "Der Spiegel".
> 
> Perhaps the most shocking part of the story is that Germans are being forced to pay $26 billion in subsidies to get less than $4 billion of green energy.
> 
> ...



The most charitable description for solar generated electricity is Intermittent Power.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Oct 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> (Can a mod turn my ability to edit posts back on.)
> 
> Germany managed to get 34 percent of its electricity from wind and solar over a 24-hour period .
> 
> http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-wind-solar-push-power-prices-way-down-on-sunday/150/537/73470/



So for one-day, it worked like all the scammers claim it does all the time.  :

[Of note, I refuse to call them environmentalists because I don't believe that's what they are.]   

Did you see what happened in the UK last year when they had the deep freeze and all their solar and wind totally failed over a period of about 2-weeks?

You can't make a coherent argument by cherry picking such minute glimpses of time as to make your sample set irrelevant. 


M. 

P.S.  I find it interesting that you never reply to anyone about the opportunity costs of the 'Climate Change Programs'.  Why is that?  Can you please elaborate on your views of what you think should occur given relatively fixed budgets?  As an example do you believe that credits to China (and the resulting offshoring of all our industry) is a good environmental investment as opposed to preserving virgin rainforest, wet lands and targeting airborne particulates and water pollution?  All we ever read from you is the regurgitation of the Alarmists Press Releases, never with any context or critical assessment in your preambles.  Thanks in advance for that elaboration and clarification.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2013)

Interesting.  The German experience with windmills, which have popped up all over Germany in the last ten years, is perhaps an example to examine more closely.

Just a point of interest on that subject.  In September, near Lahr in the Schwarzwald, there was a fire in one of the windmills.  The cause is under investigation.  I am curious as to the outcome of the investigation and will try to track it.   Is there a further potential of fire hazards from them or not?  We shall see.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2013)

The consequences of windpower in the UK.

Subsidies to build the windmills to save CO2 generations

Subsidies to build backup power plants for the windmills.

This includes multiple diesel generators in multiple mini-parks all over the countryside.

Fuel costs higher
Noise levels higher
Heat losses higher
CO2 generation higher

Just build a Frackin' natural gas power plant and be done with it.  

Fuel cheap
Noise levels gone
Heat contained and distributed to the local community as steam and hot water
CO2 generation centralized and controllable.

Or better yet - build cofired power-plant incinerators to burn a mix of natural gas, coal and waste.  And then control the emissions.


Edited to add link:  Christopher Booker - Telegraph


----------



## Haletown (15 Oct 2013)

OK Kirkhill, just stop with the common sense and practical ideas.  Enough is enough.  

It is hard these days, what with the total failure of our climate models and the cooling atmosphere to keep the hysteria and fear mongering going.  Thank goodness we still have the CBC and the Toronto Star in the bag to spread the word,  but people like you make it much more difficult to keep our scheme going and allow us to fleece the greenie rubes who have bought into our scam.  

Shame on you.

Keep that up and you will be taken off Dr. Fruit Fly's Christmas card list and Lizzie May will not keep you in her thoughts when she prays to Gaia.

/sarc off

(redundant, but just in case)


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2013)

And just to make sure everyone keeps things in perspective:

Cost KWh for wind:                                      $.135
Cost KWh for conventional :                         $.08
Sale price KWh for "dumped" renewable:      $.04 (paid by US utilities for excess renewable energy if there is an oversupply and the grid needs to be stablized).

This does not take into consideration the opportunity cost of spilling water or venting steam from hydro or thermal plants IOT keep the grid balanced if the wind suddenly picks up, nor do these figures account for gas turbine generators running 24/7 on "hot idle" in case the wind suddenly drops.

Cost to the Ontario taxpayer? @ $4 billion/year.

That could pay for a lot of health care, education, public saftey or roads, or a pretty steep tax cut.


----------



## Haletown (16 Oct 2013)

And so it begins . . .

http://www.thegwpf.org/delight-uk-wind-farms-torn/

Sanity starts to slowly impose its will. As the economic reality of green energy emerges from the the giant propaganda smoke screen laid down by the international environmental industry the only difficulty will be to get the scammers to pay for decommissioning the sites.


----------



## Haletown (18 Oct 2013)

Ohhhhhh. .  This one is going to leave a mark.

A $3.5 Trillion benefit of increased CO2!  Think of all the starving children who can now be fed.

Don't tell Al Gore or David Suzuki.  Might be way to much for their cognitive dissonance.



http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/the-social-benefit-of-carbon-3-5-trillion-in-agricultural-productivity/


----------



## Haletown (21 Oct 2013)

Prime Minister Abbott performs his volunteer job on weekends, gets blamed for global warming fantasy.

www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/bushfires/tony-abbott-puts-himself-in-line-of-fire/story-fngw0i02-1226743492769

Can't see PM Harper doing this, but I bet his wife could handle the job.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2013)

Everyone run away! Climate change has led to........

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/26/atlantic-hurricane-season-quietest-in-45-years/



> *Atlantic Hurricane Season Quietest in 45 Years*
> Posted on October 26, 2013
> by justthefactswuwt
> 
> ...



Many graphs and historic records on link as well


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Oct 2013)

Interesting, but not surprising.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt




> In a 2012 essay that appeared in the influential scientific journal Nature Climate Change, Anderson and Bows laid down something of a gauntlet, accusing many of their fellow scientists of failing to come clean about the kind of changes that climate change demands of humanity. On this it is worth quoting the pair at length:
> 
> . . . in developing emission scenarios scientists repeatedly and severely underplay the implications of their analyses. When it comes to avoiding a 2°C rise, “impossible” is translated into “difficult but doable”, whereas “urgent and radical” emerge as “challenging” – all to appease the god of economics (or, more precisely, finance). For example, to avoid exceeding the maximum rate of emission reduction dictated by economists, “impossibly” early peaks in emissions are assumed, together with naive notions about “big” engineering and the deployment rates of low-carbon infrastructure. More disturbingly, as emissions budgets dwindle, so geoengineering is increasingly proposed to ensure that the diktat of economists remains unquestioned.
> 
> In other words, in order to appear reasonable within neoliberal economic circles, scientists have been dramatically soft-peddling the implications of their research.




And another article that discusses the link between capitalism and climate change:

http://monthlyreview.org/2013/02/01/james-hansen-and-the-climate-change-exit-strategy


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2013)

> In other words, in order to appear reasonable within neoliberal economic circles, scientists have been dramatically soft-peddling the implications of their research



So the "implications" of their research is imminent wide ranging global disaster, while actual observations demonstrate hurricanes etc. are decreasing in numbers and intensity, and when the world was _actually_ about 20 warmer than today (the Medieval Warm Period), people were happily farming in Greenland rather than roaming a road warrior-esque desert.

No wonder they need to "soft peddle" their work, since it is so dramatically at odds with reality.......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (29 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Interesting, but not surprising.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt
> 
> ...




Kilo,

Have you ever read any of the counter-analysis of James Hansen's presentations?

If not, I would recommend it.

I know there tends to be an inherent bias that 'Capitalism & Industrialization are bad" and ergo anyone who says that must be good....but sadly there are guys out there with their own agenda, looking far more at what's good for them as opposed to what's good for the planet.  I would argue that if you look at Gore, Suzuki, Pauchuri, Mann and Hansen, you'll find a bunch of very flawed individuals who say one thing in public then live completely differently in private.

Bottom Line is you're an adult...you can choose to read the counter-analyses or not.  Totally in your court.

Good luck on your search for the truth as regardless of differences of opinion, I think that's what all of us are genuinely looking for.


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Haletown (29 Oct 2013)

Computer models say the Earth's atmosphere is warming at a very high rate.

Actual temperature data says it is not happening.

Believe the models or the data, your choice.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Computer models say the Earth's atmosphere is warming at a very high rate.
> 
> Actual temperature data says it is not happening.
> 
> Believe the models or the data, your choice.



I have several crap computers.  I prefer to believe the thermometer.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Oct 2013)

As for that much vaunted "pause."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As for that much vaunted "pause."
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc





> "I think the deniers deserve most of the blame. They're still trying to confuse people," says Susan Joy Hassol, who directs Climate Communication, a nonprofit science and outreach group. "And I think the media's to blame too, because they've allowed themselves to be distracted and misled. But the scientists have to take some responsibility when they write or say things that can be misunderstood, because it's part of their job to communicate what they know in a way that the public can understand."



So now it is our fault that there is a pause in Global Warming.   :
 :facepalm:
Perhaps if more people denied it, we could reverse it.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Oct 2013)

Seems like the science around CO2 emissions is far from settled.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6157/403.3.full?sid=29d7a318-66a5-4747-905b-707e901704d4

and

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6741/abs/400248a0.html

Just two examples of scientific studies published by scientific magazines.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2013)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .....motherjones.com........


Yep, I always go to _Mother Jones_ for my peer-reviewed scientific discourse....

.....much like, if I'm looking for nuanced, insightful commentary on international situations, I turn to _Faux Fox News_.    :not-again:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (30 Oct 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have several crap computers.  I prefer to believe the thermometer.



In the context that your thermometer that you put beside your house in a small town 100 years ago, and the one that's now surrounded by a million people and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of asphalt and combustion engines/other heating elements are in no way suitable for direct comparison which is what most of the temperature records currently trumpeted by the alarmists, do not adequately adjust for....


Matthew.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Oct 2013)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> ...... trumpeted by the alarmists...


Now, now.  There's no need for name-calling.......you denier.   ;D


----------



## Haletown (1 Nov 2013)

This is going to leave a mark in a lot of family budgets. Have to,feel sorry for Ontario rate payers 

"Solar energy – one of the key pillars of the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEEA) – is casting a dark cloud over Ontario electricity bills and is a big factor in recent and future bill increases. In 2013, solar projects caused electricity bills to be about $550-million higher than they would otherwise have been. For a typical homeowner, this works out to $47 per year. Ontario will have an estimated 1,100 MW of solar installed by year-end and roughly 900 MW will be added in 2014. This addition will cause 2014 electricity bills to increase by another $435-million – equal to a typical homeowner increase of $37 per year. By the end of 2014, solar will be costing Ontarians $1.25-billion per year – while generating a paltry 2% of Ontario’s total electricity requirement.

How did Ontario get here?"


http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/29/blame-solar-for-sky-high-ontario-power-bills/


----------



## FJAG (2 Nov 2013)

Haletown said:
			
		

> How did Ontario get here?"
> 
> http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/10/29/blame-solar-for-sky-high-ontario-power-bills/



A stupid government; a stupid power authority; a stupid electorate that keeps voting in advocates of "green energy projects" without considering the consequences; and a well oiled industry that can recognize and take advantage of a cash cow when they see it.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2013)

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) responds to the IPCC report. While I'm sure we will be hearing from the usual suspects about "oh, they're funded by "x" so it does not count", it is worth looking at because most of the methodology is open. Counteraguments about the sources of funding for the IPCC or who benefits from its creation, funding and recommendations can also be made, but for now I suggest people just read and absorb what is being said:

http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/critique_of_ipcc_spm.pdf


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2013)

Might be time to invest in some good coats and a wood stove. Despite the Church of AGW para at the end, a "Little Ice Age" is to be feared; during the last one it was cold enough to freeze rivers in Noth America and Europe hard enough to cross with heavy wagons and artillery (ask Charles X of Sweden or George Washington), and of course growing seasons were shortened quite a bit as well. This is far more than "just offsetting greenhouse warming", and the implications for transportation and our ability to grow food at low cost and eat is pretty immense:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|space#.UnZSmxxrkmt



> *Solar activity heads for lowest low in four centuries*
> 
> The sun's activity is in free fall, according to a leading space physicist. But don't expect a little ice age. "Solar activity is declining very fast at the moment," Mike Lockwood, professor of space environmental physics at Reading University, UK, told New Scientist. "We estimate faster than at any time in the last 9300 years."
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (15 Nov 2013)

Opinion piece from the Financial Post about the down side of wind and solar power.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/11/14/lawrence-solomon-fossil-fuels-now-beat-wind-and-solar-on-environmental-as-well-as-economic-grounds/

op:


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Nov 2013)

I liked the article.

I agreed with many points. I have not been a fan of wind turbines. They list all the reasons in that article for the most part except in addition to the bird/bug/bat life they mess up they are plain old ugly.

I partially agree with solar. I have bought some solar cells and run them to assist some of my equipment (its nice in the summer to keep cows contained with solar powered 9,000 volts of ouch). I am not happy about the clean up of previous plants and I do not support out sourcing. 

I have said it before and I will say it again. Burning fossil fuel only amounts to a tiny blip of the atmospheric carbon. I agree we are ok to use fossil fuels for the time being (like our life time) but there exist the oppurtunity in future generations to come up with better alternatives. I am sure my grandkids will be old themselves by the time this gets going. My biggest issue is poorly thought out agriculture policies and practices and idiotic beliefs. This has led to huge carbon loss to the atmosphere. 

Side note, vegans, your contributing more harm to the evironment than helping. 

Eat more beef and save the environment! Rotational pasture raised beef/lamb/goat that is!


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2013)

Hear hear!

While I have a philosophical attachment to the idea of photovoltaics (no moving parts, no need to connect to the grid), the current reality is they are too expensive, too inefficient and (given how they are actually made) too "dirty" to be a useful alternative to the grid right now, except in niche applications.

There is lots of R&D going on all over the world, so perhaps both Rick and I will be happy sooner or later when something better finally makes it out of the lab and into the market. Of course, we can also take comfort in the fact that the United States is poised to become the number one global producer of oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas in 2014, so our economies can continue to be powered by relatively inexpensive energy, and other nations hungry for energy resources will be able to meet most of their needs as well (leading to a possibility of a more peaceful future).


----------



## Haletown (19 Nov 2013)

Well I suppose if you can invent the Hockey Stick, you can invent a consensus.

"How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/30/lawrence-solomon-75-climate-scientists-think-humans-contribute-to-global-warming/



The global environmental industry  . . . So trustworthy.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2013)

Totally amazing infographic on climate history, but the graph looks nothing like a "hockey stick", more like a mountain range. Since the graphic is too large to post, follow this link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line1.png

and for some commentary about the intrpretation of the graph, this blogger makes a very good point:

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2013/11/19/essential-climate-data/



> I do not want any person concerned with global warming, of the natural or human variety, to discuss the issue without at least pondering this vastly informative graph for at least ten minutes. It affords a rare and cheap education.
> 
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line1.png
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Nov 2013)

Another feather in the cap for the wind power advocates:

Wind company pays fine over eagle deaths

A renewable power company has agreed to pay $1 million over the deaths of more than a dozen protected eagles and other birds at its wind farms.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2013)

I guess the 95% confidence that global warming is caused by humans is going to need a bit of revision (thet 5% seems to be overpowering everything else). Follow the link to see the pictures of sea ice coverage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html#ixzz2mHK3wtC0



> *And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year
> 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012*BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
> Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
> By David Rose
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Feb 2014)

Someone's come under the microscope:

7 Enviornmental Charities Face CRA audits

With the predictable results in the comments section.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Feb 2014)

*The Global Warming freaks can just bite me! * 

You can't imagine how pissed off _disappointed_ I am that their doom and gloom just isn't coming to pass.


----------



## Lightguns (7 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Totally amazing infographic on climate history, but the graph looks nothing like a "hockey stick", more like a mountain range.



Kinda looks like .........nature..... occurring randomly.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2014)

Great Lakes covered in ice. A rather amazing picture on the link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-covered-great-lakes-seen-from-space/



> *Ice-covered Great Lakes seen from space*
> 
> This NASA satellite photo shows the Great Lakes, 80.3 percent covered by ice.  NASA
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2014)

One of the biggest promotors of the Global Warming alarmism is now under "discovery" in a court case against no less than Mark Styen. The discovery has already "discovered" Michael Mann's defines team has doctored a record entered in the defence, (which may not be too surprising given the past activities of the defendant), but this article also reveals in a few simple lines the reason that the Global Warming scam has gone on so long. It would be quite a satisfactory ending if the institution that employed Dr Mann was also forced to return all the money that had been given under false pretences (although that outcome is not really likely):

http://www.steynonline.com/6111/rigor-mortis



> *Rigor Mortis*
> by Mark Steyn
> February 22, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (23 Feb 2014)

I can't help but notice the scarcity of the site's global warming cheerleaders.    op:


They're _almost_ as rare as the "F-35 can do no wrong" crowd.  

       :stirpot:


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Feb 2014)

Nah, we just stop wasting our time. I do not like the term Global warming anyways and prefer global climate disruption or Global Energy atmospheric compensation. As previously stated, I don't blame trains, planes and automobiles for the problem. But enough, I gave up trying to make my point here. Stir pot away.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Mar 2014)

From yesterday's Telegraph

Convenient timing for the Europeans.  The IPCC declares "there ain't nuthin' we can do abaht it - and it ain't gonna cost to do nuthin' in any case"  (my apologies to hooziers everywhere).



> Climate change: the debate is about to change radically
> By Andrew Lilico Economics Last updated: March 25th, 2014
> 
> 
> ...



This gives the Euros carte blanche to sideline Russian gas and use whatever resources are available to them as interim measures as they work towards utopia.  

Fracking, In-Situ Coal Gas and Brown Coal will all be back in play (with 

Thorium being the next play)


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2014)

And a look at what REAL climate change does (and given the decline in Solar output, this may be the future for ourselves and our children):

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/opinion/sunday/lessons-from-the-little-ice-age.html?_r=1



> *Lessons From the Little Ice Age*
> 
> By GEOFFREY PARKERMARCH 22, 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (31 Mar 2014)

Link


> *Thick Great Lakes ice thwarts ice breakers, delays shipping*
> CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2014
> 
> The ice on the Great Lakes is so thick this year the Canadian Coast Guard says ice breakers are having trouble getting through.  The superintendent of the Coast Guard operations centre for the central and arctic region reports that, in many areas, the ice is more than half a meter thick — and in some spots it is stacked up 1.5 meters thick.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Mar 2014)

I grew up about twenty miles from Journeyman in the Niagara Peninsula. When I was a kid, people were still cutting ice from Lake Erie and strong it in heavy insulated ice houses as many homes had ice boxes instead of refrigerators. Our farm house had an "ice room" where ice was stored.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2014)

Freeman Dyson, one of the "Grand old men" of science, weighs in on the side of the sckeptics, and explains why:

http://www.wired.com/2014/03/quanta-freeman-dyson-qa/



> *At 90, Freeman Dyson Ponders His Next Challenge *
> By Thomas Lin, Quanta Magazine
> 03.31.14  |
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2014)

Global warming alarmists as a coalition of eco freaks and grifters? Works as well as any other explanation:

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/07/are-global-warming-alarmists-just-a-conglomerate-of-eco-radicals-and-third-world-grifters/



> *Are global warming alarmists just a conglomerate of eco radicals and third world grifters?*
> 
> posted at 6:41 pm on April 7, 2014 by Bruce McQuain
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (6 Jul 2014)

El Nino's return could change everything

KIYOSHI ANDO, Nikkei senior staff writer
June 12, 2014 12:00 am JST
http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/20140612-BORDERLESS-ASEAN/Tech-Science/El-Nino-s-return-could-change-everything

TOKYO -- Indications from the tropical Pacific suggest that the first El Nino event in five years is happening. And this looks to be not any normal El Nino, but one that could rival the abnormal conditions from the spring of 1997 to the spring of 1998. Experts also note that global warming could accelerate if this year's El Nino triggers a "regime shift," the term used for a sudden, massive change in the global climate.

 The trade winds in the equatorial Pacific normally blow from east to west. But two strong westerly bursts were recorded in January and February, and two slightly less powerful westerly bursts occurred in March and April.

     "The trigger for an El Nino has been pulled. If these westerly bursts continue, it could develop into a powerful event," said Shuhei Maeda, senior coordinator for El Nino information at the Japan Meteorological Agency.

     The warm ocean-surface waters carried to the western Pacific by the trade winds can get pushed back eastward by these strong winds. El Nino conditions could develop if this causes ocean temperatures to rise higher than normal across the eastern part of the tropical Pacific and off the waters of Peru.

     "The way the westerly winds are blowing and the resulting changes in ocean temperatures resemble what took place in 1997," said Kentaro Ando, a group leader at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (Jamstec).

Cooler Japan?

Heat in large amounts accumulates in relatively shallow ocean waters south of Japan and moves eastward along the equator. Ocean water temperatures in the eastern Pacific usually begin rising several months after the amount of heat has reached its maximum in the tropical Pacific.
more on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2014)

According to this Canada accounts for about 2.49% of global GDP but, accorsding to this:







        ... we do it while producing only 1.58% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd say we are making good, _productive_ use of the energy, etc, we burn.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'd say we are making good, _productive_ use of the energy, etc, we burn.



Heresy! Stone the non-believer!


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2014)

Thunder from the land down under....

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/07/17/carbon-tax-torn-asunder-down-under/



> *AXING THE TAX*
> Carbon Tax Torn Asunder Down Under
> 
> Did you hear that last night? The sound of a million green activists crying out in terror? Australia just abolished its tax on carbon on a 39 to 32 vote. Prime Minister Tony Abbott campaigned on this repeal, and after two years of debate, he can now claim victory on the issue. The FT reports:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2014)

Buzz Aldrin steps up to the plate. I doubt that he has any issues with using real science to study an issue...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2814701/I-sceptical-humans-causing-global-warming-says-Buzz-Aldrin-thinks-people-sent-DIE-Mars.html



> *‘I am sceptical humans are causing global warming’: Buzz Aldrin says more research - and less politics - is needed*
> Buzz Aldrin reveals his views on climate change, Mars and space exploration
> Second man on the moon was speaking exclusively to MailOnline from LA
> Dr Aldrin says he is unconvinced humans are causing climate change
> ...


​


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2014)

The science is settled. You don't want to be a science denier, do you?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/



> Renewable energy 'simply WON'T WORK': Top Google engineers
> Windmills, solar, tidal - all a 'false hope', say Stanford PhDs
> By Lewis Page, 21 Nov 2014
> 273
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2014)

Just when I thought this thread was dead ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Dec 2014)

This may cost them more in good will than in money:

Peru moves to sue Greenpeace


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Feb 2015)

Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming

Something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists, writes Christopher Booker 


Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a climate blog: “Massive tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking. 

Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to Paraguay. 

Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for the whole of the 20th century. 

But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data showed not a rise but a decline. 

Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented warming. 


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11367272/Climategate-the-sequel-How-we-are-STILL-being-tricked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html


----------



## jeffb (8 Feb 2015)

So because there is a flaw in three data stations, the other 4,500 to 7,000 data points (depending on which dataset it used) are flawed? Unless this article is suggesting that The UK Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japan Meteorological Agency are all conspiring to manipulate raw data for - wait, what exactly would their purpose be? The other possibility is that the data was manipulated due to readings with more accurate equipment as all of these data sets are checked against spaced based sensors that measure temperature in the troposphere. This to me seems a case of anecdote trying to trump evidence.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Feb 2015)

The problem is- some of the raw data (at least) has been manipulated. This is established fact.

Where that leads is: which of the data sets can some trusted? Some? All? None?

That is what happens when you frig around with the raw data and then hide that fact- suddenly, no one trusts you...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2015)

Patrick Moore on the issue of "climate change". The figures for CO2 are alarming, but not for the reasons the climate hysterics suggest. Look at the ideal amount of C02 needed for optimum plant growth, compared to the atmospheric concentration in the current epoch, for example. And of course, common sense interpretation of historic data turns the alarmists versions of reality on their heads: Were the Romans and Vikings idling their SUV's outside Tim Horton's to keep the climate so warm during the periods of their great expansions?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic



> *Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic *
> March 20, 2015
> Patrick Moore
> Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a... (read full bio)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2015)

The start of a new "Little Ice Age" makes a lot more sense based on observational evidence. As well, the increasing failures of crops due to global cooling is thought to have been a factor in the falls of Empires in the past, global instability in our age is going to be much more severe. Stock up on blankets and firewood...

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-doomsayers-take-note-earths-19th-little-ice-age-has-begun



> *Lawrence Solomon: Global warming doomsayers take note: Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age has begun*
> Lawrence Solomon | March 27, 2015 8:57 AM ET
> More from Lawrence Solomon | @LSolomonTweets
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2015)

I was inspired to post this based on some of the ramblings on the Election 2015 thread. This article from Wired UK is an example of both how scientific research turns the "narrative" on its head and a hilarious example of how the "church of Global Warming" will try to ignore evidence standing squarly in its face. The prediction that the reduction of solar activity will trigger a "Little Ice Age" in the 2030's cannot be squared with the paragraph in _the same article_ :



> Such events are in no way linked to climate change, with fluctuations in solar activity having a far smaller impact than global warming.



Either the change in solar activity will cause a change in the global climate, or it will not. Saying it will cause a little ice age but is in no way linked to climate change is sucking and blowing at the same time in the worst way, and trying to do it in the same article is incredibly stupid as well:

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots



> *Mini ice age could bring freezing temperatures by 2030*
> 13 July 15 /by James Temperton
> 
> A mini ice age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, the first such event to occur since the early 1700s. New mathematical models of the Sun's solar cycle developed at Northumbria University suggest solar activity will see a "significant" drop, causing temperatures on Earth to plummet.
> ...


----------



## Remius (28 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I was inspired to post this based on some of the ramblings on the Election 2015 thread. This article from Wired UK is an example of both how scientific research turns the "narrative" on its head and a hilarious example of how the "church of Global Warming" will try to ignore evidence standing squarly in its face. The prediction that the reduction of solar activity will trigger a "Little Ice Age" in the 2030's cannot be squared with the paragraph in _the same article_ :
> 
> Either the change in solar activity will cause a change in the global climate, or it will not. Saying it will cause a little ice age but is in no way linked to climate change is sucking and blowing at the same time in the worst way, and trying to do it in the same article is incredibly stupid as well:
> 
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-07/13/mini-ice-age-earth-sunspots



Lol.  and here is an update from the very same scientist they and you are quoting:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-not-reason-ignore-global-warming

Specifically this:

_Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming._

Oh and this one too...


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/16/scientists-dispute-ice-age-warnings/30257409/


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Good to know. From the historic records it would appear that after the onset of a Little Ice Age the world will have between 3-500 years to decide "how to stop these carbon emissions".

Of course there is an element of sucking and blowing there as well. How many of these climate change alarmists are for reducing "carbon emissions" by ramping up nuclear power production?

And as for the "evidence" (graphs on link):

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/



> *Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA*
> Posted on July 27, 2015 by stevengoddard
> 
> The measured US temperature data from USHCN shows that the US is on a long-term cooling trend. But the reported temperatures from NOAA show a strong warming trend.
> ...



And a comment from another blog on this revelation:





> It's been interesting. We've actually had a rather hot summer over here in Europe, and yet none of the usual suspects have tried to connect it to global warming. That tells me that they know the jig is up, and it's only a matter of time before even the die-hards like NOAA stop lying about it.
> 
> And presumably it won't be long after that before they'll be shrieking about the coming Ice Age and how that means we must accept global government. They're kind of one-trick ponies, aren't they.


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2015)

My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...

When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...
> 
> When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.



Only now, Mr. Hawking (whom I admire greatly) previously said that the biggest threat to humanity would be contacting ET.  He is now joining forces with others in the hunt for ET...    rly:


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Only now, Mr. Hawking (whom I admire greatly) previously said that the biggest threat to humanity would be contacting ET.  He is now joining forces with others in the hunt for ET...    rly:



While it might sound crazy, they just recently discovered a planet similar to Earth.  ET might not be what we think it is but it likely does exist.

Again, when he says something, I listen.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jul 2015)

Agreed.  Especially when you take into account the of the effort he must make to in order to say what he wants to say.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2015)

Again, I don't disagree that climate change occurs.  Nor that it poses a significant threat.

I only suggest that we can't predict climate change and therefore it is ludicrous/criminal to waste resources on courses of action that are not known to be effective.

I, like Bjorn Lomborg, believe it is best to husband what resources we have and apply them to best effect when we have a clearly identified crisis and a course of action that is tailored to meet the crisis.

I would hate to have spent trillions of dollars of wealth supporting bureaucrats and corrupt politicians only to discover bare cupboards when we needed to build levees or knock an incoming asteroid out of the sky.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> My issue is climate change.  Not global warming.  I'm really not about trusting alarmists or environmentalists and all these end of the world scenarios but...
> 
> When a guy like Stephen Hawking declares that climate change is one of the single greatest threats to the planet, I listen.



The climate is changing all the time. Humans evolved becasue the climate changed and our distant ancestors had attributes which allowed them to survive and thrive in the new environments. Vikings had croft farms in Greenland in the 1100's (we know this because retreating glaciers are revealing the farms) and the Scots were known for their wines until the 1400's.

The issue is how to address this natural cycle of changes. The Climate Change alarmists have an agenda that involves massive increases in bureaucracies, curtailing political and economic freedoms and unbridled State power as their means of addressing these cycles (the snark in my post upthread about how Climate Change alarmists will have the same "solutions" for the next Little Ice Age suggests their agenda isn't actually about climate at all). I happen to believe humans are pretty smart and adaptable creatures and given free reign could probably find solutions on their own. If tribes of Homo Sapiens could go from the burning deserts of Africa to the Ice Age Steppe of central Asia _on foot_ and from there around the world armed with nothing much more advanced than pointed sticks and elegently flaked stone tools, I think we could probably figure things out the way the Ancestors did....


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If tribes of Homo Sapiens could go from the burning deserts of Africa to the Ice Age Steppe of central Asia _on foot_ and from there around the world armed with nothing much more advanced than *pointed sticks* and elegently flaked stone tools, I think we could probably figure things out the way the Ancestors did....


Pointed Sticks?







Here's the real threat:


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jul 2015)

Gotta watch those nasty pieces of Mango..


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Or the deadly pomegranate.  ;D


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

That's why I always pack a 16 Ton weight. You just never know. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2015)

Ah.  Now I understand the 16 ton LVM - Heavy requirement.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Again, I don't disagree that climate change occurs.  Nor that it poses a significant threat.
> 
> I only suggest that we can't predict climate change and therefore it is ludicrous/criminal to waste resources on courses of action that are not known to be effective.
> 
> ...



I would echo this perspective. Unfortunately, the climate change lobby only recognizes their point of view. Anything else warrants being labeled a "denier". Most reasonable men understand that in any discussion there is a middle ground. Alas, war is no place for reasonable men, and the climate change debate is nothing more than another front in the greater culture war.


----------



## cld617 (29 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would echo this perspective. Unfortunately, the climate change lobby only recognizes their point of view. Anything else warrants being labeled a "denier". Most reasonable men understand that in any discussion there is a middle ground. Alas, war is no place for reasonable men, and the climate change debate is nothing more than another front in the greater culture war.



That is because denier's are more often than not lobbyists for whomever will write the biggest cheque, rarely are they individuals coming from a respectable institution or established environmental research group. I think it would do many of you guys some good to watch the documentary Merchants of Doubt. It does an excellent job of showing the business that is professional denial "experts", and their role in using the media as an effective form of convincing the public of whatever they are being paid to downplay. I know I'm rather suspicious of any so called expert who's funding comes from some of the largest oil industrialists in the world, and whom a few decades ago told us that smoking had no adverse health effects. 

Science is a method which we use to discern the world around us, and despite an individuals motive to use the findings of this for good or bad, the method works. If some individuals chose to use AGW research to further their own agendas then that is very unfortunate, it does not however make the findings of individuals who actually crunch the numbers any less factual. Science will carry on advancing the scope of mankind's knowledge, we'll adopt new theories from new pieces of information and we'll add to or discard that which does not fit with our updated findings. You can believe the entire scientific community is out to kill jobs or push green technology all you'd like, but those institutions are going to continue to function at the pinnacle of mankind's knowledge in all fields whether you support them or not.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2015)

I do so love an expert with a PhD.

A committee of PhDs is even better.  It guarantees a project will go long, over budget, and generate nothing.  A great vehicle for a consulting engineer.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> That is because denier's are... [snipped predictable drivel]



Thank you for making my point for me.


----------



## cld617 (29 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I do so love an expert with a PhD.
> 
> A committee of PhDs is even better.  It guarantees a project will go long, over budget, and generate nothing.  A great vehicle for a consulting engineer.



The alternative to educated professionals is what, laymans interpretations? PhD's got man to the moon, they created the foundations for the atom bomb, they sequenced the first human genome. That work would never have been accomplished by anyone other than those with significant educations to their respective subjects, it was not the work of undergrads, the sciences are not fields where the Pte/Cpl's win wars.


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

Fear not ye Deniers of scientific fact lest ye be burned at the stake, for even the dimmest of the climate change truth sayers knows that stake burning contributes to global warming, and the carbon offsets would be prohibitively expensive. >


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.

As well, if you read this thread, you will see lots of eminent scientists do not agree with the climate change narrative, and of course many of the ones who _do_ promote the narrative do so because they also get big cheques from governments and bureaucrats eager to find ways to expand their powers.

Actually, one of the most devastating critiques I have seen agains the climate alarmists is here from the comments section of a blog:



> I still remember the one specific thing that absolutely tipped me over the edge from being a, I guess you would call it "lukewarmer" -- I believed in the sincerity and the expertise of the scientists who claimed human industry was making a significant contribution to global warming, and that the disaster scenarios they forecast were likelier than one should be comfortable with, even if I was dubious about the efficacy and practical feasibility of favoured solutions -- into being an actual skeptic, specifically of the people involved in the cause.
> 
> It was the response of Phil Jones, of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, to someone who had requested a look at some of the raw data the CRU had used for its forecast models. Jones refused the request and told the person (I don't remember who it was, it may even have been Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick): "_Why should I share this data with you, when your goal is to find something wrong with it_?"
> 
> That one remark flipped me irrevocably over into the "skeptic" camp, because it was a complete and total contradiction of everything science is supposed to be about: the whole point of sharing data as a scientist is to see if someone else can find something wrong with it. The only time a scientist ever refuses to share data is when he has a political or economic investment in how that data will be used. That doesn't prove such data is, ipso facto, false, but it certainly skews my willingness to rely on it when public policy is on the line.



and



> About climate “science” and other frauds…
> 
> As Vox wrote, as a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If you cannot build a simple machine or a simple physical object out of the scientific principles that you are expounding, then, chances are, those physical principles are wrong.
> 
> ...



Just like looking at the real results of the Reagan revolution happening outside the classroom window when my instructors were insisting that it was completely impossible by Keynesian economic theory (but then again the preceding stagflation was also impossible under Keynesian economic theory) made me a follower of Austrian and Classical economic theories, since they actually explain the real world somewhat more closely, looking at the real world of historical data compared to the AGW alarmists "predictions" has soured me on their drivel. (the massive storms we are supposed to be getting as the climate arms should have been recorded by the Vikings, who lived in a slightly warmer epoch than we do, for example...)


----------



## cld617 (29 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.
> 
> As well, if you read this thread, you will see lots of eminent scientists do not agree with the climate change narrative, and of course many of the ones who _do_ promote the narrative do so because they also get big cheques from governments and bureaucrats eager to find ways to expand their powers.
> 
> ...



Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an asshole.


----------



## Furniture (30 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an *******.



One of the issues with AGW is that the proponents expect people to accept their findings while withholding raw data, or manipulating the data to suit the agenda. With something like string theory or the origins of the universe most people will accept the scientists theories and explanations without question because it does not impact their daily lives. The "Climate Change" Prophets and High Priests expect the masses to accept their conclusions without question, and then expect the believers to change their lifestyles based on the idea that the scientists know best. 

When the church of AGW can reasonably explain the continuous cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of the planet, and then explain why those same cycles are now not applicable then maybe more people will believe them. 

If I wanted to listen to someone pontificate about doing the right thing, spending my money on worthy causes, and stopping my immoral western lifestyle I'd go down the road the Baptists, or the RCs. I don't like it when people junk up the science of my job with things like faith and belief...


----------



## cld617 (30 Jul 2015)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> One of the issues with AGW is that the proponents expect people to accept their findings while withholding raw data, or manipulating the data to suit the agenda. With something like string theory or the origins of the universe most people will accept the scientists theories and explanations without question because it does not impact their daily lives. The "Climate Change" Prophets and High Priests expect the masses to accept their conclusions without question, and then expect the believers to change their lifestyles based on the idea that the scientists know best.
> 
> When the church of AGW can reasonably explain the continuous cycles of warming and cooling throughout the history of the planet, and then explain why those same cycles are now not applicable then maybe more people will believe them. One potentially bad apple does not ruin an entire fields credibility, and if you believe it does, you've had an agenda to find a way out of reality all along.
> 
> If I wanted to listen to someone pontificate about doing the right thing, spending my money on worthy causes, and stopping my immoral western lifestyle I'd go down the road the Baptists, or the RCs. I don't like it when people junk up the science of my job with things like faith and belief...



The majority of data is available if you're willing to seek it. Because one individual makes it difficult for you by saying no, and the media has done a good job of making him out to be an *******, the data is unreachable? Sounds like you're using this an excuse to give up and go home, make an effort. 

When you stop condescendingly referring to it as a church, maybe then you'll be open enough to accept what the educated people already have. You evidently have no desire to change your mind, so remain on your high horse willingly pissing into the wind if you wish. It makes little difference in the end, the research continues and we're expanding our understanding by the day.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Are there bad seeds on both sides of the camp, are there good seeds on both sides of the camp? Absolutely! That does not however make less of the reality that is AGW being held as factual by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. An appeal to authority in art would be a logical fallacy, an appeal to authority in science is the only logical step to make. You nor I are privy to the information necessary to factually prove or disprove AGW, we must rely upon those who make this their lives work and adhere to the scientific method which allows for constant growth of theory and rejection of what which can be disproven, which AGW has not been despite well funded faux-experts telling you otherwise. There are some scientists who do not adhere to the current understanding of the field, correct. However what do you believe to be "lots"? 100 is a lot, but when the entirely pool to chose from numbers in the tens of thousands, 100 is a very very small number. The mere fact that your considering climategate's very own Phil Jones to be one of the most devastating blows to climate science is a testament to the fact that you're more worried about the drama associated with sciences than the raw data of it. We don't have to prove anyone wrong, just have to make them look like an *******.



Wrong answer. We are not privy to the raw data because it is being withheld and manipulated by those who have a vested interest or agenda in promoting climate change hysteria. The essence of science is transparency and reproducible results. If someone makes an extraordinary claim in science, it is up to them to provide the data, experimental setup and so on so other scientists can examine the evidence and reproduce the experiments. If they can reproduce the results, then (and only then) should the science be considered valid. 

Hiding or distorting the data, withholding the algorithms responsible for the "predictions" and manipulating the various elements of the scientific establishment (the campaign to deny people publication on peer reviewed journals, "hide the decline" and other events detailed in the Climategate email releases) is the actions of people committing fraud, not doing science.


----------



## cld617 (30 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wrong answer. We are not privy to the raw data because it is being withheld and manipulated by those who have a vested interest or agenda in promoting climate change hysteria. The essence of science is transparency and reproducible results. If someone makes an extraordinary claim in science, it is up to them to provide the data, experimental setup and so on so other scientists can examine the evidence and reproduce the experiments. If they can reproduce the results, then (and only then) should the science be considered valid.
> 
> Hiding or distorting the data, withholding the algorithms responsible for the "predictions" and manipulating the various elements of the scientific establishment (the campaign to deny people publication on peer reviewed journals, "hide the decline" and other events detailed in the Climategate email releases) is the actions of people committing fraud, not doing science.



You willfully ignore the rest of that post, and the one above yours. One bad seed does not invalidate an entire field of study. If that is your justification for your denial, you're just as agenda driven as you claim climatologists to be.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> You willfully ignore the rest of that post, and the one above yours. One bad seed does not invalidate an entire field of study. If that is your justification for your denial, you're just as agenda driven as you claim climatologists to be.



Unfortunately, there are more than one bad seed in those groups of 'Chicken Littles'.   How can you blame so many, who actually take the time to do some research of their own from being skeptical, when they find so many fallacies and inaccuracies in what is presented?  If you want to join the group of 'Chicken Littles' and accept everything verbatim, that is your choice.  Because someone disagrees with, or does not accept, your points of view, does not make them wrong.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Jul 2015)

This "debate" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. You lot have much in common with anti-vaxxers. Don't waste your time cld617, these guys have decided and no amount of evidence will change their minds. 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=4



> You can follow the logic to its conclusion: Conservatives are more likely to embrace climate science if it comes to them via a business or religious leader, who can set the issue in the context of different values than those from which environmentalists or scientists often argue. Doing so is, effectively, to signal a détente in what Kahan has called a "culture war of fact." In other words, paradoxically, you don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This "debate" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. You lot have much in common with anti-vaxxers. Don't waste your time cld617, these guys have decided and no amount of evidence will change their minds.



I often wonder why you frequent this site, with your obvious distaste for the majority of the membership.  

So?  Which way have you swung this time?  Are we facing 'Global Warming' or are we 'Entering an Ice Age'?




Just to be fair and lay MY Cards on the table; from my science lectures at school, I learned that the climate of the earth is cyclical.  We go from Ice Age to Temperate Climates to Ice Age to.......therefore changes in climate are nothing new.  It is a natural fact that the climate will change and I highly doubt that mankind has any more than a minimal affect on this fact of the way our little blue planet third from the sun's climate behaves.  I am not about to run around like Chicken Little in a panic over something that we actually have little control over.  I am proud that Western nations have taken huge leaps in technology and science to cut down on pollution and continue to improve.  We can now swim safely in the Great Lakes; something we could not do safely two decades ago.  I think that the mouthpieces for the Environmental Movements are for the most part hypocrites, fear mongering for their own profit.


----------



## larry Strong (30 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I often wonder why you frequent this site, with your obvious distaste for the majority of the membership.





I keep thinking "Wonder Bread".............




Cheers
Larry


----------



## cld617 (30 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just to be fair and lay MY Cards on the table; from my science lectures at school, I learned that the climate of the earth is cyclical.  We go from Ice Age to Temperate Climates to Ice Age to.......therefore changes in climate are nothing new.  It is a natural fact that the climate will change and I highly doubt that mankind has any more than a minimal affect on this fact of the way our little blue planet third from the sun's climate behaves.  I am not about to run around like Chicken Little in a panic over something that we actually have little control over.  I am proud that Western nations have taken huge leaps in technology and science to cut down on pollution and continue to improve.  We can now swim safely in the Great Lakes; something we could not do safely two decades ago.  I think that the mouthpieces for the Environmental Movements are for the most part hypocrites, fear mongering for their own profit.



This argument that it is natural cycle may be convincing enough for some, but it is not enough for those even moderately educated on the matter. I'm not sure what lectures you're speaking of, however they evidently left scale out of it if you think the current trends can be explained via natural causes. The rate at which our planet has warmed over the last few centuries is unlike ever before, and the rise coincides almost identically with the advent of fossil fuels. Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, there are more than one bad seed in those groups of 'Chicken Littles'.   How can you blame so many, who actually take the time to do some research of their own from being skeptical, when they find so many fallacies and inaccuracies in what is presented?  If you want to join the group of 'Chicken Littles' and accept everything verbatim, that is your choice.  Because someone disagrees with, or does not accept, your points of view, does not make them wrong.



For several reasons, primarily because they're rarely capable of conducting their own research, or even formally educated on the topic. They're picking apart work done by others, taking what they require to push their well financed inaccuracies, and discarding that which contradicts them. That leads right into my next argument that no, it does not make them wrong, but it does call their ability to be rational deductive thinkers. When you throw the material presented by acclaimed scientists and institutions under the bus in favor of materials produced by organizations whom a few decades ago told you smoking was ok, you fail miserably at recognizing a big old glass of bullshit that's being served up for you.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> ...... Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well.



Well....As we just broke a record for temperature set in 1944, I question your point.  As the keeping of records to record temperatures is only in the last one hundred years or so, I am in no panic.   Archaeologists, Paleontologists, and others have proven we have had much warmer temperatures, and much colder temperatures, in the couple thousand millennium, so once again, I am not going to panic.




			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> For several reasons, primarily because they're rarely capable of conducting their own research, or even formally educated on the topic. They're picking apart work done by others, taking what they require to push their well financed inaccuracies, and discarding that which contradicts them. That leads right into my next argument that no, it does not make them wrong, but it does call their ability to be rational deductive thinkers. When you throw the material presented by acclaimed scientists and institutions under the bus in favor of materials produced by organizations whom a few decades ago told you smoking was ok, you fail miserably at recognizing a big old glass of bullshit that's being served up for you.



So you debunk most of what they say as well.  Welcome to the club of those who are not falling for what the Environmentalist hypocrites are spewing.


----------



## cld617 (30 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....As we just broke a record for temperature set in 1944, I question your point.  As the keeping of records to record temperatures is only in the last one hundred years or so, I am in no panic.   Archaeologists, Paleontologists, and others have proven we have had much warmer temperatures, and much colder temperatures, in the couple thousand millennium, so once again, I am not going to panic.



Argument from ignorance, it happened before so it's ok. No, it is not okay. Climate shifts over thousands of years are naturally occurring events which flora and fauna can adapt to. Rapid changes to ecosystems can push species into migration, but more often than not it results in habitat destruction and death. We've already proved that man can have detrimental effects on our planet (acid rain), and that attempts to curtail these impacts can be successful. Panic is not necessary, but this culture of denialism and the sale of it by those with vested monetary interests to the tune of billions of dollars needs to stop. You're refusal to even acknowledge this being an repeated activity makes me question your own motives. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you debunk most of what they say as well.  Welcome to the club of those who are not falling for what the Environmentalist hypocrites are spewing.



There is a significant difference between exposing the misrepresentation of data, and willfully selling ignorance to the already misinformed.


----------



## Furniture (30 Jul 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> This argument that it is natural cycle may be convincing enough for some, but it is not enough for those even moderately educated on the matter. I'm not sure what lectures you're speaking of, however they evidently left scale out of it if you think the current trends can be explained via natural causes. The rate at which our planet has warmed over the last few centuries is unlike ever before, and the rise coincides almost identically with the advent of fossil fuels. Are you next going to tell me we've had no warming since 98', because I'm more than capable of debunking that logical fallacy as well.



What is your background in Meteorology/Climatology? What makes you so much more qualified to assess the value and accuracy of data than the rest of the great unwashed? 

I'm relatively certain that the dinosaurs, Neanderthals, Egyptians, Romans, etc... lacked the weather stations that are available now to keep the types of climatological records that we have been keeping for the last 150 years. Hell, 150 years ago the weather stations would not have been as accurate or as well controlled. Once we include the fact that the oldest records only cover a fraction of the planet, it's easy to see that there were and still are major gaps in available reliable data. With those data gaps, and the differences in temperatures caused by different temp recording methods it isn't hard to see that the data isn't as clear as some would like it to be. 

As an example, a thermometer used for determining dry air temperature is located in a Stevenson screen, generally with air moving over the bulb at a fixed rate. Take two thermometers with the appropriate correction cards and place them in the same area, one inside a properly maintained Stevenson screen and the other on the concrete walk to the screen. Both thermometers will read accurate temperatures but the one outside the screen will read very differently than the one inside the screen. Now let’s take this and change the data collection method even more, let’s take data from Stevenson screens that was collected back in the early 1900s and compare it to temperatures determined by a satellite orbiting 35000km above the planet and that is reading temperatures through hundreds of km of atmosphere before passing through all of the moisture in the troposphere... How close do you expect those two types of temperature readings to match up? 

I'm not saying cutting back on emissions and waste is a bad thing, I'm saying let’s do it in a logical way and for the right reasons. Let’s not just have faith that the nice guys in the lab coats have our best interests in mind while collecting massive amounts of research money to tell us how to live.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jul 2015)

:goodpost:

Thanks Weatherdog


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Jul 2015)

Turns out the climate models that are so often cited as being inaccurate by climate change skeptics are more accurate than previously thought. The question is, will this change anyone's mind? Or at least get them thinking?


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jul/31/climate-models-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought



> When accounting for these factors, the study finds that the difference between observed and modeled temperatures since 1975 is smaller than previously believed. The models had projected a 0.226°C per decade global surface air warming trend for 1975–2014 (and 0.212°C per decade over the geographic area covered by the HadCRUT4 record). However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade.
> 
> So when doing an apples-to-apples comparison, the difference between modeled global temperature simulations and observations is 38% smaller than previous estimates. Additionally, as noted in a 2014 paper led by NASA GISS director Gavin Schmidt, less energy from the sun has reached the Earth’s surface than anticipated in these model simulations, both because solar activity declined more than expected, and volcanic activity was higher than expected. Ed Hawkins, another co-author of this study, wrote about this effect.
> 
> "Combined, the apparent discrepancy between observations and simulations of global temperature over the past 15 years can be partly explained by the way the comparison is done (about a third), by the incorrect radiative forcings (about a third) and the rest is either due to climate variability or because the models are slightly over sensitive on average. But, the room for the latter effect is now much smaller."


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2015)

Since accurate temperature records from the past are not available, we need to look at historical proxies.

For example, in the 1100's to early 1400's, Vikings lived in Greenland and carried out "croft farming", and Scotland was a wine producing nation. It is far too cold today for anyone to croft farm in Greenland or raise wine grapes in fields in Scotland today.

During the 1400's to the late 1700's, it was cold enough for rivers like the Thames to freeze over hard enough to have "frost fairs" on the ice, and George Washington won some major victories over the British by dragging artillery over frozen rivers in North America.

100 years later, the frost fairs were a distant memory and American Civil War generals fighting over the same territory as George Washington were unable to use winter ice as a means of transporting heavy artillery, since the rivers were no longer frozen over.

So we have very unequivocal evidence of dramatic temperature swings (far greater than anything we have see to date) and over a very short time frame (perhaps under a century), but oddly the other effects that are "predicted" for climate change are not recorded in the historical record.

Other observations can also be added to the mix, for example the temperatures on the planet Mars have been changing in a similar pattern to those on Earth.

If the historical record and current space science does not match either the "reconstructions" of the climate change alarmists (the so called "Hockey Stick" graph ignores both the European Warm Period _and_ the Little Ice Age), nor any of the predicted effects of climate change recorded, then perhaps a _bit_ of scepticism is in order.


----------



## cld617 (3 Aug 2015)

I'm just going to leave this here...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-basic.htm


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since accurate temperature records from the past are not available, we need to look at historical proxies.
> 
> For example, in the 1100's to early 1400's, Vikings lived in Greenland and carried out "croft farming", and Scotland was a wine producing nation. It is far too cold today for anyone to croft farm in Greenland or raise wine grapes in fields in Scotland today.
> 
> ...



If you're referencing the Soon and Baliunas findings you should know that their paper was thoroughly debunked and several editors of the journal that published it resigned in embarrassment. 

Unless you're referencing data that climate specialists around the world have never seen, or your interpretation is somehow more correct than theirs is, this post adds nothing to the conversation. You've been quoting this European warming nonsense for years. It's junk science.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I'm just going to leave this here...
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green-basic.htm



Thanks for the contribution cld617.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If you're referencing the Soon and Baliunas findings you should know that their paper was thoroughly debunked and several editors of the journal that published it resigned in embarrassment.
> 
> Unless you're referencing data that climate specialists around the world have never seen, or your interpretation is somehow more correct than theirs is, this post adds nothing to the conversation. You've been quoting this European warming nonsense for years. It's junk science.



So how come only your scientists are "right", Kilo?

How come "your" side gets to declare that the science is settled (Gore)? Since when is science ever settled on anything? Does that not become dogma, at that point?

How come Suzuki gets to declare that "deniers" should be jailed, and get a pass? How does that advance science?

My problem with so called global warming (or is it climate change this week?) is not that I do not think that humans have had an impact on climate (I do), I just hapen to believe that that: 

It is smaller than the natural variation in the system; and

The cure (solar and wind energy) is worse than the disease.

I also happen to know that those espousing branches of "renewable" energy, don't understand the concept of return on energy investment. In other words, for source of energy to make sense and to support a modern industrial society, it must return 7 times the energy that was invested in it. Wind and solar both fail horribly on those points.

In Canada, where the climate is generally cold and the distances vast, it is difficult to conceive of a non carbon based economy for the next 50-100 years. Unless you intend on depopulating the prairies. Or ceasing all agriculture. Take a pick.


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Aug 2015)

"My" scientists are not paid by the petroleum industry, and they outnumber "yours" 100 to 1. 

Did you read the article I posted above? It cites a study that concludes the climate models currently being used are even more accurate than previously thought. 

Given the fact that neither of us are specialists all we can do is look at what the specialists are in fact saying. "Your" specialists, I'm sorry to say, aren't considered to be practicing valid science by a vast majority of their peers, given who they work for and the quality of their work.

It doesn't matter what you believe, "natural variation" was considered and was ruled out as a primary cause. The data is only getting stronger and more conclusive and this leads me to believe that the vast majority of skeptics are not engaged in this discussion in a rational way. 

IF for example, 97% of the world's scientists turned around and announced anthropomorphic climate change was NOT occurring, I would accept that conclusion.

So, we have a vast majority of scientists believing it is occurring, and most of the very tiny minority are funded by the very people whose bottom line depends on continued exploitation of oil/natural gas/coal. 

Unless you believe that the "green lobby" is somehow all powerful, to the point of perpetrating a fraud across hundreds of scientific institutions and agencies from countries with widely varying foreign/domestic policies, paying off scientists and convincing them to betray the public trust, this is simply not a debate. It is accepted science.

Do you believe vaccinations work?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Aug 2015)

Kilo, raising the vaccination question is what's known as a straw man argument. It has no bearing on global warming question. Why did you raise it? As a subtle ad hominem attack on my intelligence, perhaps? Did it make you feel superior?

I am not in the pay of the oil industry. Lord, do I wish I was. And you know nothing of my scientific background, so do not presume, you presumptuous little twit (you earned that ad hominem attack).

Since when did we vote on science? For example, everyone "knew" ulcers were caused by stress. Until some lone scientist (who was ostracized and ridiculed) proved that it was caused by a bacteria. A whole branch of the medical industry saw there livelihood threatened and did not like it one bit. This is not a strawman, BTW- it is an apology.

I do not believe in conspiracies. They are too difficult to keep running. I do, however, believe in both group think and herd mentality. I question "accepted wisdom" because, I have discovered over my life that often it is not what you think it is.

And you telling me that I must believe and stop questioning smacks of both dogma and accords science a quasi religious status it does not deserve. Science must always and forever be challenged- it is the only way in which knowledge is advanced.

I am not going to convince you of anything, and that is okay. I do not care. But, when 40 or 50 years from now, when you are laying in the ruins of what used to be western civilization, do try and remember your part in dismembering it?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> "My" scientists are not paid by the petroleum industry, and they outnumber "yours" 100 to 1.



LOL!

I am sure that Galileo was outnumbered by more than 100 to 1, yet today we know the world is round.

What is your point?

[Edit to add:]

Are you saying that your '100' scientists can not be WRONG as they were in the days of Galileo?


----------



## cld617 (3 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!
> 
> I am sure that Galileo was outnumbered by more than 100 to 1, yet today we know the world is round.
> 
> ...



Implying those who denounce AGW are on the same level as Galileo. I get the point, but a bit of a stretch.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2015)

Especially since Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth went around the sun.


----------



## suffolkowner (4 Aug 2015)

The AGW has certainly attracted more lay opposition than any other scientific theory other than evolution in recent history. I'm not entirely sure why this is so. There may be an alternative explanation that eventually replaces it, so far none have withstood scrutiny. All published articles must make their data available for review as part of the peer review and I know of very few natural scientists that make good money. Most that I know personally make around $30,000. I have not found any of the popular criticisms have withstood my own investigations. I think people need to separate the scientific theory/evidence from some of the proscribed solutions put forward. It is possible to support one and oppose another


----------



## cld617 (4 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Especially since Galileo was persecuted for claiming the Earth went around the sun.



This isn't the 1600's, climate science isn't equivalent to geocentric models of our solar system. The attempts to paint them with the same brush is a foolish one. 

I'd also like to see some references as to why AGW is a failed theory. Enough of the criticism and labeling it a church, provide some studies.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2015)

And this is the reason Brits consider the Pub a sacred institution.

Churches are far too contentious.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2015)

Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?

I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?

Real science starts with observations, and observations like Vikings were doing a type of farming in Greenland that is not possible today fly _directly_ in the face of the climate change alarmists. The other predicted effects of warmer temperatures, like agricultural distress or violent storms are also not supported in the historical record (indeed the population during the European Warm Period was growing due to better harvests, and there are historical records from parishes to prove this as well), but we are expected to believe that a similar amount of warming that the Vikings experienced is going to create a global disaster for us.

So, Kilo, you can go right ahead and ignore the observations and evidence, since it does not support the narrative, and be sure to call NASA and tell them to stop with all these rovers on Mars idling and raising the surface temperature on that planet as well. (Since they are electric vehicles powered by solar energy, and about as "green" as any piece of human technology in history, you might have to give the NASA people a bit of time to pick themselves off the floor and catch their breaths after they hear from you).

And of course NASA also has this observation about climate change:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html



> *New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism*
> Forbes By James Taylor
> July 27, 2011 3:23 PM
> 
> ...



Can you remind us which oil companies pay NASA scientists again?


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Aug 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Kilo, raising the vaccination question is what's known as a straw man argument. It has no bearing on global warming question. Why did you raise it? As a subtle ad hominem attack on my intelligence, perhaps? Did it make you feel superior?
> 
> I am not in the pay of the oil industry. Lord, do I wish I was. And you know nothing of my scientific background, so do not presume, you presumptuous little twit (you earned that ad hominem attack).
> 
> ...



Ironically, a British study was just released that predicts the collapse of industrialized societies around the world by 2040 due to food shortages caused by *climate change.
*
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/society-will-collapse-by-2040-due-to-catastrophic-food-shortages-says-study-10336406.html

My question is, which reports are you citing? Which scientists still deny anthropomorphic climate change? It's a very short list of names, and most work for think tanks on an equally short (and predictable) list.

I raised the vaccination question precisely because "anti-vaxxers" share a lot with those who deny anthropomorphic climate change. Those who doubt the efficacy of vaccines tend to fall on the left of the spectrum, but the same unwillingness to examine data, to really try and understand the data is there. Most climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers (I dislike using these labels but they are convenient) in my opinion are not participating in the "debate" in good faith. We're only seeing more and more data confirming that climate change is occurring, yet the deniers keep referencing the same arguments over and over again. If new data won't change your mind, what will?






			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?
> 
> I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?
> 
> ...



The author is "senior fellow for Environment Policy at The Heartland Institute."  You're aware of the storied history of this think tank denying the link between cancer and smoking right? If you're willing to pay, they'll put out anything it seems.

It would be interesting to see what NASA says about his analysis of their data. In fact, there's a definite pattern here. Here's an article detailing how James Taylor misinterpreted data from another study conducted by Canadian scientists. They contacted him and made it clear his interpretation of their data was incorrect, yet he didn't change anything in his paper. 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/19/1608431/heartlands-james-taylor-falsely-claims-new-study-rejects-climate-consensus/



> James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past — his new blog post is no different.
> 
> Taylor claims in his post that a study of over a thousand professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta is somehow representative of all scientists in the world. But the authors of the study, Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, wrote in a response at Forbes (full comment reproduced below) that
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> PHD's are experts in their own fields, so I would listen to a space scientist talking about space, not climate.



This little piece by Thuc. is probably the only intelligent statement in this thread in the last few months.

It's unfortunate that most here, including Thuc. himself, don't take it to heart and draw the proper derivative conclusion from it, which is then that PhD's in climatology are the ones we should listen to on matters of climate science.

Those of us that have been convinced of the scientific reality of Climate Change (meaning here that there is a major and rapid shift about to occur in the planet's climate, that is almost certainly caused by recent human activity in the last hundred years, and will have profound effects on human society, perhaps even existence) DO have climatologists (PhD's and above in climatology) on our side. It is called the IPCC report on Climate Change. The single largest ever peer reviewed scientific consensus. 

No one denies the existence of that report, nor that its conclusion is that which I expressed above in parenthesis. So it is up to those not convinced in these pages to provide scientific evidence from climatologists to the contrary as reported in proper scientific peer reviewed papers. Not from pseudo-scientists in other fields, not from social scientists and other forms of lobbyists/Government issues think-thank, nor bloggers or other op-ed sources.

On that basis, let's review Thuc's latest offering:


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Kilo. while you can play the same moving goal posts game as other AGW alarmists, the historical record is clear and unequivocal. Unless you can demonstrate that the Vikings were busy driving to their conquests in SUV's (and idling outside of the cities they sacked) there is no explanation involving human agency to explain the archeological remains of croft farms in Greenland or the records of Scottish vintners in that period. Or are you a history denier?
> 
> I suppose you also expect us to believe that the Little Ice Age is also some sort of hoax as well?
> 
> Real science starts with observations, and observations like Vikings were doing a type of farming in Greenland that is not possible today fly _directly_ in the face of the climate change alarmists. The other predicted effects of warmer temperatures, like agricultural distress or violent storms are also not supported in the historical record (indeed the population during the European Warm Period was growing due to better harvests, and there are historical records from parishes to prove this as well), but we are expected to believe that a similar amount of warming that the Vikings experienced is going to create a global disaster for us.



Yes, Thuc. science starts with observations, but it doesn't stop there and then go right away into a simplistic pseudo-social-sciences battle of false logic such as : "it rained yesterday, so we are not in a drought" or "it was cold two winters ago, so the planet is not warming", or "there were only ten hurricanes last year as opposed to an average of twelve, so the predicted increase in hurricane frequencies is wrong". What science does is collect a large number of data, collate, plot and analyze them then identify trends, identify potential causes for the observed trends, postulate relationship between the various causes and the effects observed, from that develop theories, verify if the theories can be validated or invalidated by their application to past data, and if so if they properly predict future situations.

For instance, we now know, through science, that until about 10,000 years ago, monsoon rains fell in what is now the Sahara desert, making it green and lush for most of the year and causing a wide variety of human and other animal life to flourish there. That, and your Little Ice Age, and the European Warm period you described have been scientifically proven to be the result of variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun, and in its spin axle and in sun activity changes. However, those variations and there effects are known facts that were incorporated and are taken into consideration by the climatologists models that led them to conclude in the existence of Global Warming.

So, your reference to them and their historical existence is irrelevant to the science, which has already taken note of it and incorporated it in its conclusion. 

Let's now turn to your alleged supporting evidence, using here the tools of proper peer-reviewed social science research:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> And of course NASA also has this observation about climate change:
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
> 
> Can you remind us which oil companies pay NASA scientists again?



First of all, it is simply a lie that NASA "has this observation". You refer to an article, in Forbes.com, which is an Op-Ed piece by one James M. Taylor. Forbes is not a NASA magazine, nor even a scientific publication; Mr. Taylor, who is not a scientist at all (as we will see a little further on), has no connection to NASA whatsoever, and nowhere in the article is there any reference to an actual statement, official or not, of a NASA representative, to the effect stated in the title. Bluntly put, Mr. Taylor's opinion piece does not report NASA's position in any way, form or shape.

Second, as indicated, I call Mr. Taylor's piece an "opinion". Why? Because he himself presents it as such ( https://www.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd ). 

But moving on to the third point, If as you stated above Thuc, you listen to PhD's in a given field as the proper expert (my starting point in this post), then what field is Mr. Taylor from? See the link above to his employment with the Heartland institute: He is a "Jd" - meaning he has completed his law degree - he is a lawyer but doesn't present himself as such, probably because he is not a member of any Bar and has never practiced. HAs he other qualifications? Yes, he has a bachelor's degree. In what, we don't know. He states that "received his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College where he studied atmospheric science and majored in government. So the major is in government studies. The statement that he "studied atmospheric science" however is unqualified and can stand for the fact that he took a basic low level course in that subject as one of his elective. None of this makes him an expert in anything.

Then we have to look at where he comes to us from: The Heartland institute. Who are these people? Well, THEY claim to be " a 31-year-old national nonprofit research organization dedicated to finding and promoting ideas that empower people." Their mission statement is: "Mission: Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." (source: https://www.heartland.org/about)

See any reference there to peer reviewed climatology science? I don't. And a quick review of their "expert" panel of collaborators indicate an organization that is 99% made up of business administration professors, law professors and other jurists, government affairs professors and economists. This is NOT a scientific (in the sense of "hard" sciences) organization at all.

Turning now to Mr. Taylor's opinion, I find it to be a sophisticated piece of falsity by unwarranted association. First of all, the constant reference to data from NASA and NOAC is presented to make one believe that it is contradicting in itself the whole Global Warming science and that the scientist who put out the paper basically rejected the validity of the IPCC models and "blew them out", which is completely false: They never reach that conclusion in their paper (I have attached the paper for reference for any one who cares, as I did to read it and try to understand it). Then Mr. Taylor refer to the "press release" of the University to support HIS own view of what he wants them to mean, not the scientist's view. 

What are the scientist's real conclusions then? The current models generally used by scientists part of the IPCC review hypothesized that the dissipation of heat in the upper atmosphere from any given warming event would not begin until the maximum of the event is reached and would cease when the minima of the warming event is reached. The article in this case compares various such models with the observed data from a system located ON a NASA satellite during the last ten years and concludes that there is a time lag between the observed data and the models' predictions of heat dissipation, such that dissipation actually begin to occur before the maxima and continues for some times after the minima is reached. As a result, the scientists conclude that it might be that there is a greater amount of dissipation from warming event than currently predicted, so it might be that the upper atmosphere of the planet may not warm up as fast as the models predict.

At no point do the scientist: (1) reject the current overall models; (2) conclude in any way that their research contradicts Global Warming; or that (3) the current models are "alarmists" and there is in fact no danger/Global Warming.

They do conclude, however, that after 20 years of research and modelling, it remains difficult to distinguish from one another the contributions of the various factors influencing climate change and that their research does not permit better distinguishing, which remains elusive.

What those scientists have down is taken data as observed and shown that, for one of the aspects of the modelling, it currently does not match in timing and may not match in total amount either. Now, other scientists will review this research and either confirm it or prove it incorrect and will then work to develop better potential explanations, refine the model accordingly and adjust the results predicted as a consequence. 

This is all in the future, probably by many decades, and may ultimately mean no change, little change or big change in the ultimate conclusion. Right now, no one can know for sure, other than the fact that the rest of the modelling is unchanged and the overall observed results continue to pan according to the current state of research. Anyone who expands this to mean that Global Warming has been debunked is an idiot with no understanding whatsoever of the scientific method.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Aug 2015)

Here's an interesting bit on how the constant predictions of doom (and the resulting personal attacks) are actually affecting climatologists:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

[size=14pt]





> [size=14pt][size=12pt]Scientists are problem solvers by nature, trained to cherish detachment as a moral ideal. Jeffrey Kiehl was a senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research when he became so concerned about the way the brain resists climate science, he took a break and got a psychology degree. Ten years of research later, he's concluded that consumption and growth have become so central to our sense of personal identity and the fear of economic loss creates such numbing anxiety, we literally cannot imagine making the necessary changes. Worse, accepting the facts threatens us with a loss of faith in the fundamental order of the universe. Climate scientists are different only because they have a professional excuse for detachment, and usually it's not until they get older that they admit how much it's affecting them—which is also when they tend to get more outspoken, Kiehl says. "You reach a point where you feel—and that's the word, not think, feel—'I have to do something.'
> 
> This accounts for the startled reaction when Camille Parmesan of the University of Texas—who was a member of the group that shared a Nobel prize with Al Gore for their climate work—announced that she'd become "professionally depressed" and was leaving the United States for England. A plainspoken Texan who grew up in Houston as the daughter of an oil geologist, Parmesan now says it was more about the politics than the science. "To be honest, I panicked fifteen years ago—that was when the first studies came out showing that Arctic tundras were shifting from being a net sink to being a net source of CO2. That along with the fact this butterfly I was studying shifted its entire range across half a continent—I said this is big, this is big. Everything since then has just confirmed it."
> 
> ...





> "[/size]


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2015)

While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it and Forbes published it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are _directly_ quoting a NASA report, which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative", which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded), much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.

I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.

The second thing which drives opposition is the relentless campaign by the alarmists to prevent raw data, algorithms and other tools they use to derive their conclusions from being widely available. Once again, the scientific method depends on transparency and the ability of anyone to reproduce results. If the results cannot be reproduced, then the science behind the results is wrong. (Alternatively, you can always reproduce the results of correct science anywhere and at any time. High school science students do this as part of learning the scientific method).

The third thing driving opposition are revelations that the process is being manipulated. "Hide the decline", pressuring journals not to publish  articles that do not support the narrative, even revelations that supporters were attempting to manipulate so called carbon exchanges were all exposed in the Climategate emails, which should give any serious person pause when considering the motivations behind this narrative. If you want to dismiss thousands of emails by hundreds of climate change alarmists discussing how to manipulate the process, but are willing to accuse climate change skeptics of manipulation, then it suggests a certain bias in your world view.

Lastly, what are the motivations? The people getting the fat cheques from governments and flying (with huge carbon emissions) to international conferences about climate change are not the people opposing the alarmist narrative; quite the opposite. Politicians and bureaucrats are thrilled with a narrative which they can use to expand their powers, so have every incentive to promote that. When the solar cycles come to a minimum in the 2030's I don't think anyone should be surprised to see demands for greater government powers to stop the cooling crisis, promote agricultural growth, mitigate the increasingly severe weather, transfer trillions of dollars of wealth and so on.

Since alarmists cannot or will not address these issues, you should see why rational people will view the skeptics more favourably.


----------



## c_canuk (4 Aug 2015)

When the IPCC stops supporting measures that do nothing to address climate change in favour of global wealth distribution, I'll care what they have to say.

The Doom and Gloom crowd consistently pushes worst case scenarios and scare mongers. In case you don't remember we're supposed to all be dead with hundreds of feet of water over our heads by now.

Pressure is being applied and change is happening, even in China they are working on curbing emissions. 

Is AGW real? it's a possibility and that's good enough for me to look at changing our energy economy when coupled with the links to autism, cancer rates and respiratory problems that our burning of fossil fuels is responsible for. Is it enough for me to support systematic disassembling of our infrastructure to go live in a cave while millions perish, not a chance.

AGW has a huge image problem based on who represents it and who associates with it.

SJW trying to redistribute wealth.
People edging on eugenics (population control)
Boutique cause supporters... the sort to protest Walmart's purchasing from china, while taking selfies at the rally on their iPhone.
By politicians grandstanding with little to no subject matter knowledge, looking for photo ops.
By Solar and Wind proponents selling their scam.


In addition we start to get suspicious when poor statistical analysis that wouldn't fly anywhere else, including an introduction to statistics class, is used as concrete proof.

Should we move off fossil fuels, definitely. But the largest problem I have is that the majority of AGW supporters are anti nuke.

Nuclear reactors would be able to provide 100% base and peak loads of our power requirements using off peak power to replace our fossil fuels with synthetically created hydrocarbons made from the CO2 already in our atmosphere. Everyone wins here, AGW get to eliminate CO2 Emissions and even reduce the total content perhaps, and everyone gets to keep their current standard of living or even increase it.

That the AGW movement has not embraced this technology over the last 35 years of fighting to do something is indicative that they don't think the problem is urgent, or that Eliminating CO2 emissions is not their goal.

This movement started in the 80s, in that time a few 10s of people have died, and cancer rates have been increased marginally from accidents from reactor designs that have long since been improved on. 10s of people and a marginal cancer rate sounds bad until you compare it to the 10s of 1000s from fossil fuels and the large increases in cancer rates from coal alone.

iirc yearly, coal fired power plants release as much radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere as all nuclear accidents combined have (excepting Chernobyl iirc).

so why is this not an effective compromise? Why is the AGW movement not willing to work on this? Why is it not the primary objective of the AGW movement?

Edit: Spelling


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2015)

Some good points there c_canuk.

You have overlooked "hydro-electric".  Niagara Falls Generating Plant can produce more electricity than it currently does, but due to current Ontario Government direction it is not.   Solar and Wind Farms are not capable of generating enough power to meet Ontario's demands, and in some cases it is being questioned as to the fact that they may in fact be health hazards.  Why the Ontario Government has cut back on the generation of electricity through its nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams is quite puzzling to me.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it and Forbes published it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are _directly_ quoting a NASA report, which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative", which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded), much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.
> 
> I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.
> 
> ...



Just about everything Roy Spencer as written on climate change is called into question at this link. These are rational people. If Roy Spencer had found something new, I have no doubt it would be examined in responsible way using proper scientific method.

https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/



> Climatologists Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo posted a short response to the paper on the RealClimate blog.  They showed that Spencer and Braswell had made a statistical blunder by failing to include error bars.  If you want to show that one data set is different than another, you have to perform statistical tests like this.  In this case, they pointed out that S&B were comparing a 10-year period in the data with a 100-year period in the models.  So they broke up the 100 years into 10-year periods, calculated error bars for the model response, and showed that now the data fell within the error bars.  What’s more, they showed that some of the models (not shown in S&B’s figure) actually did REALLY WELL at mimicking the data.  Which models did well?  The ones that were already known to do a good job of mimicking El Niño cycles, which is what dominated weather changes over the past decade.  Therefore, Trenberth and Fasullo concluded that the skill exhibited by the models in reproducing the pattern S&B identified had nothing to do with climate sensitivity.  They also pointed out that the “simple climate model” used by S&B to interpret their results was too simple to include the processes associated with El Niño cycles, and they pointed to my critique of Spencer for evidence that Spencer has a history of abusing simple climate models.



As for motivation, did you read the Esquire article I posted above? Climate scientists in the US have their personal integrity attacked, are threatened with lawsuits (and violence), and as a result have a tendency to quit their jobs and relocate for saying what they believe is the truth about anthropomorphic climate change. The discourse has become political, not scientific.



What do you think is easier, suggesting that the very foundations of our global political economy must change to ensure our survival? Or taking money from industries who rely on humanity to stay the course in order to turn a profit?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Aug 2015)

Thuc: I give up. You are beyond hope. I will only make some minimum comments on your post, by putting my comments in colour within it, after underlining your portion I wish to adress:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> While a person from the Heartland Institute publicized it not "publicizing it, but seeking such scientific articles (which most people on the planet, including Mr. Taylor, do not posses the scientific background to understand, and then brandying it about by adding ad hominem comments , such as ALWAYS adding the qualifier "alarmist" to qualify every reference to climate change models or making wild statements that the "paper" debunks climate change, two things that appear NOWHERE in the underlying scientific article and are not even conclusions of this scientific paper. and Forbes published it Forbes put this in its opinion pieces section, makes no claim that it endorses it, does not indicate anywhere that it is one of its staff writer's piece, and more likely than not either published it merely because it was submitted and they need content or more likely as is the case with such articles from lobby groups/think thank, because it was paid to publish it, trying to use these as ad hominem disqualifies is hilarious, since they are _directly_ quoting a NASA report, No they are not. I wish you would learn to read scientific papers. First of all it is a scientific article - not a report. Second, if it was NASA's it would clearly and unambiguously say so. It does not.  It clearly states that it is a paper by two professor of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, with credit to the University, and published by MDPI in its scientific journal Remote Sensing, an open source scientific peer-reviewd publications specialist based in Switzerland. The fact that the scientists used some raw data obtained from a system on one of NASA's research satellites does not make it any more of a NASA report than if I wrote an article presenting an alleged new scientific theory and used as my raw data before processing the weather data from Toronto's Pearson Airport would make it an Environment Canada report. BTW the fact that these scientists, which you claim "contradict" the science of climate change, had access to NASA raw data contradicts one of the point you make later on that these data are being suppressed.  which they themselves neither commissioned nor payed for (outside of their tax dollars funding NASA in general). In essence, the argument seems to be that "a scientific study done by NASA does not count because it was highlighted and publicized by people who do not support the narrative" Incorrect statement on two counts: First as indicated this is NOT a NASA scientific study; send, I never said it doesn't count. What I said is all the incredible conclusions that MR Taylor invents out of this article, which itself does not contain any of these conclusions, are what doesn't count. From a scientific point of view, see the ensuing process that should follow. And BTW, the paper quoted by Mr. Taylor is published in 2011 in a reviewed scientific journal. The latest IPCC fifth synopsis report reviewed the state of scientific literature up to and inclusive of 2012 - so this was considered and its proper place in the overall state of science already determined , which of course fails to address the observations in the report (helpfully highlighted and bolded)  I attached the scientific paper underlying Mr. Taylor's article to my post. This scientific paper does not contain ANY highlighted or bolded  observations whatsoever, as is proper for scientific papers. Any underlined/bolded portion in Mr. Taylor's article is his own decision on what to highlight, and in all cases were short extracts, selected by him and out of context, from the PRESS RELESE of the University - not scientific positions. , much less refute them. Just another example of goalpost moving to avoid dealing with the actual evidence.
> 
> I might also note that on this thread there have been many deconstructions of the "peer review" process used by the IPCC, or who exactly is in support of or against the conclusions (or even the deconstruction of the idea that science works by "consensus"; which is patently false Actually, science does work by "consensus": You start with one scientist propounding a scientific explanation, or "theory" for why and how something happens. Other scientist see if they can poke holes in the "theory" in itself, and if they can't, then move on to devising possible experiments that would INVALIDATE the "theory". If they can't invalidate it and more and more experiments support the theory as a result, it becomes the generally accepted theory for that scientific situation (examples:the Theory of general relativity or the theory of evolution), though it can be abandoned once refuted by experiments.). Since real world evidence does not support the predictions of the IPCC  That is simply Bull. Right now, the observed facts on the planet conform to IPCC reviewed science predictions and climate alarmists, then the scientific method tells us the predictions are in error, and if the predictions are in error, then there is something wrong with either the methodology being used or the underlying hypothesis being promoted. This is the first and primary source of opposition to the climate change alarmists; it does not match the real world. Instead the alarmists refuse to acknowledge they are in error and instead use the language of religious zealots to disparage anyone who dares to disagree with their conclusions, rather than examining their premises and methodology.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Aug 2015)

C Canuck: My few comments in yellow in your post below:



			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> When the IPCC stops supporting measures that do nothing to address climate change in favour of global wealth distribution, I'll care what they have to say. IPCC has proposed no measure, and other than more research is needed in the effects, has not supported any measures. the measures are proposed by politicians, but the scientists are staying out of the picture.
> 
> The Doom and Gloom crowd consistently pushes worst case scenarios and scare mongers. In case you don't remember we're supposed to all be dead with hundreds of feet of water over our heads by now. No, it's due for fifty years from now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Some good points there c_canuk.
> 
> You have overlooked "hydro-electric".  Niagara Falls Generating Plant can produce more electricity than it currently does, but due to current Ontario Government direction it is not.   Solar and Wind Farms are not capable of generating enough power to meet Ontario's demands, and in some cases it is being questioned as to the fact that they may in fact be health hazards.  Why the Ontario Government has cut back on the generation of electricity through its nuclear power plants and hydro-electric dams is quite puzzling to me.



I agree George, though on the Niagara falls point I have to say that, often, in winter, at night when nobody sees, they do maximize the diversion - and the falls become a trickle. It's a balancing act between viewing the falls (tourism) and the "extra" power you could get instead. In view of the current demand, the "extra" would not cover enough of the base load to justify loosing tourism.

I am puzzled by the same thing as you. It's not like Ontario and the great lakes are a heavy tectonic activity area where earthquakes would cause irresistible Tsunamis. The risks to ON nuclear plants (the risks are never zero) are quite minimal compared to many other places in the world where such plants operate.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2015)

The question of "Green energy" in Ontario is pretty much directly addressed by following the money. The contracts signed by the Ontario Government pays wind farm operators $.135Kw/H, so competing sources of electrical energy need to be throttled back to create a "demand" for wind (solar gets similar treatment, but the numbers are all over the place due to the multitude of programs that seem to be out there). When the wind is blowing at peak energy times, steam from nuclear power plants gets vented and water dumped over the spillways of hydro plants to ensure that the "green" energy is being served up to the grid.

When you consider that non green baseline power was generaly priced at @ $.08Kw/H, and that "excess" power gets dumped to New York for $.04Kw/H (when the wind blows or the sun shines at off peak times), then you see the true scale and scope of the disaster the Liberals inflicted on Ontario and Ontario finances.

Just to rub salt in the wounds, to prevent the grid from crashing due to unexpected fluctuation in wind speed or solar output (clouds, rain), gas turbine generators need to be running on "hot idle" 24/7 to be able to pick up the slack from the "green" sources when they falter. One can only imagine the carbon emissions of 747 sized gas turbine generators idleing away day in and day out.

Bonus: Mark Styen has put out a book



> Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann is entitled A Disgrace To The Profession. Here’s a review.“Steyn realized the word of a political pundit like himself can only travel so far in certain circles, and in a brilliant move, he has gathered a compendium of _what other scientists have to say about Mann’s work_.”


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Aug 2015)

Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers



> You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.



Here's the actual paper:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5


----------



## GR66 (25 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
> 
> ...



I claim no expert knowledge on climate science but feel that it's totally logical that human actions are having an effect on the climate.  Probably in many more ways than just by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

However, saying that contrarians are wrong because they don't agree on what the alternative causes of climate change are just seems plain silly to me too.  The Climate and biosphere of our planet are extremely complex systems with interdependencies, feedbacks, causes and effects that we can barely even begin to understand.  

Focusing just on carbon emmissions as a cause of climate change in isolation from all the other potential factors (solar cycles, orbital positioning, changes in the magnetic field, biological feedbacks, vulcanism, the position of the continents, etc.) can only give a portion of the true picture in my mind.  

Unfortunately both sides in the "argument" (it's really not even a "debate" or "discussion" any more) have taken very dogmatic stands which don't seem to allow consideration of the other side.  

97% of Climate scientists may agree that human activity is resulting in an increase in carbon levels in the atmosphere.  That seems logical to me as well.  They may also agree that times of higher carbon in the past have corresponded with periods of global warming.  However...do 97% also claim to understand with certainty what caused periods of increased carbon in past warming periods when human activity wasn't the cause?  Can they claim with certainty that these same non-anthropomorphic causes are not currently amplifying our own impacts?  Is there agreement on what has caused past periods of warming and cooling that do not appear to be directly related to changes in atmospheric carbon levels?

I think there are a great many economic, social and environmental reasons for us to reduce our carbon emmissions (among many other things) and typically support implementing incentives to do so.  But I think that the Global Warming lobby has done everyone a disservice by painting this issue in such a black and white manner.

 :2c:


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Aug 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I claim no expert knowledge on climate science but feel that it's totally logical that human actions are having an effect on the climate.  Probably in many more ways than just by pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
> 
> However, saying that contrarians are wrong because they don't agree on what the alternative causes of climate change are just seems plain silly to me too.  The Climate and biosphere of our planet are extremely complex systems with interdependencies, feedbacks, causes and effects that we can barely even begin to understand.
> 
> ...



Well what seems silly to you is backed in the paper at the link above with very real data. 

Of course the "non-anthropomorphic causes" are amplifying the effects. Just like they dampen the effects. Climate change deniers are fond of using the recent relative lack of warming caused by increased volcanic activity and a decrease in solar activity as evidence the globe isn't warming. This works both ways. If you think you've hit on something here, forgive me if I sound frustrated. _*People have already thought of this*_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Thucydides, here's an article with a link to a paper that addresses exactly the methodology that you seem to put much faith in.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
> 
> ...



.....and all the global warming pundits say man and his productive environment are all to blame.

No mention of periodic norms, sun storms, climatic cycles, a constant and unending titling of the earth. 

Nope, it's all man's fault for driving cars.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....and all the global warming pundits say man and his productive environment are all to blame.
> 
> No mention of periodic norms, sun storms, climatic cycles, a constant and unending titling of the earth.
> 
> Nope, it's all man's fault for driving cars.



Ok, so if you actually read any published paper that confirms anthropomorphic climate change is a reality, *they all take the factors which you have listed above into account.* In fact the VERY paper that I posted above addresses these factors because *that the was the POINT of the paper*. 

When scientists first discovered the planet was warming, guess what? They wanted to find out why. So, using the scientific method they began ruling out probable causes, and taking into account factors which we know already affect climate. Things like solar activity, volcanic activity and natural climate cycles etc. This is simply how science works. To suggest that the world's scientists didn't think to account for the factors you've listed above just shows that you're not terribly scientifically literate.  If it was that simple, you'd have cracked the climate change case and we could all rest easy knowing recceguy turned the scientific world upside down and we actually have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> we know



Stop there...........take some thalidomide, 'we know' it's safe.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Stop there...........take some thalidomide, 'we know' it's safe.



So which is it? Are you saying we DON'T know that solar cycles affect climate? Or natural climate cycles don't affect climate  ;D? Or are you saying that science can never truly 100% be correct, because theories can never be proven only disproven? That last statement is actually accurate. However, taking it to the extreme and concluding that all theories we now accept as being accurate have an equal likelihood of someday being disproven shows that you also have some ground to cover in the scientific literacy department.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Well that was boring.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well that was boring.....



No one ever said science was exciting. But getting into the labyrinthine depths of data and the actual method behind the collection of that data is crucial in the "debate" around climate change. It's precisely because it's boring that this "debate" even exists. So-called deniers have been rehashing the same arguments for decades now, despite them being debunked over and over again, and despite loads of new data that is published every year, begging the question, IS there a point where deniers will accept what mainstream scientists already have? I don't think there is. 

But it's easy to throw around arguments based on cherry-picked data that sound plausible to the average person who isn't scientifically literate. This is part of the reason why our current government has muzzled Canadian scientists. Facts have a pesky way of making bad policy look bad.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> the reason why our current government has muzzled Canadian scientists. Facts have a pesky way of making bad policy look bad.



You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Kilo_302 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




All I can say is: WOW!

That is indeed a 'tinfoil hat' theory.


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> You are freakin' hilarious...........but not fun enough to debate with so keep shaping that tinfoil juuuuuuuuuuuuust right.



Well the fact that Canadian scientists are now more politically active then ever would suggest our current government's policies regarding what they can discuss in public are extremely alarming. I'm just repeating what many scientists are saying. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/05/federal-election-2015-canada-science-cuts_n_7938638.html

https://evidencefordemocracy.ca/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/unions-representing-federal-scientists-protest-partisan-interference-1.3078584




Here's a fact. Our government has made resource extraction a priority in terms of economic policy. Resource extraction often has negative environmental impacts, low and behold the government as removed the protected status of thousands of lakes and streams in a bid to make resource extraction more feasible. They've also shut down numerous research projects that provide crucial data on the health of our fisheries, our inland bodies of water, agriculture etc. They have instructed scientists to NOT share their findings with the media in this regard. This is a government that does NOT like data. I fail to see how it's much of a stretch to suggest that restricting what data Canadians have access to is directly linked to policies they want to pursue.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

So links from 3 groups who want more money for their causes is PROOF?

Frig,....I want you as the Ontario Premier because I can send you a ton more then 3 links from OPSEU stating I'm waaaaaaaaaay underpaid.
Read them and then sign this new contract I'll just happen to be holding...


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> So links from 3 groups who want more money for their causes is PROOF?
> 
> Frig,....I want you as the Ontario Premier because I can send you a ton more then 3 links from OPSEU stating I'm waaaaaaaaaay underpaid.
> Read them and then sign this new contract I'll just happen to be holding...



Your post underlines exactly the problems outlined in the articles above. Namely, the politicization of science. Science is not a political cause,  it's a tool that enables us to understand more about our world and ourselves with the hopes of improving our lot in life. I think you're doing Canadian scientists a disservice by lumping them in with every other political lobby group. I know many scientists, and while many do fall on the left side of the spectrum, many are centrist, and some are conservative (traditional fiscal Conservatives that is). They got into science because they're curious and want improve the society in which they live.

Of course they want more money, they care about their programs and they also understand their value to Canada. Our current government is the first the cut science at this level. It could be argued that the motivation behind these cuts is simply fiscal (even then, it would be terrible policy as innovation drives enterprise), but taken with the fact that scientists now must seek political approval like never before when releasing data, and government's publicly stated preference for policies that we already know are ineffective (mandatory minimum sentences would be one) it doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to understand that there is a definite political motivation behind the government's science policy. We have to ask ourselves, what government wants LESS data upon which to base public policy versus more? From there, it's easy to understand that the government who wants less data, wants this because that data interferes with policy.

 The fact that you and I fall neatly into "left" and "right" positions on a question that has already been decided by science (and should be apolitical) just proves what Canadian scientists are now saying. The discussion should be, "we understand that climate change is occurring, now how do the right and left get together and figure out what to do? Do we use government policy, does the private sector have a greater role to play?" Now we could disagree on that all day long, and that would be a legitimate debate for sure.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Of course they want more money, they care about their programs and they also understand their value to Canada.



Trust me,.........that'll be in every document I hand over to the Govt. looking for more cash also.  Seriously??


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

The fact that of everything I wrote above you're latching on to "yes, scientists require funding to do their jobs and yes, they want to prevent that funding from being cut" tells me you're not interested in actually having a discussion.

I don't know when understanding our fisheries, agriculture (the government just closed the Agriculture and Agri-food Lethbridge Research Centre's federal science library, and threw thousands of reports in the trash) our atmosphere etc became a "liberal" issue, or a political "cause" championed by left wing scientists. Shit, knowing more about these things helps our economy!

If you don't see the value of science to Canada and Canadians at large this isn't a discussion we can have.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Aug 2015)

And if you think trotting out clipping of people asking for more money makes your case, then you have nothing to offer.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And if you think trotting out clipping of people asking for more money makes your case, then you have nothing to offer.....



Well again, there have many protests by Canadian scientists around the "muzzling" of their community, so no, it's not just about funding.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Aug 2015)

It would be worth knowing how many of those documents are available in digital means..

Cheers
Larry


----------



## RocketRichard (26 Aug 2015)




----------



## cavalryman (26 Aug 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

>


Or the left on pretty much anything else...


----------



## RocketRichard (26 Aug 2015)

'The left'?  We are talking about Canadian politics not American.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I don't know when understanding our fisheries, agriculture (the government just closed the Agriculture and Agri-food Lethbridge Research Centre's federal science library, and threw thousands of reports in the trash)



Well now.......http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/26/anti-harper-war-on-science-story-borders-on-hoax

By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network 

It seems the latest accusation against the Stephen Harper government for orchestrating a "war on science" is at best stretching the details, and at worst, bordering on a hoax.
Last Friday, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada put out a press release headlined: "Harper Government Trashes Another Federal Science Library."

The union representing 15,000 federal scientists was drawing attention to the closure of a library at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Lethbridge Research Centre -- a move they suggest was inspired by "the Harper government's 'war on science.'"
"While some items appear to have been shipped to government facilities in Ottawa, on Monday most of the library's contents had been either discarded in a dumpster outside the building or sent to recycling," the release claims.

Union president Debi Daviau is quoted as saying: "The Harper government continues to target government science at every turn."

Accompanying the release are pictures of piles of documents lying in a dumpster, as if they're damning evidence. The pictures combined with the headline and Daviau's quote are clearly meant to evoke an image of Conservatives showing up with hired goons to trash the place.

But dig a little deeper and the story is not at all how it's being sold.

"For the Lethbridge library, the collection was evaluated by researchers, and all unique and relevant materials were relocated but will still be available for loan," James Watson, media relations officer for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, explained via e-mail.
"Items no longer considered relevant to AAFC and duplicates already in the AAFC collection were offered to employees and in some instances materials were offered to Library and Archives Canada."
"The remaining material declared surplus at the Lethbridge library has either been made available online, or had no continuing value according to researchers."

The disposal of files wasn't a political issue at all, as the union implied, but a job undertaken by department researchers -- who are members of the very union denouncing the process.

The files were either transferred or digitized. The ones completely discarded were those researchers deemed useless. Yet even then, the government says efforts were made to give these files to employees or move them to other libraries, and items were disposed of in compliance with multiple government acts and regulations.

How exactly is this boring tale of a library digitizing files and cleaning up its inventory -- something many libraries do -- a "war on science" story?
Peter Bleyer, special adviser to the union president, acknowledged in a phone interview that digitization does play a part in the story, but said "not all information that was deemed valuable has been preserved."

It seems like some research experts considered useful has been turfed without being digitized -- although neither the union nor government were able to provide any numbers.
What the union can't confirm though, and admits as much, is that there's any actual proof the library and its contents were in fact targeted by the Harper government -- which was the whole argument underlying the strongly worded press release.

"It's a question of perspective," Bleyer explained. "Our perspective is the perspective of the people we represent. They feel they're being treated as if they're not relevant."

But feelings and direct evidence are two different things, a distinction one would hope researchers and scientists can make better than most people.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

>



The "Left/Right" paradigm applies equally here in Canada as it does in the US.  

You see, "conservatives" (the so called "climate-deniers" or whatever) don't deny that the climate is changing.  In fact, they point out the very real history that climate is never stable; it's always warming, cooling, getting calmer or getting more tempermental.  What they deny is that CO2, a wee molecule that is essential to life here on earth, is to cause for anthropromorphic climate change.  In other words, in spite of the CO2, it just isn't the cause.  Then they point to utterings in the past where Al Gore Inc © stated emphatically that the ice caps would melt by now, etc etc.  Then they refer to the cases in point: they are still there and maybe a wee bit bigger.  They also point out that the temperatures haven't risen since about 1998 or so (some data say it has risen, others no, but in all cases, not as dramatically as claimed by Al Gore Inc ©)

They also point to the Big Business of Carbon Credits © as being a culprit, and that it diverts money from very real concerns: pollution, toxic waste, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2015)

Good timing on the TV's post, becasue here is an article on how perverse incentives really do lead to bad results:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/25/carbon-offsets-may-have-dramatically-increased-emissions/



> *Carbon Offsets May Have Dramatically Increased Emissions*
> 
> That’s the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits “was like printing money.” The BBC reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2015)

The posts of the *TECHNOVIKING * don't line up to the timing; the timing lines up to his posts....


----------



## cld617 (27 Aug 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What they deny is that CO2, *a wee molecule that is essential to life here on earth*, is to cause for anthropromorphic climate change.



I just wanted to focus on this little gem. Are you really ignorant enough to claim that because a molecule is small and occurs naturally, that it is in fact harmless in large quantities to the environment and ecosystem? The only thing I can deduce from the bolded statement is that you think just that, and you're trying to push this stupidity onto others.


----------



## RocketRichard (27 Aug 2015)

I didn't realize people deny climate change so vehemently.  C'est la vie. We shall see in the years to come. We can agree to disagree.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I just wanted to focus on this little gem. Are you really ignorant enough to claim that because a molecule is small and occurs naturally, that it is in fact harmless in large quantities to the environment and ecosystem? The only thing I can deduce from the bolded statement is that you think just that, and you're trying to push this stupidity onto others.


Well, then, you'd be guilty of an error if that's what you call a deduction.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Aug 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I didn't realize people deny climate change so vehemently.  C'est la vie. We shall see in the years to come. We can agree to disagree.


Who's denying anything? Climate is never stagnant.  It's always changing.


----------



## RocketRichard (27 Aug 2015)

Sigh...


----------



## MJP (27 Aug 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Sigh...



I know it is such a burden to shoulder having to care for those that don't...knowing how much smarter they would be if they would just think like myself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Aug 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The only thing I can deduce from the bolded statement is that you think just that, and you're trying to push this stupidity onto others.



Careful how you talk with others.

Every poster has a right to their opinion here. If you want to debate, counter what you don't agree with, with facts.

---Staff---


----------



## larry Strong (28 Aug 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> It would be worth knowing how many of those documents are available in digital means..
> 
> Cheers
> Larry





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well now.......http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/26/anti-harper-war-on-science-story-borders-on-hoax
> 
> By Anthony Furey, Postmedia Network
> 
> ...



Thanks Bruce 

Turned out to be the "Tempest in the tea pot' I figured it to be...............


Cheers
Larry


----------



## George Wallace (29 Aug 2015)

LOL

Many of us already know a lot of this, but it is always funny to see how the "Environmentalists" all conveniently overlook these facts (making the rounds on FB, an article from 2013):

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

LINK



> The two Suzukis: There’s Saint Suzuki, the one you see on CBC, and Secret Suzuki, the capitalist millionaire
> Ezra Levant
> Saturday, October 12, 2013, 6:00 PM
> 
> ...




This is why I find it so amusing to listen to David Suzuki, Neil Young, Margaret Atwood, Jane Fonda, and all those other celebrities talk about the environment, after which they walk away and enjoy all the rewards of what they want others to protest against.  Hypocrites.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2015)

Remember when we were being told that "Climate Change" would kill the trees?

http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/10/way-more-trees-than-previously-thought-new-estimates-show/



> *Way more trees than previously thought, new estimates show *
> 
> Posted to Maps  |  Tags: environment, nature, trees  |  Nathan Yau
> 
> ...


----------



## cld617 (16 Sep 2015)

This just in, there are trees...so global warming is a hoax. I hear it was cold somewhere too.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember when we were being told that "Climate Change" would kill the trees?
> 
> http://flowingdata.com/2015/09/10/way-more-trees-than-previously-thought-new-estimates-show/



Oh come on  :facepalm: this leap is pathetic, even by your standards.

In the real world, turns out even Exxon knew about climate change, way back in the 70s. So how does this fall into the vast "green/solar/wind power conspiracy"?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/investigation-finds-exxon-ignored-its-own-early-climate-change-warnings/


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2015)

Wrapped up nicely and neatly. There are lots of links within the article (far too many to cut and paste here), but going to the link will get you the article and access to the links as well:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-paradigm-scuttled/?singlepage=true



> *Three Simple Facts that Scuttle the Global Warming Paradigm*
> Cutting through the fog: a primer for the layman.
> by David Solway
> May 2, 2015 - 10:53 pm
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wrapped up nicely and neatly. There are lots of links within the article (far too many to cut and paste here), but going to the link will get you the article and access to the links as well:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-paradigm-scuttled/?singlepage=true



You really are hopeless. Every single one of these arguments has been debunked on this thread. You didn't try to explain the Exxon piece either.

From your author's wikiavid Solway (born 8 December 1941) is a Canadian poet, educational theorist, travel writer and literary critic of Jewish descent.

Are you so rabidly impervious to new data that you're posting stuff from a POET?  Or is it his credentials as a fucking travel writer that has you so convinced?

Please stop stealing our oxygen.


----------



## Loachman (18 Sep 2015)

What is your occupation?

What makes a member of your occupation any more qualified to speak about this matter than a poet?

Hmmm?

Anybody can read stuff and comment on it and quote it, but I think that the poet's take on this is far more accurate and correct than than yours, regardless of how much more qualified you think that you are because of your occupation.

I began flying in the CF in 1979. Weather has been a significant factor in my life since then. Aviation forecasts are issued every six hours, because professional meteorologists and computer models cannot adequately predict beyond that at the best of times. Amended forecasts, issued within that cycle, are not uncommon. I have been caught in unforecast bad weather on numerous occasions, as have many others.

The atmosphere is far too complex. Too many things influence it.

Usually, however, the met guy can tell me why the actual weather deviated from the forecast. I do not see that ability among the alarmist crowd.

And, several times, my personal prediction has been better than the official forecast, because I have seen previous patterns and can understand local effects. I put much more faith in predictions based upon historical patterns than narrowly/purposefully-selected "data" run through a computer model of dubious quality.

Anybody who thinks that they understand our environment adequately enough to predict the future is nuts. Any political leader willing to wreck his/her country's economy because of the arrogant assumptions of warm-mongers, regardless of how many "p"s, "h"s, and "d"s they have behind their names, is criminally negligent.

The climate has always varied. It always will. It's been doing that long before an early humanoid built the first carbon-spewing campfire. It will continue to do so until we put the first thermostat on the sun.

You really are hopeless. Please stop stealing our oxygen.

And dicking with our economy.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Sep 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> What is your occupation?
> 
> What makes a member of your occupation any more qualified to speak about this matter than a poet?
> 
> ...



You should bring all of these nuggets of wisdom to the attention of NASA immediately. Truly earth shattering stuff.

And yes, I'll take the word of the vast majority of scientists over a poet. That shouldn't even have to be stated. I guess you're also immune to new data. Where do you guys come from?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Sep 2015)

The real world. That is where we come from.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Either you are dodging my question, Kilo_302, or you are incapable of understanding it.

Mr Solway's occupation is irrelevant, except to you.

His article was based not upon any direct research and analysis that he did himself (nor did he so claim), but upon that of "undeniably respectable scientists like Nobel laureate Fred Singer" who tend not to believe that "the science is settled", as well as pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the wealthier "activists". 

Mr Solway is simply doing what you are doing, unless you, yourself, are a climate scientist with a PhD or two. Maybe you are. It's not in your profile.

So I ask you again, Dr Kilo_302 - what is your occupation, and what aspect of it better qualifies you to parrot other people's opinions than Mr Solway's occupation does?

As for NASA, there's a readily-apparent difference of opinion among its personnel. The amount of agreement is far less than the warm-mongers would have people believe, despite attempts by such as Michael Mann to bully those who disagree with them into silence. I am watching the progress (or rather lack thereof) of his lawsuit against Mark Steyn with great interest, and more than a little mirth.

Mr Steyn, by the way, has just published a book demonstrating what Mann's colleagues really think of him and his "work" and that, too, is entertaining.

As for me, I am constantly reviewing new data on a variety of subjects, and I am far from inflexible in my opinions. I do not form opinions without a little study in the first place, and, should a reasonable argument be presented that contradicts the earlier information upon which I based my initial opinion, I will take that into consideration. Sometimes I accept the new argument, sometimes I reject it.

I've yet to see any coherent argument that proves that human activity is driving natural, cyclical variations in our climate. I've seen more than enough to cast sufficient doubt upon such theories.

So, again, in case you missed my question both times, I'll give you a third chance to establish a little more personal credibility than a poet's: what is your occupation?


----------



## cld617 (19 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wrapped up nicely and neatly. There are lots of links within the article (far too many to cut and paste here), but going to the link will get you the article and access to the links as well:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warming-paradigm-scuttled/?singlepage=true





> 1. There has been no global warming for the last eighteen years and counting.



Simply put, this completely false. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> His article was based not upon any direct research and analysis that he did himself (nor did he so claim), but upon that of "undeniably respectable scientists like Nobel laureate Fred Singer" who tend not to believe that "the science is settled", as well as pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the wealthier "activists".



You may be impressed by his credentials, however they certainly do not make him an expert in this field. This combined with the fact that his argument roughly amounts to "c02 can be good" is painfully simple to debunk. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Either you are dodging my question, Kilo_302, or you are incapable of understanding it.
> 
> Mr Solway's occupation is irrelevant, except to you.
> 
> ...



Your question is absolutely irrelevant, and your logic is flawed. 

Fred Singer has been thoroughly discredited as a paid hack on behalf of various entities in the petroleum industry. You are treading on ground that has been tread upon numerous times on this thread. It's clear you have already decided what the facts are and for this reason I will not make the same points, post the same articles and have this same discussion with you when all of these have been made in the past. You have the internet at your fingertips. if you're unable to make use of the vast amount of data and research that is in the public domain your mind cannot be changed. 

Furthermore, if you're unable to distinguish between the works of people like Singer and Steyn versus those of literally thousands of people from all over the world doing real science I would suggest you're not equipped to have this conversation in the first place. For example, Singer is in the employ of the Heartland Institute. 

Just for fun, here's a link that debunks all of Singer's major claims with real scientific research. It won't change your mind but hey I tried.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

I've read a bunch of stuff, from both sides, including various debunkings.

The warmists' debunkings impress me the least.

Now, FOURTH time: What's your occupation, and what about it makes you a better judge of other people's work than Mr Solway, or Mr Steyn?


----------



## Scott (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo,

You're on notice, quit fucking around or go into the warning system. 

You seem to be incapable of understanding that others are entitled to making up their own minds. You will not deride them for it. Period. 

No, this is not me taking action because I do not like your views, it's me taking action because the way you come across is starting to look like trolling. Participate in discussion, be respectful. Your opinion is no more or less credible, so quit putting it out there as such. 

Scott
Staff


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

The problem is- to Kilo (and many others like him) this is a religion. There is no arguing with dogma.

There is no possible way the dogma could be flawed. And to even question the dogma, is to increasingly risk social ostracism if not out criminal or civil sanction (see recent attempts in the USA to use RICO legislation (intended for organized crime) to go after those who would propose alternate theories.

So much for the scientific method.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

:goodpost:


 Kilo_302

Using your own occupation, your own logic and your own words:

"Your opinion is irrelevant."

Others have attempted to discuss.  You have contributed nothing to the discussion besides your narrow views of what YOU believe to be the TRUTH, even debunking people who have intimate knowledge and experience in some of these matters.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Typical warmista tactics: when their argument has no merit, attempt to shut the other side up.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz3m6i5gZfj

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Michael Bastasch

09/17/2015

The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming.

Scientists from several universities and research centers even asked Obama to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to prosecute groups that "have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change."

RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming. The scientists repeated claims made by environmentalists that groups, especially those with ties to fossil fuels, have engaged in a misinformation campaign to confuse the public on global warming.

“The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peer-reviewed academic research and in recent books,” the scientists wrote.

But these riled up academics aren’t the first to suggest using RICO to go after global warming skeptics. The idea was first put forward by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued using RICO was effective at taking down the tobacco industry.

“In 1999, the Justice Department filed a civil RICO lawsuit against the major tobacco companies… alleging that the companies ‘engaged in and executed - and continue to engage in and execute - a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public, including consumers of cigarettes, in violation of RICO,’” Whitehouse wrote in the Washington Post in May.

“We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation,” the scientists wrote to Obama. “The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the scientists added.

This year has been a trying one for global warming skeptics. Earlier this year, Democratic lawmakers began an investigation into scientists who disagreed with the White House’s stance on global warming. Many of these skeptical scientists were often cited by those critical of regulations to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Arizona Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva went after universities employing these researchers, which resulted in one expert being forced to get out of the field of climate research altogether.

“I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject,” Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado wrote on his blog.

“Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none,” Pielke wrote. “He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).”


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Well since I've been warned by staff for being somewhat strident (as if members responding to my posts haven't used similiar language and tone  : ) I'm done here.  :bowing:


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2015)

.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well since I've been warned by staff for being somewhat strident (as if members responding to my posts haven't used similiar language and tone  : ) I'm done here.  :bowing:



Yeah. Like the 10 other times you have said the same thing.b :

Look, I don't mind you being here, even if I disagree with 99 percent of what you post as malinformed drivel.

I am at least open to the possibility that I am wrong. You (apparently) are not. And you seem to side with those who would criminalize even the questioning certain scientific theories.

Must be a pretty strong theory, that it needs to be protected by the full weight of law enforcement...


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

And I am of exactly the same mind.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yeah. Like the 10 other times you have said the same thing.b :
> 
> Look, I don't mind you being here, even if I disagree with 99 percent of what you post as malinformed drivel.
> 
> ...



I've never sided with those who think charges should be laid against people who deny climate change. Freedom of speech is paramount. And I am always open to the possibility of being wrong. The fact is, the climate change deniers are a tiny minority and are primarily funded by the petroleum industry. We've been over this several times. It follows that they have very specific interests to protect. So I think the VAST majority of scientists (including those employed by Exxon in the 70s who were doing groundbreaking work at the time, see the article I posted a couple days ago) are probably correct when they say anthropomorphic climate change is reality. 

Your sources are the problem. If you're going to agree with this very tiny minority who are being paid by the very people who stand to lose the most if we legislate based on climate change, it is YOU who are narrow minded. Again, follow the money. Neither of us are climate scientists, but a simple analysis of who is paying who, and who stands to gain by denying climate change can only lead to one conclusion. If tomorrow NASA (and every other major scientific institution in the world) for example came out said we had it all wrong, it was solar activity all along, I would probably believe it.

The reason I get frustrated is there is new data on what seems like a weekly basis, and that Exxon article is especially telling. Here we have a petroleum giant identifying climate change in the 70s, and understanding the implications for its business if politicians pick up on it. So it conducts its own research, verifies its findings and then sets in motion a massive denial campaign once the science hits the mainstream in the 1990s. And yet, people here are posting the same old arguments from the same old dozen or scientists or pundits who are clearly in the pay of the petroleum industry. 

And every time someone here posts a new finding or a new article that seems to bear out climate change science, it is almost NEVER directly engaged. Instead, unrelated pieces about  natural climate cycles etc are posted again and again. This unwillingness to engage in new evidence, in new data, suggests it is climate deniers who have narrow minds.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

And who is paying your scientists? Somebody is, or are they simply doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?

And what is your occupation?


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

They're employed by variety of institutions, universities, government etc. And again, as the Exxon example underlines, there was a lot of climate science done by oil companies in the 70s and 80s. But what are you getting at here? 

It's not relevant, but I work in IT.


----------



## cld617 (19 Sep 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And who is paying your scientists? Somebody is, or are they simply doing it out of the kindness of their hearts?



The same people through the same channels that developed Penicillin, split the atom, mapped the human genome and got us to the moon. I can say this, I know of no one that started their career as a scientist and has been in that profession every since that focuses on climate change that is raking in the millions. Can you say the same about the forces behind denial? The petroleum industry is valued in the trillions, so forgive if I find your argument of "for profit" conspiracy moot.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> They're employed by variety of institutions, universities, government etc.



And those, of course, are completely trustworthy and agenda-free. All perfect little angels.

As are all of those under their employ, including scientists who are completely capable of inventing a scare to generate research money and prestige but, of course, would never, ever even think of doing so.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's not relevant, but I work in IT.



It is relevant because you made somebody else's occupation relevant.

The scare du jour in the seventies was a coming ice age. I remember that quite well. They were wrong then (but likely just a matter of timing; that which happened before will likely happen again).

Climates fluctuate, and due to much more significant factors than a slight increase in atmospheric CO2 (or bovine methane, but nobody seems to make a fuss about that anymore). Ours will warm and cool, cyclically, as it always has, regardless of what we do or do not do. There is a lengthy historical record that backs that up.

Beneficiaries of such frauds include developing economies and billionaire hypocrites like David Suzuki and Al Gore who rake in hundreds of thousands while spewing more carbon dioxide than whole towns. There's some money to follow.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

My whole problem with the climate change industry (which used to be the global warming industry. I wonder why they rebranded?) is several-fold. Only those who question the dogma gets academically ostracized, threatened with loss of funding or even being accused of being a criminal in need of being locked up.

There is also an unhealthy and smug moral certainty about climate of science. Any branch of science that wraps itself in certainty is not science.

Finally, the solutions proposed by climate changers (ban all petroleum usage) would collapse modern agricultural transportation and manufacturing methods. Humans would die of starvation in the 100s of millions, if not billions, as a result. But hey- we "saved" the planet, right? There is literally no other technology that currently exists with the energy density and return on energy investment to keep 7 billion of us alive on this planet. I hope that fusion eventually fills the bill, but that always seems to be 20 years out...

Climates change by definition. My own personally thinking is that humans have had some effect on climate. No question- but the biggest driver in the system still seems to be the sun and it's cycles and possibly even cosmic radiation which seems to interact with the upper atmosphere in ways we still don't fully understand to create clouds. It is a complex system and anyone who claims to understand all of the feedbacks, I take immediately to be a fool.

Oh yes- I am still waiting for my cheque from the petroleum industry. Perhaps they have my last name or address wrong....


----------



## cld617 (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There is also an unhealthy and smug moral certainty about climate of science. Any branch of science that wraps itself in certainty is not science.



Tell this to biologists and evolution, or do you believe that to be unsettled science as well? 



> Finally, the solutions proposed by climate changers (ban all petroleum usage) would collapse modern agricultural transportation and manufacturing methods.



Individuals may propose this, how it is no the official stance of proponents of climate change because there is no body to make an official stance. Way to lump everyone in the same pool!



> Climates change by definition.



Numero uno argument from ignorance, bravo. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm



> No question- but the biggest driver in the system still *seems* to be the sun and it's cycles and possibly even cosmic radiation which seems to interact with the upper atmosphere in ways we still don't fully understand to create clouds.



Woah, the sun is the driving force...who knew! No one is denying that, however it is the suns effect on CO2 that is causing the change. I'm glad you've concluded that it "seems" that way, ground breaking discoveries happening right here on army.ca!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

... And there is the smugness.

That took, what 2 mins?

My views on other branches of science, aliens, Sasquatch and movie reviews have no bearing on my views on climate change. What you have employed is a fallacious rhetorical device that seeks to draw a false equivalence between my views in one subject area with my views in another. A very common and unfortunate tactic that is used by all sides of a debate.

No branch of science (if, in fact, it is a branch of science) claims that it knows everything. There is a continued quest for knowledge and what is orthodoxy today may be over-turned tomorrow. Science is not about consensus- it is about evidence.

The IPCC seems to think they speak for climate change. It is right in their name...


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

True scientists welcome challenges to their findings, and assist such challenges by publishing their methods and data.

A significant number of warmistas attempt to shout down their opposition or bully it into silence. They are unique, among scientists, in that regard.

If they truly had a case, people like Mann would open his research rather than opening lawsuits.

That tactic invites derision and suspicion, and affects, rightly or wrongly, the claims of his "colleagues".

Mann's tactic, in the face of Mark Steyn's refusal to cave but rather to counter-sue, is to dodge and delay.


----------



## cld617 (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... And there is the smugness.
> 
> That took, what 2 mins?





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> *malinformed drivel*.



Pot meet kettle. I don't proclaim to be anything short of an *******, but don't try and play the victim while your hands are dirty as well. 



> What you have employed is a fallacious rhetorical device that seeks to draw a false equivalence between my views in one subject area with my views in another. A very common and unfortunate tactic that is used by all sides of a debate.



It most certainly is not a false equivalence as it is highlights your disagreement with what IS regarded as reality by the professionals in their fields. The equivalence most certainly is present, you're just playing favorites. Deductive reasoning should be applied evenly across the board, but you instead yield to non-scientific sources on a scientific matter. 



> No branch of science (if, in fact, it is a branch of science) claims that it knows everything. There is a continued quest for knowledge and what is orthodoxy today may be over-turned tomorrow. Science is not about consensus- it is about evidence.



Climate science doesn't either, no one has thrown their hands up and proclaimed they're finished. The evidence points towards AGW being a reality, so they're continuing forward with that.


----------



## suffolkowner (19 Sep 2015)

Mann's work has been replicated by hundred's of scientist's over the years to the point that his role is largely irrelevant now. Reduced to acknowledgement like most scientific discoveries. The theory of AGW is sound, the evidence grows ever more every day. No counter theory has withstood scrutiny and most were refuted in the 1980's. Science is a very competitive endeavour and I think you will find that most outcast opinions are not well received in any discipline. Science may be about evidence, but without a theoretical framework to view it from there can be no progress. There has to be some consensus otherwise we would still be arguing about things that many believe were settled hundreds of years ago


----------



## Scott (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well since I've been warned by staff for being somewhat strident (as if members responding to my posts haven't used similiar language and tone  : ) I'm done here.  :bowing:



Report the posts you have issues with and I'll look at them and respond the same way I did to you. 

Otherwise, accuse me again of favourtism and I'll just ban you and be done with it. I responded to YOU about YOUR posts. Not those of someone else. 

Scott
Staff


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And those, of course, are completely trustworthy and agenda-free. All perfect little angels.
> 
> As are all of those under their employ, including scientists who are completely capable of inventing a scare to generate research money and prestige but, of course, would never, ever even think of doing so.
> 
> ...



So again, ground we have covered before. You're suggesting that hundreds of scientific institutions the world over are all in cahoots and perpetrating a massive hoax for...prestige? It's not possible that a trillion dollar industry would have the motivation and the ability to muddy the waters with a few dozen paid hacks and conservative think tanks? This has happened before with the tobacco debacle. The Heritage Institute used to claim there was no link between cancer and smoking and used many of the same people we're seeing pop up today as climate change deniers.

I'm not talking about the 70s ice age scare, I'm asking you to explain why Exxon of all organizations had accepted climate change as reality back in the 70s. They were doing ground breaking stuff. Was this for prestige? Or do you think it may have been because they were concerned it would affect their business?

My occupation is NOT relevant because we are talking about sources, not my occupation or Loachman's occupation. No one on this thread is a specialist, so the best we can do is interpret the data, but also understand the political realities surrounding the issue.

As cld617 has said, we've been here before. We had a similar consensus on the ozone layer, before that we realized at some point in the 50s that dumping industrial waste in lakes was a bad thing, and on and on. If we had had a trillion dollar industry fight back on those as well we might never have made any progress. And finally, there's always new data coming in. What would it take for you to change your mind? If 97% isn't a convincing number, would 98% be convincing? 99%?


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2015)

What would it take to convince me?

It would take those same scientists to all agree what caused climate change before we showed up.

It changes, it's always changed, but now it's our fault.


----------



## cld617 (19 Sep 2015)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> What would it take to convince me?
> 
> It would take those same scientists to all agree what caused climate change before we showed up.
> 
> It changes, it's always changed, but now it's our fault.



Same old argument in same old thread. Having an opinion is great, but it needs to be an informed opinion. 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So again, ground we have covered before. You're suggesting that hundreds of scientific institutions the world over are all in cahoots and perpetrating a massive hoax for...prestige?



People are getting rich from this hoax - the Al Gores, David Suzukis, players in the cap-and-trade scams, governments from carbon taxes, manufacturers of wind turbines and solar arrays that produce unreliable energy at inflated cost, which sucks the life out of economies, and require coal, gas, or nuclear back-ups. The driver for this is personal/corporate profit and transfer of wealth rather than pure altruism.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> My occupation is NOT relevant because we are talking about sources, not my occupation or Loachman's occupation.



Then why did you make Mr Solway's occupation (poet) relevant? Either everyone's occupation is relevant, or nobody's is. You cannot have it both ways, at your convenience.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> No one on this thread is a specialist, so the best we can do is interpret the data, but also understand the political realities surrounding the issue.



Mr Solway would appreciate that concession.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We had a similar consensus on the ozone layer, before that we realized at some point in the 50s that dumping industrial waste in lakes was a bad thing, and on and on.



Neither of those realizations were based upon faulty/inaccurate/simplistic computer models fed with cherry-picked data. They were based upon direct observations and hard evidence. That does not exist in this case. The warmistas' predictions have not come to pass, and they cannot explain why thay have not.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And finally, there's always new data coming in.



Yes, and much of it runs counter to the alarmist narrative.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If 97% isn't a convincing number, would 98% be convincing? 99%?



Ah, yes, the notorious "97%" (more links within the article itself):

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

The 97% ‘consensus’

Posted on July 26, 2013 | 349 Comments 

by Judith Curry

Isn’t everyone in the 97%?  I am.  – Andrew Montford

I’m sure most of you have encountered the recent paper by  Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which includes John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience fame.  And the many critiques of this study that have appeared at WUWT, Blackboard, etc.

IMO, the main point of all this is that he concept of a ‘consensus’ surrounding climate change is becoming increasingly meaningless.

Ben Pile’s recent post What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? has certainly stirred the pot.  Some excerpts from Pile’s post:

On the pages of the Guardian’s environment blog, Dana Nuccitelli (who is not a climate scientist) compiled a list of what he thought were Neil’s mistakes. ‘These are your climate errors on BBC Sunday Politics‘, he proclaimed. But half of Nuccitelli’s rebuttals related to Neil’s treatment of the study into the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change, co-authored by Nuccitelli, which represents (according to the study) the views of 97% of scientists. Davey had cited the study during the interview, but Neil had said that it had been largely discredited.

(M)any sceptics have pointed out that the 97% figure encompasses the arguments of most climate sceptics. In evidence to the US Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee last week, Roy Spencer, a climate scientist who is routinely vilified for his apparent climate scepticism, claimed that his  arguments fell within the 97% definition. Here in the UK, climate sceptic blogger and author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, Andrew Montford tweeted in the wake of the survey, ‘isn’t everyone in the 97%? I am’. This prompted Met Office climate scientist, Richard Betts to poll the readers of the Bishop Hill blog, ‘Do you all consider yourselves in the 97%?’. It seems that almost all do.

Just as Donald and Painter’s evidence to the STC reflected either naivety or a strategy, Nuccitelli’s survey results are either the result of a comprehensive failure to understand the climate debate, or an attempt to divide it in such a way as to frame the result for political ends. The survey manifestly fails to capture arguments in the climate debate sufficient to define a consensus, much less to make a distinction between arguments within and without the consensus position. Nuccitelli’s survey seems to canvas scientific opinion, but it begins from entirely subjective categories: a cartoonish polarisation of positions within the climate debate.

Yet the survey was cited by Davey himself in defence of the government’s climate policies in the face of changing science. Whatever the scientific consensus is, the fact that this consensus can be wielded in arguments about policywithout regard for the substance of the consensus creates a huge problem.

The consensus referred to by Davey and Nuccitelli, then, is what I call a consensus without an object: the consensus can mean whatever the likes of Davey and Nuccitelli want it to mean. Davey can wave away any criticism of government’s policy simply by invoking the magical proportion, 97%, even though those critics’ arguments would be included in that number. Consensus is invoked in the debate at the expense of nuance. A polarised debate suits political ends, not ‘evidence-based policy’.

 But what a broader view of these debates reveal is a more troubling phenomenon of an uncritical reproduction of orthodox thinking on climate science by putative experts in science and public policy, across Twitter, the blogosphere, print media, the academy and political institutions. Physicians, heal thyselves!

The consequence of excluding non-expert opinion (other than expert opinion’s cheerleaders) from the climate debate is, paradoxically, the undermining of the value of expertise. Rather than engagements on matters of substance, a hollow debate emerges about whose evidence weighs the most, whose arguments are supported by the most experts, and which experts are the most qualified. The question ‘who should be allowed to speak’ dominates the discussion at the expense of hearing what they actually have to say.

Accordingly, rather than being a dispassionate study into scientific opinion, the 97% survey was a superficially academic exercise, intended to obfuscate the substance of the climate debate. Those who fell for it forget that its authors, aside from having their own — shock horror! — agendas, have no expertise in climate science, much less any interest in taking the sceptics’ arguments on.

But what the squabble over the Sunday Politics interview reveals is that political debates descend to science; they are often not improved by science and evidence as much as they degraded by undue expectations of them. Being an advocate of science seems to mean nothing more than shouting as loudly as possible ‘what science says…’, second hand.

And those who shout most loudly about science turn out to be advancing an idea of science which, rather than emphasising the scientific method, puts much more store — let’s call it ‘faith’ — in scientific institutions. Hence, the emphasis on the weight, number and height of scientific evidence articles, and expertise, rather than on the process of testing competing theories.

The comments on the thread are very interesting, with this comment by Mike Hulme of the University of East Anglia making quite a splash in the climate blogosphere:

Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

There is very interesting discussion on the thread, including comments by Dana Nuccitelli and further points from Ben Pile.

JC comments:  In case you missed it the first time, check out my recent publication No consensus on consensus.  So, what the heck does the ‘climate change consensus’ even mean any more?  The definition of climate change consensus is now so fuzzy that leading climate change skeptics are categorizing themselves within the 97%.   IPCC and other leading climate scientists can’t agree on the cause of the lack of surface temperature increase for the past 15+ years (i.e. see the recent article in the New Republic).

The utility of the ‘consensus’ in delineating the ‘tribes’ in terms of the climate policy debate was further muddied this past week by the identification of Dana Nuccitelli’s place (WUWT)  of employment is Tetra Tech, an environmental consulting firm that apparently includes gas and oil clients.

The ‘consensus’ often characterizes climate change skepticism being more rabid in the U.S. than any place else.  However, it is my perception that we are seeing far more respect for skepticism and skeptics in other countries notably the U.K., which is enabling a more sophisticated dialogue on the topic of climate change.

Ben Pile’s characterization of ‘consensus without an object’ is spot on IMO;  this has degenerated into the use of ‘consensus’ by certain individuals as a power play for influence in the policy and political debate surrounding climate and energy policy.

It’s long past time to get rid of the concept of ‘consensus’ on climate change.  An excerpt from the Conclusions to my paper No Consensus on Consensus:

The climate community has worked for more than 20 years to establish a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.  The IPCC consensus building process arguably played a useful role in the early synthesis of the scientific knowledge and in building political will to act. We have presented perspectives from multiple disciplines that support the inference that the scientific consensus seeking process used by the IPCC has had the unintended consequence of introducing biases into the both the science and related decision making processes. The IPCC scientific consensus has become convoluted with consensus decision making through a ‘speaking consensus to power’ approach.  The growing implications of the messy wickedness of the climate change problem are becoming increasingly apparent, highlighting the inadequacies of the ‘consensus to power’ approach for decision making on the complex issues associated with climate change. Further, research from the field of science and technology studies are finding that manufacturing a consensus in the context of the IPCC has acted to hyper-politicize the scientific and policy debates, to the detriment of both.  Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Same old argument in same old thread. Having an opinion is great, but it needs to be an informed opinion.
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm


Been there, read that..  It's a great website.

Thanks though.  

http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html      Another good website.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/

Science Education

Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science

By  Maxim Lott
·Published February 12, 2015
·FoxNews.com

Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?

Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.

The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.

On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.

One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would “increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.

Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube – the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land.

Liberals were more likely to correctly answer questions like: “What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer is carbon dioxide.

The study comes on the heels of a 2012 study that found that global warming skeptics know just as much about science; the new study specifically quizzed people on climate science.

Climatologists who are skeptical about the extent of man-made global warming say the results don’t surprise them.

“It's easy to believe in the religion of global warming.  It takes critical thinking skills to question it,” Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

Groups that are concerned about global warming say the study results really show that politics is blinding otherwise-reasonable people.

“Climate contrarians know what scientists have found but they’re choosing to reject those findings, usually for political reasons,” Aaron Huertas, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com.

He added that things would get better if people heard more from conservatives who worry about climate.

“The public just doesn’t hear often enough from conservative politicians and advocacy groups that are engaging in constructive debates on climate policy,” he said.

The study’s author, Kahan, also says that the global warming debate has become so politically polarized that people pick their side based on politics rather than what they know about science.                                                                                                                      

“The position someone adopts on [global warming] conveys who she is – whose side she’s on, in a hate-filled, anxiety-stoked competition for status between opposing cultural groups,” Kahan writes in his paper.

Kahan says that if global warming believers really want to convince people, they should stop demonizing and talking down to their opponents, and instead focus on explaining the science.

“It is really pretty intuitive: who wouldn’t be insulted by someone screaming in her face that she and everyone she identifies with ‘rejects science’?”

*Edited to add URL of article.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Again, more links in the article at https://andymaypetrophysicist.wordpress.com/ disproving this notion of "consensus":

Andy May  8:32 am on August 28, 2015 

New Book: A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn 

Mark Steyn has written a wonderful new book on Dr. Michael Mann’s hockey stick and the controversy surrounding it. It is difficult to overstate the significance or impact of Mann’s Hockey Stick (Mann, Bradley, Hughes (23 April 1998), “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries” (PDF), Nature 392 (6678): 779–787, Figure 5, the paper is often abbreviated as “MBH”). The Hockey Stick appeared in Figure 1 of the Summary for Policymakers of the third IPCC Assessment Report (called “TAR” published in 2001) and it was prominently displayed in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” As the book clearly shows, both the graph and the movie have been thoroughly discredited by hundreds of scientists who have attempted and failed to reproduce Michael Mann’s hockey stick using his data and other proxy data. Further, MBH attempts to overturn hundreds of papers that describe a world-wide Medieval Warm Period from around 900 AD to 1300 AD. The chapter devoted to Dr. Deming discusses this, for more information see here, here and here.

Professor Jonathon Jones of Oxford University:

“The hockey stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence…the evidence is extraordinarily weak…its defenders were desperate to hide this fact…I’d always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example…The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong.”

As 1973 Nobel Prize winner Professor Ivar Giaever said “Global Warming has become a new religion – because you can’t discuss it and that is not right.”

Steyn’s book documents the problems with the hockey stick, its use by the IPCC without proper peer review or validation, and the attempt to cover up its problems. It does this artfully using the words of the scientists, both “alarmists” and “deniers” and those in between. The list of quoted scientists is huge and includes Mann’s co-authors and others who supported him even after the paper and his hockey stick were shown to be wrong and perhaps, fraudulent.

The hockey stick told us that the recent warming period (1950 to 1998) was unusual in the last thousand years and that this sort of sudden warming had (supposedly) never happened before and that man’s CO2 emissions were (presumably) the cause. After all, what else was unusual about that time period? Yet, all of these suppositions were wrong and the hockey stick was wrong. Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and it does cause warming of the atmosphere by trapping heat radiated from the ground and oceans, if everything else in the atmosphere remains equal, which it never does. The graph appeared to show that this Carbon Dioxide based warming was much more dominant in our climate than traditional paleoclimate studies, physics or chemistry would suggest. It was an extraordinary claim, yet it was accepted instantly without any validation. This had the effect of destroying the credibility of the IPCC and the previously respected publication Nature.

At the time that Michael Mann’s hockey stick was chosen to be Figure 1 of the TAR summary for policy makers, Mann had just received his PhD. As many in the book note, the ink was not yet dry on his diploma. Yet, in addition, he was made one of the lead authors of the very section of TAR that presented his hockey stick (see figure 2.20). As a result it was up to him to validate his own work. In the words of Dr. Rob Van Dorland, an IPCC lead author:

“It is strange that the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it.”

The hockey stick was never validated, yet it became so famous that it was taught to young children all over the world in elementary schools. Many years later, in 2005, it was thoroughly debunked by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (often abbreviated M&M). They showed that using the statistical technique invented by Michael Mann even random number series (persistent trendless red noise, see M&M Figure 1) will generate a hockey stick. Basically, Mann had mined many series of numbers looking for hockey stick shapes and gave each series that had the shape he wanted a much higher weight, up to a weighting factor of 392! This was truly a case of selecting a desired conclusion and then molding the data to fit it. Prominent statisticians Peter Bloomfield, Dr. Edward Wegman and Professor David Hand said Michael Mann’s method of using principle components analysis was inappropriate and misleading and exaggerated the effect of recent global warming.

Mann’s notorious statistical exercise was not sufficient to build the entire hockey stick. Unfortunately for him, if his model was carried to the present day, it peaked in the 1940’s and then declined in temperature. So, he simply spliced actual estimated global temperatures to his proxy reconstruction and didn’t mention it in the article, this is the notorious and poorly understood “Mike’s Nature Trick“ scandal. More on the fraudulent parts of the hockey stick, including the Briffa “hide the decline” trick can be found here. These two links on “hide the decline” and “Mike’s nature trick” are the most balanced and informative I know of, one is by Professor Curry and the other by Steve McIntyre.

As you can see in the book many prominent scientists in the IPCC knew the hockey stick was “crap” to quote Professor Simon Tett, Chair of Earth System Dynamics, University of Edinburgh, formerly with Met Offices Hadley Climate Research Unit or CRU. And they knew it as early as 2001, but no one said anything. And, as we know from “climategate” emails, even though they knew it was “crap” they colluded to block Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick’s paper challenging the hockey stick. For years Dr. Michael Mann and Dr. Phil Jones (Hadley CRU) kept the supporting data for the hockey stick secret as well as the computer algorithms they used to generate the hockey stick. This very act would normally have invalidated their work and the hockey stick, but it was accepted by Nature and the IPCC anyway. A very sad period of time for science.

Dr. Kevin Vranes in 2005 said “Your [Dr. Mann’s] job is not to prevent your critics from checking your work; your job is to continue to publish…” “Why did the IPCC so quickly and uncritically accept the hockey stick?” asks Dr. Roy Spencer, “Because they wanted to believe it.” They needed it as a PR tool, they didn’t check it in any way they just ran with it.

One of the best critiques in the book is from Oxford Associate Fellow Jerome Ravetz:

“[The climate community] propounded as a proven fact, Anthropogenic Carbon-based Global Warming. There is little room for uncertainty in this thesis; it effectively needs hockey stick behavior in all indicators of global temperature, so that it is all due to industrialization. [This proposed “fact”] relied totally on a small set of deeply uncertain tree-ring data for the medieval period, to refute the historical evidence of a warming then; but it needed to discard that sort of data for recent decades, as they showed a sudden cooling from the 1960’s onwards!”

The problems encountered publishing the valid criticisms of Dr. Mann’s hockey stick are a serious indictment of the current peer review system, especially the systems at Nature and at the IPCC. Professor Hans Van Storch (University of Hamburg) went so far as to say “Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process.” Reform is needed and some suggestions by Professor Ross McKitrick are made here. The current peer review process can and has been used to suppress valid and important papers. This is why I applaud the internet and scientific blogs, they prevent self-serving and arrogant scientists from blocking the truth. One thing we have seen since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, no deception of this magnitude lasts forever.

Contrary to the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe we are headed toward a man-made climate doom, the truth is that a very small group of second rate climate scientists have captured the attention of some prominent political and media figures. They have also isolated themselves from the rest of the scientific community and suffer because of it. To quote Professor the Lord Oxburgh of Liverpool:

“We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians. Indeed there would be mutual benefit if there were closer collaboration and interaction between CRU and a much wider scientific group outside the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists."

So, the following question is from Professor Mike Kelly (Cambridge) and it was directed to Dr. Keith Briffa, but could easily have been directed to Mike Mann or any of the alarmists:

“Given that the outputs of your work are being used to promote the largest revolution mankind has every contemplated, do you have any sense of the extent to which the quality control and rigour of approach must be of the highest standards in clear expectation of deep scrutiny?”

At this point, it is fair to ask what Dr. Mann and his colleagues have to say about all of this. The book does go there in some detail. Dr. Mann claims that his hockey stick has been replicated by others and this is true. But, they not only used the same data or similar data, but they used the same statistical techniques that have been shown to be critically flawed. One case in point is fairly typical of the others. Karoly and Gergis, in 2012, published their own hockey stick to rave reviews in the public media, especially in Australia. It claimed 95% certainty that the recent decades in Australasia were the warmest in 1000 years. They used similar proxies as Dr. Mann and used the same statistical techniques. Steven McIntyre went to work and blew it up in less than three weeks. He sent his statistical analysis to the authors. Dr. Karoly and Dr. Gergis, to their credit, recognized their error and withdrew their paper, even after the mainstream media praise. As Joanne Nova wrote, “In May it was all over the papers, in June it was shown to be badly flawed. By October, it quietly gets withdrawn.”

Just as Karoly and Gergis’s paleoclimate reconstruction disappeared, Mann’s seems to be disappearing as well. Professor Philippe De Larminat noted in 2014:

“The hockey stick curve, which ignores large climatic events, seems to have come straight from another world… This Chapter 5 [in the Fifth and latest IPCC report] in question does not make the slightest mention of the famous publication from Mann et al … neither in the text nor among the some 1,000 specific bibliographical references in this chapter. Given the extensive use that the IPCC made of it in the past (cited six times in the Third Assessment Report), and the controversy it still causes, this absence is peculiar.”

Let’s hope that hockey stick fiction goes away like the 97% consensus fiction has.

Professor Ian Plimer notes:

“In the next IPCC report, the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age mysteriously reappeared. This suggests that the IPCC knew that the “hockey stick” was invalid. This is a withering condemnation of the IPCC. The “hockey stick” was used as the backdrop for announcements about human-induced climate change, it is still used by Al Gore, and it is still used in talks, on websites and in publications by those claiming that the world is getting warmer due to human activities. Were any of those people who view this graphic told that the data before 1421 AD was based on just one lonely alpine pine tree?”

So, the book shows that the hockey stick is dead to all scientists on all sides of the climate debate. What is the impact of this appalling chapter in the history of science? I think that Professor Judith Curry says it best:

“With regards to climate science, IMO the key issue regarding academic freedom is this:  no scientist should have to fall on their sword to follow the science where they see it leading or to challenge the consensus.  I’ve fallen on my dagger (not the full sword), in that my challenge to the consensus has precluded any further professional recognition and a career as a university administrator.  That said, I have tenure, and am senior enough to be able retire if things genuinely were to get awful for me. I am very very worried about younger scientists, and I hear from a number of them that have these concerns.”

This is an outstanding and important book and I highly recommend it.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

And an article about a paper written by a believer in AGW: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/tol-takes-on-cooks-97-consensus-claim-with-a-re-analysis-showing-the-claim-is-unfounded/#more-110831:

BUSTED: Tol takes on Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ claim with a re-analysis, showing the claim is ‘unfounded’

Anthony Watts / June 4, 2014	
  
A new paper by Dr. Richard Tol published today in ScienceDirect, journal of Energy Policy, shows that the Cook et al. paper claiming that there is a 97% consensus among scientists is not just impossible to reproduce (since Cook is withholding data) but a veritable statistical train wreck rife with bias, classification errors, poor data quality, and inconsistency in the ratings process. The full paper is available below.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis

Richard S.J. Tol dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045

Abstract

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

Conclusion and policy implications

The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).

It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration. During that time, electoral fortunes will turn. Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further polarize the climate debate.

Full paper available in plain text here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821

And a PDF here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821/pdfft?md5=3ec2c68758ccd267c4c6c63bd5e7bb5a&pid=1-s2.0-S0301421514002821-main.pdf


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

Huh. What do you know. The consensus Does not exist and even some of the AGW people are willing to admit it. Good on Richard Tol for demonstrating integrity. And good on Anthony Watt for hosting an opinion obviously contrary to his own on his website.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

This article https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/introduction-for-the-upcoming-tcp-release/ also criticizes the "97%" claim, and methods used by Skeptical Science. I have not pasted the whole article, as the associated diagrams and commentary thereon are crucial:

Introduction for the Upcoming TCP Release

As you may have heard, I recently came into possession of previously undisclosed material for a 2013 paper by John Cook and others of Skeptical Science. The paper claimed to find the consensus on global warming is 97%. 

That number was reached by having a group of people read abstracts (summaries) of ~12,000 scientific papers then say which endorse or reject the consensus. Each abstract was rated twice, and some had a third rater come in as a tie-break. The total number of ratings was 26,848. These ratings were done by 24 people. Twelve of them, combined, contributed only 873 ratings. That means 12 people did approximately 26,000 ratings.

Cook et al. have only discussed results related to the ~27,000 ratings. They have never discussed results broken down by individual raters. They have, in fact, refused to share the data which would allow such a discussion to take place. This is troubling. Biases in individual raters are always a problem when having people analyze text.

Biases can arise because of differences in worldviews, differences in how people understand of the rating system or any number of other things. These biases don’t mean the raters are bad people or even bad raters. It just means their ratings represent different things. If you take no steps to address that, your ratings can wind up looking like:


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

Judith Curry (not a poet, by the way) on the 97% myth again http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/27/the-conceits-of-consensus/#more-19735:

The conceits of consensus

Posted on August 27, 2015 | 500 Comments 

by Judith Curry

Critiques, the 3%, and is 47 the new 97?

For background, see my previous post The 97% feud.

Cook et al. critiques

At the heart of the consensus controversy is the paper by Cook et al. (2013), which inferred a 97% consensus by classifying abstracts from published papers.The study was based on a search of broad academic literature using casual English terms like “global warming”, which missed many climate science papers but included lots of non-climate-science papers that mentioned climate change – social science papers, surveys of the general public, surveys of cooking stove use, the economics of a carbon tax, and scientific papers from non-climate science fields that studied impacts and mitigation.

The Cook et al. paper has been refuted in the published literature in an article by Richard Tol:  Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (behind paywall).  Summary points from the abstract:

A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

Social psychologist Jose Duarte has a series of blog posts that document the ludicrousness of the selection and categorization of papers by Cook et al., including citation of specific articles that they categorized as supporting the climate change consensus:
◾Ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal abstracts
◾Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males and the 97%

From this analysis, Duarte concludes: ignore climate consensus studies based on random people rating journal article abstracts.  I find it difficult to disagree with him on this.

The 3%

So, does all this leave you wondering what the 3% of papers not included in the consensus had to say?  Well, wonder no more. There is a new paper out, published by Cook and colleagues:

Learning from mistakes

Rasmus Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowski, Katherine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, John Cook

Abstract.  Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

Published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology [link to full paper].

A look at the Supplementary Material shows that they considered credible skeptical papers (38 in total) – by Humlum, Scafetta, Solheim and others.

The gist of their analysis is that the authors were ‘outsiders’, not fully steeped in consensus lore and not referencing their preferred papers.

RealClimate has an entertaining post on the paper, Let’s learn from mistakes, where we learn that this paper was rejected by five journals before being published by Theoretical and Applied Climatology.  I guess the real lesson from this paper is that you can get any kind of twaddle published, if you keep trying and submit it to different journals.

A consensus on what, exactly?

The consensus inferred from the Cook et al. analysis is a vague one indeed; exactly what are these scientists agreeing on? The ‘97% of the world’s climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change’ is a fairly meaningless statement unless the relative amount (%) of human caused climate change is specified. Roy Spencer’s 2013 Senate testimony included the following statement:

“It should also be noted that the fact that I believe at least some of recent warming is human-caused places me in the 97% of researchers recently claimed to support the global warming consensus (actually, it’s 97% of the published papers, Cook et al., 2013). The 97% statement is therefore rather innocuous, since it probably includes all of the global warming “skeptics” I know of who are actively working in the field. Skeptics generally are skeptical of the view that recent warming is all human-caused, and/or that it is of a sufficient magnitude to warrant immediate action given the cost of energy policies to the poor. They do not claim humans have no impact on climate whatsoever.

The only credible way to ascertain whether scientists support the consensus on climate change is through surveys of climate scientists.  This point is eloquently made in another post by Joe Duarte:  The climate science consensus is 78-84%.    Now I don’t agree with Duarte’s conclusion on that, but he makes some very salient points:

Tips for being a good science consumer and science writer. When you see an estimate of the climate science consensus:
◾Make sure it’s a direct survey of climate scientists. Climate scientists have full speech faculties and reading comprehension. Anyone wishing to know their views can fruitfully ask them. Also, be alert to the inclusion of people outside of climate science.
◾Make sure that the researchers are actual, qualified professionals. You would think you could take this for granted in a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, but sadly this is simply not the case when it comes to climate consensus research. They’ll publish anything with high estimates.
◾Be wary of researchers who are political activists. Their conflicts of interest will be at least as strong as that of an oil company that had produced a consensus study – moral and ideological identity is incredibly powerful, and is often a larger concern than money.
◾In general, do not trust methods that rest on intermediaries or interpreters, like people reviewing the climate science literature. Thus far, such work has been dominated by untrained amateurs motivated by political agendas.
◾Be mindful of the exact questions asked. The wording of a survey is everything.
◾Be cautious about papers published in climate science journals, or really in any journal that is not a survey research journal. Our experience with the ERL fraud illustrated that climate science journals may not be able to properly review consensus studies, since the methods (surveys or subjective coding of text) are outside their domains of expertise. The risk of junk science is even greater if the journal is run by political interests and is motivated to publish inflated estimates. For example, I would advise strong skepticism of anything published by Environmental Research Letters on the consensus – they’re run by political people like Kammen.

Is 47 the new 97?

The key question is to what extent climate scientists agree with key consensus statement of the IPCC:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

Several surveys of climate scientists have addressed using survey questions that more or less address the issue of whether humans are the dominant cause of recent warming (discussed in the previous post by Duarte and summarized in my post The 97% feud).

The survey that I like the best is:

Verheggan et al. (2014) Scientists view about attribution of climate change. Environmental Science & Technology    [link]

Recently, a more detailed report on the survey was made available [link] .  Fabius Maximus has a fascinating post New study undercuts key IPCC finding (the text below draws liberally from this post). This survey examines agreement with the keynote statement of the IPCC AR5:

“It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ”

The survey examines both facets of the attribution statement – how much warming is caused by humans, and what is the confidence in that assessment.

In response to the question: What fraction of global warming since the mid 20th century can be attributed to human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations? A total of 1,222 of 1,868 (64% of respondents) agreed with AR5 that the answer was over 50%. Excluding the 164 (8.8%) “I don’t know” respondents, yields 72% agree with the IPCC.



Slide1

The second question is: “What confidence level would you ascribe to your estimate that the anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming is more than 50%?” Of the 1,222 respondents who said that the anthropogenic contribution was over 50%, 797 (65%) said it was 95%+ certain (which the IPCC defines as “virtually certain” or “extremely likely”).

Slide2The 797 respondents who are highly confident that more than 50% of the warming is human caused) are 43% of all 1,868 respondents (47% excluding the “don’t know” group). Hence this survey finds that slightly less than half of climate scientists surveyed agree with the AR5 keynote statement in terms of confidence in the attribution statement.

 Whose opinion ‘counts’?

Surveys of actual climate scientists is a much better way to elicit the actual opinions of scientist on this issue. But surveys raise the issue as to exactly who are the experts on the issue of attribution of climate change?  The Verheggan et al. study was criticized in a published comment by Duarte, in terms of the basis for selecting participants to respond to the survey:

“There is a deeper problem. Inclusion of mitigation and impacts papers – even from physical sciences or engineering – creates a structural bias that will inflate estimates of consensus, because these categories have no symmetric disconfirming counterparts. These researchers have simply imported a consensus in global warming. They then proceed to their area of expertise. [These papers] do not carry any data or epistemic information about climate change or its causes, and the authors are unlikely to be experts on the subject, since it is not their field.

Increased public interest in any topic will reliably draw scholars from various fields. However, their endorsement (or rejection) of human-caused warming does not represent knowledge or independent assessments. Their votes are not quanta of consnsensus, but simply artifacts of career choices, and the changing political climate. Their inclusion will artificially inflate sample sizes, and will likely bias the results.”

Roy Spencer also addresses this issue in his Senate testimony (cited above):

“(R)elatively few researchers in the world – probably not much more than a dozen – have researched how sensitive today’s climate system is based upon actual measurements. This is why popular surveys of climate scientists and their beliefs regarding global warming have little meaning: very few of them have actually worked on the details involved in determining exactly how much warming might result from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”

The number of real experts on the detection and attribution of climate change is small, only a fraction of the respondents to these surveys.  I raised this same issue in the pre-Climate Etc. days in response to the Anderegg et al. paper, in a comment at Collide-a-Scape (referenced by Columbia Journalism Review):

The scientific litmus test for the paper is the AR4 statement: “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”.

The climate experts with credibility in evaluating this statement are those scientists that are active in the area of detection and attribution. “Climate” scientists whose research areas is ecosystems, carbon cycle, economics, etc speak with no more authority on this subject than say Freeman Dyson.

I define the 20th century detection and attribution field to include those that create datasets, climate dynamicists that interpret the variability, radiative forcing, climate modeling, sensitivity analysis, feedback analysis. With this definition, 75% of the names on the list disappear. If you further eliminate people that create datasets but don’t interpret the datasets, you have less than 20% of the original list.

Apart from Anderegg’s classification of the likes of Freeman Dyson as not a ‘climate expert’ (since he didn’t have 20 peer reviewed publications that they classed as ‘climate papers’), they also did not include solar – climate experts such as Syun Akasofu (since apparently Akasofu’s solar papers do not count as ‘climate’).

But perhaps the most important point is that of the scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC consensus, a disproportionately large number of these skeptical scientists are experts on climate change detection/attribution.  Think Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, etc. etc.

Bottom line:  inflating the numbers of ‘climate scientists’ in such surveys attempts to hide that there is a serious scientific debate about the detection and attribution of recent warming, and that scientists who are skeptical of the IPCC consensus conclusion are disproportionately expert in the area of climate change detection and attribution.

Conceits of consensus

And finally, a fascinating article The conceits of ‘consensus’ in Halakhic rhetoric.  Read the whole thing, it is superb.  A few choice excerpts:

The distinguishing characteristic of these appeals to consensus is that the legitimacy or rejection of an opinion is not determined by intrinsic, objective, qualifiable criteria or its merits, but by its adoption by certain people. The primary premise of such arguments is that unanimity or a plurality of agreement among a given collective is halakhically binding on the Jewish population  and cannot be further contested or subject to review. 

Just as the appeal to consensus stresses people over logic, subsequent debate will also focus on the merits of individuals and their worthiness to be included or excluded from the conversation. This situation runs the risk of the No True Scotsman fallacy whereby one excludes a contradictory opinion on the grounds that no one who could possibly hold such an opinion is worth consideration. 

Debates over inclusion and exclusion for consensus are susceptible to social manipulations as well. Since these determinations imply a hierarchy or rank of some sort, attempts which disturb an existing order may be met with various forms of bullying or intimidation – either in terms of giving too much credit to one opinion or individual or not enough deference to another. Thus any consensus reached on this basis would not be not based out of genuine agreement, but fear of reprisals. The consensus of the collective may be similarly manipulated through implicit or overt marketing as a way to artificially besmirch or enhance someone’s reputation.

The next premise to consider is the correlation between consensus and correctness such that if most (or all) people believe something to be true, then by the value of its widespread acceptance and popularity, it must be correct. This is a well known logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, sometimes called the bandwagon fallacy. This should be familiar to anyone who has ever been admonished, “if all your friends would jump off a bridge would you follow?” It should also be obvious that at face value that Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, ought to reject this idea as a matter of principle.

Appeals to consensus are common and relatively simply to assert, but those who rely on consensus rarely if ever acknowledge, address, or defend, the assumptions inherent with the invoking of consensus as a source – if not the determinant – of practical Jewish law. As I will demonstrate, appeals to consensus are laden with problematic logical and halakhic assumptions such that while “consensus” may constitute one factor in determining a specific psak, it is not nearly the definitive halakhic criterion its proponents would like to believe.


----------



## Loachman (19 Sep 2015)

And some of Judith Curry's comments on the funding issue (full article at http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/16/industry-funding-and-bias/#more-19639 ):

But . . . oil company funding.  This is too often used as an excuse to reject a climate scientist or their findings, even if the funding is very indirect and has nothing to do with the specific study.  For example, having accepted travel funds from a think tank that is in some way has some funding from an unacceptable industry group or individual can be game over for that individual.

In climate change research, there is no righteous source of funding – government funding can be a source of bias just as much as industry funding can, and there is A LOT more government funding out there.  The need for greater intellectual (and political) diversity in climate change research has been addressed in this previous post.

That said, funding is probably a smaller source of bias than peer pressure to follow a consensus and to defend your own hypothesis, not to mention political preferences, environmental proclivities and career pressures.

In climate science, the ‘bogey’ is funding from fossil fuel companies.  Well, regional power providers are also involved in wind power, solar power, geothermal and hydropower (not to mention nuclear, but not clear if nuclear is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?).  Not to mention providing power for all those computers running weather and climate models.  And where would the climate research elite be without fossil fuels to support their extensive air travel (its a badge of honor among them to be flying at least 100,000 miles per year).  And is  natural gas good, relatively good, or bad?

So . . . is funding from power and oil companies ok if it funds research related to wind, solar geothermal and hydro?  Better predictions of extreme weather events that hamper both energy supply and demand, whatever the source of power?  Or is it only a problem if it supports outreach efforts by a climate scientist to deny humans are the cause of climate change?

If independent scientists obtain funding from power and oil companies, would this help support needed intellectual diversity into climate science to avoid the massive groupthink we now see?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2015)

An Australian scientist does the science on the models and comes up with this crushing response:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6



> *Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate*
> October 3, 2015 12:00pm
> MIRANDA DEVINEPerthNow
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (10 Nov 2015)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/06/gunter-climate-change-hot-air-keeps-spewing

Gunter: Satellites deny global warming 

By Lorne Gunter , Postmedia Network

First posted: Friday, November 06, 2015 03:22 PM MST | Updated: Friday, November 06, 2015 03:43 PM MST

Eighteen years, nine months.

As world leaders prepare to gather in Paris the first two weeks in December to negotiate a new global climate deal, the statistic – 18 years, nine months – is critical to keep in mind.

That’s the length of time since there has been any significant increase in global temperatures.

The members of the United Nations first signed a climate deal at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992. Since then, the sky-is-falling rhetoric has continued to grow in intensity. And governments around the world have spent hundreds of billions of dollars researching climate change and trying to stop it.

But since January of 1997, the world’s eight orbiting weather satellites have failed to detect any appreciable warming.

Environmentalists and “green” politicians love to tell us that this or that year or decade has been the hottest on record. But these claims are based largely on readings taken from the world’s 7,000 or so ground-based weather stations which often suffer from inconsistent monitoring and placement too near “urban heat islands.”

The octet of satellites, by contrast, take more than 300,000 readings per day over oceans, forests, deserts, cities, open ranges, glaciers and icecaps. They are infinitely more reliable than terrestrial thermometers.

And in the 23 years, five months since the Rio summit, those satellites have shown no significant warming for 18 years, nine months.

Over that same period, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased from about 340 parts per million (ppm) to approximately 400 ppm – a 17 per cent increase. If CO2 truly were trapping solar radiation in Earth’s atmosphere and causing dangerous warming, wouldn’t the weather satellites be detecting that?

Is it possible that something like the oceans has been absorbing all the anticipated warming and will at some time release it causing a sudden and catastrophic spike in global temperature? I guess that’s possible.

Still, every month that the current pause in warming grows longer, the possibility that manmade greenhouse gasses are going to be responsible for a future climate Armageddon has to be seen as more and more remote.

Hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency, nor are their more and more powerful tornados; even if there have been years in which some forms of severe storms have worsened.

The Greenland icecap may be shrinking, but the very much larger Antarctic icecap is expanding – and has been for 10,000 years. Sea levels are not rising anywhere near as fast as predicted.

Severe droughts are not more common. Even many climate scientists who back the global-warming theory have pointed out the current California drought is neither historically unusual nor global in scale.

None of this, though, will prevent world leaders (including Canada’s own premiers and new prime minister) from joining together in Paris next month to sign some preposterously Draconian climate deal.

There have been instances in which climate scientists have twisted or manipulated data to “prove” their theories. And green politicians are deaf to data that shows global warming is no big deal because being swept up in climate alarmism makes them look caring and cool.

But for the most part, global warming theory is not some giant conspiracy. Rather, it is a symptom of mass hysteria. Scientists and politicians want the climate change theories to be true because by-and-large they are skeptical of industrialized society and corporations, while they like big government and trust it to make the best decisions over individuals and companies.

Global warming and worldwide regulation simply fit into and reinforces their worldviews.

In the run up to the Paris gathering, I will be examining the science and politics behind UN efforts to regulate the planet.

lorne.gunter@sunmedia.ca


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/06/gunter-climate-change-hot-air-keeps-spewing
> 
> As world leaders prepare to gather in Paris the first two weeks in December to negotiate a new global climate deal, the statistic – 18 years, nine months – is critical to keep in mind.
> 
> ...



I'll take arguments from ignorance for $500 Alex. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2224

This argument has been thoroughly debunked numerous times, there is no need to rehash it. It is categorically wrong to make the claim that any cessation to warming has occurred up till 2015, and it is intellectually dishonest to pick a date of a high and use that as your left margin. If you were to use this tactic in economics to plan your investments, you'd be going broke in no time. But who needs full disclosure when you can prey on the uniformed right?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm


----------



## Loachman (10 Nov 2015)

Wow. Skeptical Science.

As pointed out by Dolphin_Hunter in Reply 2493: 
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

"Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science"

Wow. A "self-employed cartoonist". Not even a _*poet*_...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2015)

> Fall 2015, Cover Stories, Daily News
> 
> New map shows how drought affected 1,000 years of history





> .....The new atlas could also improve understanding of climate phenomena like the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, a variation in North Atlantic sea-surface temperatures that hasn't been tracked long enough to tell if it is a transitory event, forced by human intervention in the climate system, or a natural long-term oscillation. By combining the Old World Drought Atlas with the Asia and North America atlases, climatologists and climate modelers may also discover other sources of internal climate variability that are leading to drought and wetness across the Northern Hemisphere, Cook said.
> 
> In the Science Advances paper, Cook and his coauthors compare results from the new atlas and its counterparts across three time spans: the generally warm Medieval Climate Anomaly (1000-1200); the Little Ice Age (1550-1750); and the modern period (1850-2012).
> 
> The atlases together show persistently drier-than-average conditions across north-central Europe over the past 1,000 years, and a history of megadroughts in the Northern Hemisphere that lasted longer during the Medieval Climate Anomaly than they did during the 20th century. But there is little understanding as to why, the authors write. *Climate models have had difficulty reproducing megadroughts of the past, indicating something may be missing in their representation of the climate system, Cook said*.



http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2015/article/new-map-shows-how-drought-affected-1-000-years-of-history


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Wow. Skeptical Science.
> 
> As pointed out by Dolphin_Hunter in Reply 2493:
> http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html
> ...



It's a collection of myths with arguments and references debunking them, ran by an entire team who are indeed educated on the matter. You're free to debunk their claims, however simply dismissing them because you disagree with their founder is absurd. You're willing to cite an Edmonton Sun article with zero material referenced which supports your ignorance, but content which is backed up can be ignored? The mere fact that you presented one of the mostly commonly shared myths, as well as most easily debunked tells me you know little of the subject at hand. Is this why you refused to address the points I made, and instead chose to attack the source?

Is NASA good enough for you, despite it being a reference used on Skeptical Science?



> When Easterling and Wehner dropped the 1998 temperature spike from the data altogether, and zoomed in on the readings from 1999 to 2008, they saw a strong warming trend over this period. But when the 1998 measurement is included in the data, it looks as if there is no overall warming between 1998 and 2008 at all.



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html

Capable of responding to this, or do you simply wish to respond with aimless drivel?


----------



## Loachman (10 Nov 2015)

I have read a fair amount of material from a variety of sources, and am a little bit of a history buff as well. I see no evidence, anywhere, that supports this notion of man-made climate change.


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have read a fair amount of material from a variety of sources, and am a little bit of a history buff as well. I see no evidence, anywhere, that supports this notion of man-made climate change.



Then I guess you're more informed by simply scouring the internet for information that reaffirms your preconceptions, the entirety of climate science should just defer to you as you have it all figured out. 

Good job once again refusing to address the statistically errors made by the claims in your link, bravo! It really is easier to ignore informed debate isn't it?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2015)

The air must be pretty thin up on top of that high horse. You'd probably be able to have some sort of intelligent debate without all the sarcasm.


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

It was pretty clear when he avoided responding to my rebuttal twice that a discussion wasn't the goal, but the further pandering to ignorance.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2015)

Claiming people who disagree with your point of view as ignorant, doesn't open a floor for discussion. Your condescending attitude doesn't help either.


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

Sorry, but when your baseless opinion as a layperson does not coincide with the findings of the overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field you are ignorant. When you spread misinformation and then claim there is no supporting evidence to a topic such as AGW, you are again ignorant as you are making untruthful claims. When they fit the textbook definition of lacking knowledge, they're ignorant. Don't make blatantly false statements if you don't want a negative label?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Nov 2015)

I'm sorry, but when your "experts" want people thrown in prison for daring to challenge their claims, there's something they want to hide. Scientists have been more than happy to stand on facts, and be thrown in jail themselves for thousands of years to prove their theories right. These tactics smack of the Inquisition, not proper scientific method.

http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092115-771807-scientists-want-climate-change-skeptics-to-serve-prison-time.htm#ixzz3mVIOHjcs


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but when your baseless opinion as a layperson does not coincide with the findings of the overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field you are ignorant.



Careful,...your ship may sail right off the earth's edge.


----------



## cavalryman (10 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but when your baseless opinion as a layperson does not coincide with the findings of the overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field you are ignorant. When you spread misinformation and then claim there is no supporting evidence to a topic such as AGW, you are again ignorant as you are making untruthful claims. When they fit the textbook definition of lacking knowledge, they're ignorant. Don't make blatantly false statements if you don't want a negative label?


I do believe a chap called Galileo heard the same sort of denunciation in his day. Careful with ex-cathedra pronouncements.  They don't have a good track record.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2015)

cld617

I do believe you have missed your calling.

You are obviously wasted in your current position.  I see a future in fast jets for you.


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but when your "experts" want people thrown in prison for daring to challenge their claims, there's something they want to hide. Scientists have been more than happy to stand on facts, and be thrown in jail themselves for thousands of years to prove their theories right. These tactics smack of the Inquisition, not proper scientific method.
> 
> http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/092115-771807-scientists-want-climate-change-skeptics-to-serve-prison-time.htm#ixzz3mVIOHjcs



I don't agree with this at all, however it does nothing as far as speaking to the validity of climate science. If as much effort was spent by deniers to discredit the science behind AGW as the effort the put into attacking theit ethos, some ground might actually be made if their hypothesis hold any merit.


----------



## cld617 (10 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I do believe a chap called Galileo heard the same sort of denunciation in his day. Careful with ex-cathedra pronouncements.  They don't have a good track record.



The Catholic Church no longer holds the power as to what information can be spread to the masses. Never before has information and education be so readily available, to try and compare today's era to that of several hundred years ago is futile. 

Now can we get back to the discussion of the science? You're free to call me ignorant all you'd like, however please poke some holes into the arguments I've made.


----------



## cavalryman (10 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The Catholic Church no longer holds the power as to what information can be spread to the masses. Never before has information and education be so readily available, to try and compare today's era to that of several hundred years ago is futile.
> 
> Now can we get back to the discussion of the science? You're free to call me ignorant all you'd like, however please poke some holes into the arguments I've made.



And yet the masses remain as ignorant as ever.  Sad, really.  And here I thought centuries of Enlightenment have established that the science is never settled, yet the warmists claim it's so, to the point of wishing those who point out the flaws in their models be imprisoned for their heretic views.  Shades of the Inquisition, no?  So much for your claim that we've advanced the discourse.  I do believe that my example referencing Galileo is just as apt today was it was a few centuries ago.  Heretics will be denounced as ignorant, the scientific method will continue to be ignored, statistical methodology will continue to be perverted.  Churchian views might have been been replaced by the dogma of the AGW cult, but nothing has changed much when it comes to discourse.  Case in point, Pope Francis is very much of your opinion, so give thanks that the Catholic Church is once again denouncing heresy, contra scientific fact.  #IamGalileo, if you like.

Oh - minor quibble.  I've not called you ignorant.  That would have been you - vis-a-vis those who refuse to bow to the orthodoxy.  Projection is an interesting phenomenon, as is virtue signalling.  I really wonder what triggers either.


----------



## cld617 (11 Nov 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And yet the masses remain as ignorant as ever.  Sad, really.  And here I thought centuries of Enlightenment have established that the science is never settled, yet the warmists claim it's so, to the point of wishing those who point out the flaws in their models be imprisoned for their heretic views.  Shades of the Inquisition, no?  So much for your claim that we've advanced the discourse.  I do believe that my example referencing Galileo is just as apt today was it was a few centuries ago.  Heretics will be denounced as ignorant, the scientific method will continue to be ignored, statistical methodology will continue to be perverted.  Churchian views might have been been replaced by the dogma of the AGW cult, but nothing has changed much when it comes to discourse.  Case in point, Pope Francis is very much of your opinion, so give thanks that the Catholic Church is once again denouncing heresy, contra scientific fact.  #IamGalileo, if you like.
> 
> Oh - minor quibble.  I've not called you ignorant.  That would have been you - vis-a-vis those who refuse to bow to the orthodoxy.  Projection is an interesting phenomenon, as is virtue signalling.  I really wonder what triggers either.



So the answer is no, you do not wish to discuss the science. Instead you wish to go in circles addressing the faults in methods and make protests claiming dishonest. We can both play that game, it gets neither side any ground and no one walks away any more informed. I'll concede I'm often crude with my approach, however I do at least provide some information. Care to do the same?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Nov 2015)

Maybe it is just me, but whenever anyone claims "the science is settled" on any issue, I immediately smell a rat.

Science is never settled.

So far the models have failed to predict the past, much less the future.

Data sets are either manipulated or not released, making the examination of the raw data nearly impossible.

The sun as an actor in climate change is nearly always ignored and it is by far the biggest driver in the system. I wonder why that is?

Some people treat climate as a static issue- that the world has always been this way. In fact, it has been both hotter and colder in the past. I am always very careful to try not to assume that correlation is causation.

The "solutions" to climate changed that are proposed in most circles (ban petroleum) are woefully ignorant of the amounts of energy required to keep a modern, industrialized society functioning. Solar and wind will not do it- particularly in a large cold country like Canada. Most climate activists seem to wish away little problems like that...

It is interesting how most activists see the oil industry as the source of most carbon output and not the the people who burn the oil- ie everyday motorists, airline passengers, etc, etc, etc.

The whole thing seems like a global guilt shakedown of the first world. I confidently predict that our delegation will come back from Paris next month, proudly trumpeting how many billions we "owe" 3rd worlds countries.

Climate activists are, on average, some of the least polite and most strident people I have ever met. They are intolerant of dissent and are usually the first to resort to ad hominem. If you disagree with or question any aspect of climate change, you are not intellectually curious or sceptical, you are a "denier" or in the pay of the oil industry (I wish...).

But other than that, I have few problems with climate change....


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2015)

Frankly it does not matter how much evidence from how many different fields is brought forward (in this thread alone there have been discussions about data from astrophysics, solar science, oceanography, history, archeology, planetary science, along with examination of the various ways climactic data has been collected, analyzed and used), but anything at all that does not confirm the "narrative" is usually ignored while the poster who brings it up is subjected to Moving goalposts and hominem attacks.

So now I am waiting for the effects of the new Maunder Minimum (caused by fluctuations in the fluid flows inside the Sun) to become unmistakable and watch the wholesale lemming like rush to demand expanded government powers and vast transfers of wealth to mitigate the new Little Ice Age (the only constant is the call for vastly expanded powers, same as the 1970's Ice Age scare and Warmism today). I kind of envy the Vikings in their sunny environment, farming in Greenland and sipping some Scottish wine after hours.....


----------



## cld617 (11 Nov 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Data sets are either manipulated or not released, making the examination of the raw data nearly impossible.



Have multiple examples for this? The overwhelming majority of data regarding climate study is readily available if you actively seek it. The incident I am inclined to believe you're talking about is "climategate", which has been blown out of the water and used time and time again despite those involved cleared of any wrongdoing. 



> The sun as an actor in climate change is nearly always ignored and it is by far the biggest driver in the system. I wonder why that is?



I'm curious, when is nearly always? Broad brush strokes here, I'm not so easily convinced. More often I've seen the sun used as a scapegoat by those who do not fully understand it's effects, that they simply wash our hands clear of any wrong doing and point to the sun as the culprit. In the end the sun is to blame, however it is the addition of c02 into our atmosphere which kick starts a process which raises the temperature, causing more water vapor to pool up in the atmosphere giving greater absorption potential for the suns energy. 

There is enough material written on the sun and it`s effect on the earth that you could spend every spare minute this year reading about it and still just make a dent. To proclaim that it is forgotten or ignored is simply untrue. 

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9181-3
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021258/abstract
http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/abs/2012/01/swsc120022/swsc120022.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682609003319
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282/abstract

Anyone care to poke holes in these?


> Some people treat climate as a static issue- that the world has always been this way. In fact, it has been both hotter and colder in the past.



It has changed yes, however rarely has change occurred so rapidly as they currently are. The leading cause for those past rapid changes? Large and swift additions of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by natural forces. We are not currently living in a time of increased volcanic activity which the rises could be attributed to, the current trending rates cannot be accounted for without factoring in man made c02 via fossil fuel burning and farming. 



> The "solutions" to climate changed that are proposed in most circles (ban petroleum) are woefully ignorant of the amounts of energy required to keep a modern, industrialized society functioning. Solar and wind will not do it- particularly in a large cold country like Canada. Most climate activists seem to wish away little problems like that...



Irrelevant to whether or not AGW is a reality. 
[/quote]


----------



## cld617 (11 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *Frankly it does not matter how much evidence from how many different fields is brought forward* (in this thread alone there have been discussions about data from astrophysics, solar science, oceanography, history, archeology, planetary science, along with examination of the various ways climactic data has been collected, analyzed and used), but anything at all that does not confirm the "narrative" is usually ignored while the poster who brings it up is subjected to Moving goalposts and hominem attacks.



Actually, it does matter to many, as the volume you're speaking of accounts for an incredibly small fraction of findings from climate research. Your idea of confirmation bias is when 97% of actively published climate scientists are in agreement? To me it seems a lot more likely that the one who is simply listening to what they want to hear is the individual who gets the majority of his information from for-profit think tanks, who in turn are fueled by the overwhelming minority in their particular field of study. 



> I kind of envy the Vikings in their sunny environment, farming in Greenland and sipping some Scottish wine after hours.....



You`re confusing a local event, the medieval warming period, for a global one. So much so that you`re even so confident to make jokes about it. When you`re so far gone that you use incorrect understandings in passing, I`m not sure there is much that is going to convince you.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2015)

Why are you worried what we think?

You are right.  There. Happy?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2015)

The funny thing is, the only ones that truly believe and defend, in good conscious, global warming, are the little man on the street, the masses if you will, who need something to ground and centre their energies on. All the others, Gore, Suzuki, scientists, rock musicians, actors and politicians are there for the gobs of money and publicity that this subject produces. They ignore their own rhetoric while flying around in their private jets, lighting their properties (plural) with non renewable energy that would make a max security prison blush and collecting stature and perks (Nobel prizes, etc) because and only because there are big money backers that love doling out cash to make things uncomfortable for their rivals and sleaze balls will always go for the quick buck while throwing morals to the wind.

The earth will take care of itself, as it always has. Nothing we do is going to alleviate or mitigate that. Yelling and screaming isn't going to do anything. Stating data you think is definitive is useless as both sides have data supporting their positions, from equally valid sources.

We're spending billions of dollars, wasting time that could better be spent on other global crisis', lining the pockets and expanding the ego of the 'experts' like Gore, who has no qualifications, at all, and Suzuki, who's claim to fame and doctorate is on the three days sex life of fruit flies. He's only famous because of the CBC.

One only needs look at this thread and others like it right here and the thousands elsewhere on the web to see the waste that the foot soldiers, on both sides, spend doing the impossible by trying to convince the other side their position is wrong. Which isn't going to happen in a million years.

That's just my  :2c: of the whole stupid subject. 

We are not going to change Mother Nature . She knows how to take care of herself. If she needs to wipe us out, she will, and Gore and Suzuki won't change that.


----------



## Loachman (12 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I don't agree with this at all, however it does nothing as far as speaking to the validity of climate science. If as much effort was spent by deniers to discredit the science behind AGW as the effort the put into attacking theit ethos, some ground might actually be made if their hypothesis hold any merit.



And that has been done. Some, however, simply refuse to see or accept that.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but when your baseless opinion as a layperson



Pot, this is Kettle, Over...

Unless you are a professional climate scientist, that is.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> the overwhelming majority of experts in a particular field



The overwhelmingness of that "majority" has been thoroughly trashed, as well.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> you are ignorant.



I agree with your self-assessment.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> When you spread misinformation and then claim there is no supporting evidence to a topic such as AGW, you are again ignorant as you are making untruthful claims.



There is no such "supporting evidence". The theories and models do not coincide with reality. Faith is a requirement of religion. Faith does not equate to science. I am sorry that you follow a false religion. That is sad.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> It was pretty clear when he avoided responding to my rebuttal twice that a discussion wasn't the goal, but the further pandering to ignorance.



My apologies. I have a life outside of this forum. That is more important than debating junk science and its complete lack of foundation with you.

While the dishonesty and hypocracy (and profiteering) of the high priests of Warmism and the ignorance of their lower-level adherents are of some concern to me, I also do this for amusement. You are, therefore, a lower priority than anything else in my life.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> Then I guess you're more informed by simply scouring the internet for information that reaffirms your preconceptions



You mean just like you do?



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> the entirety of climate science should just defer to you as you have it all figured out.



I believe that you truly mean the "noisiest" part of that community. There are many who disagree.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> Good job once again refusing to address the statistically errors made by the claims in your link, bravo!



Not "refusing", old boy, I just have better things to do, most of the time. I'll probably get around to you eventually. And I do believe that you've not bothered responding to a few things in this thread, either.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> It really is easier to ignore informed debate isn't it?



You seem to be rather skilled in that regard. All that you do is claim that your internet articles trump our internet articles.

But do carry on.

Let me know if you need to borrow some warm and cozy kit in ten or twenty years.

You know, next little mini ice age and all.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> Your idea of confirmation bias is when 97% of actively published climate scientists are in agreement?



But they're not. I pointed that out a page or two ago. Maybe you didn't read that. Maybe you did not want to accept it.



			
				cld617 said:
			
		

> To me it seems a lot more likely that the one who is simply listening to what they want to hear is the individual who gets the majority of his information from for-profit think tanks, who in turn are fueled by the overwhelming minority in their particular field of study.



So who is funding your side? Somebody is, and somebody's benefitting from it. Do not try and deny that. Your guys are not doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts while begging for scraps in the streets.

And I read both sides of the argument, by the way, and am no less convinced of the error of your side by doing so.

Quite the opposite, actually. My opinion of them cannot get much lower, but they seem to manage to push it that way from time-to-time.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> You`re confusing a local event, the medieval warming period, for a global one. So much so that you`re even so confident to make jokes about it. When you`re so far gone that you use incorrect understandings in passing, I`m not sure there is much that is going to convince you.



An event with historical and archeological data spanning from Russia to North America is "local"? I suppose you _could_ claim that, since the temperature data from the planet Mars tracks that of the Earth as well, so an event on one planet is "local" compared to the solar system. And astrophysicists have demonstrated high energy particles from supernova in the Milky Way galaxy affect the formation of clouds, so mere planetary effects are _highly_ localized on that basis....


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Nov 2015)

Meanwhile, at NASA, another inconvenient truth is revealed:

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum


----------



## cld617 (13 Nov 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An event with historical and archeological data spanning from Russia to North America is "local"? I suppose you _could_ claim that, since the temperature data from the planet Mars tracks that of the Earth as well, so an event on one planet is "local" compared to the solar system. And astrophysicists have demonstrated high energy particles from supernova in the Milky Way galaxy affect the formation of clouds, so mere planetary effects are _highly_ localized on that basis....



Yes, it was. Thanks for coming out.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Yes, it was. Thanks for coming out.



An artifact graph from the 18th century thawed out of an iceberg I guess??

Please...... :


----------



## cld617 (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> An artifact graph from the 18th century thawed out of an iceberg I guess??
> 
> Please...... :



If the best argument you can make is to deny the abilities of science to with relative accuracy determine the conditions of the world only a few centuries ago, hit the back button.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> If the best argument you can make is to deny the abilities of science to with relative accuracy determine the conditions of the world only a few centuries ago, hit the back button.



OK smart guy.......explain it to me.


----------



## cld617 (13 Nov 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK smart guy.......explain it to me.



You don't seem to get how this works, and I'm not putting in the effort to source methods for you when you've been unwilling to look yourself. My point is that your lack of knowledge is not reasonable grounds to deny the science. I don't pretend to have a comprehensive knowledge of biology, should I deny the methods biologists use to advance the study of evolution?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2015)

Don't bother, Bruce. If he refuses to see or understand any sort of contradictory data from history (trade invoices, parish records of population, migration patterns, military records), astrophysics (high energy particles from distant supernova affecting the climate) or planetary science (the rise and then levelling of planetary temperatures is consistent on both Earth and Mars) or even direct observations, such as the continuing growth of the Antarctic ice sheets, then by definition ANY evidence, facts or observations that do not support the narrative are invalid, regardless if you, I, Chris Essex (a scientist affiliated with UWO who I happen to know) or Lord Christopher Monckton were to provide it.

OTOH, _anything at all_, regardless of provenance, that supports the narrative is to be taken at gosple and not to be questioned (much like the answer to "why the various people were selected to the cabinet?" was not a reasoned outlining of their various qualifications, but "because it is 2015"; _an answer designed to shut off debate or any future questioning_.)

The true nature of this form of argumentation is Rhetoric, and using facts and logic (Dialectic) is not the proper means of answering to Rhetoric:



> The term “dialectic” loosely describes one-on-one logical or philosophical argument as opposed to the term “rhetoric” that loosely describes mass persuasion. Dialectic consists of questions and answers designed to establish truth through interactive argumentation. Generally associated with an audience of one, dialectic uses neither the pathos nor the uninterrupted, non-interactive speech used to address large audiences by rhetors.


 http://contracabal.org/201-01-02.html


----------



## Loachman (15 Nov 2015)

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/09/the-climate-change-inquisition-begins/

The Climate Change Inquisition Begins 

New York's Attorney general is sending out the message that corporations who fund climate change skeptics will face political reprisal.

By Robert Tracinski 

November 9, 2015

New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, has started an investigation of Exxon Mobil “to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.” According to The New York Times, its sources “said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science.” See what they did there? To have a different view of climate science is to “undermine” it because there is no scientific study of the climate except that which they agree with.

We should start with the observation that Exxon could not possibly have “lied” about climate change, even if it intended to, because first there would have to be a proven truth on the subject. If the company later contradicted warnings about global warming issued by scientists it funded in the 1980s, that would be justified by the fact that those warnings were almost certainly wrong. The arguments for global warming have been undercut — not by anything Exxon did — but by what the earth didn’t do. It didn’t keep warming, with global temperatures leveling off for the past 15 to 20 years. Global temperatures are now trending at or below the lowest, least dire predictions of warming.

But this isn’t really about the science, is it? To make it clear that this is entirely a political witch hunt, the Times explains that “the company published extensive research over decades that largely lined up with mainstream climatology. Thus, any potential fraud prosecution might depend on exactly how big a role company executives can be shown to have played in directing campaigns of climate denial, usually by libertarian-leaning political groups.”

New York’s attorney general is using securities law to evade the First Amendment.

Voila! Consensus!

A Bloomberg analysis describes the “weird theory” needed to transform this into a case of securities fraud but gets down to the nub of why Schneiderman is pursuing that theory: to evade the First Amendment. “(S)ecurities fraud is perhaps the least protected speech of all. Securities law fits notoriously uncomfortably with the First Amendment; the Securities and Exchange Commission forbids even truthful speech by companies in many situations.”

So there you go. This is about suppressing political speech by using the threat of government prosecution to intimidate corporations into withdrawing funding from pro-free-market advocates.

This is part of the whole “consensus” scam that is central to global warming hysteria. The idea is to make it impossible for scientists who are skeptical of global warming to receive any funding or get published in peer-reviewed journals - and then declare that, lo and behold, there are no published scientists who are skeptical about global warming! The idea is to proclaim a spontaneous “consensus” that you created by excluding anyone who disagrees with you.

This is another case where the prosecution is the punishment.

To be sure, this case will take forever to go through the courts. (Mann v. Steyn just entered year four.) But this is another case where the prosecution is the punishment. Just the prospect of being dragged through the courts and publicly maligned by prosecutors is deterrent enough.

This prosecution is not really aimed at Exxon, which has pockets deep enough to fight if it chooses. And if it wanted to, Exxon could really fight. It could use the processes of discovery and cross-examination to expose plenty of examples of lying about climate science on the part of politicians and government agencies. It is obvious, however, that Exxon’s executives don’t have the courage to do this.

That’s a shame because the real target is everybody smaller than Exxon. The message is going out that they will face political reprisals, including embarrassing and expensive persecution in the courts, if they ever give a dollar to a climate skeptic.

The investigation is definitely aimed at more companies. According to another New York Times report, “Energy experts said prosecutors may decide to investigate companies that chose to fund or join organizations that questioned climate science or policies designed to address the problem, such as the Global Climate Coalition and the American Legislative Exchange Council.” This is already having its effect: “Shell announced this summer that it would not renew its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a free-enterprise group that has opposed government mandates, subsidies and other efforts to force or encourage companies to develop and use more renewable energy sources. Occidental Petroleum and several other companies have also left ALEC, but Chevron and Exxon Mobil still support the group.”

The real target is everybody smaller than Exxon.

It’s not just about starving out one political faction; it’s about feeding advocates of the preferred faction. Thus, the Times mentions how prosecutors like Schneiderman would prefer big oil companies to act: “Last month, 10 of the world’s biggest oil companies, including BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Saudi Aramco, Repsol of Spain, Eni of Italy and Total, made a public declaration acknowledging that their industry must help address global climate change.”

It seems Schneiderman has learned from the neo-authoritarians in Russia and China how to impose political control. There is no need for anything so crude as outright censorship. Anybody can say what they like, if they’re shouting on a street corner or writing in the pages of some obscure journal for intellectuals. But nobody can get any money to broadcast their views more widely because anyone with money faces ruin if they stand out against the powers that be.

That’s the new regime New York’s attorney general just announced.


----------



## Loachman (15 Nov 2015)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/11/13/gunter-climate-change-scare-is-ideological-not-scientific

Gunter: Climate change scare is ideological, not scientific  

By Lorne Gunter , Postmedia Network  

First posted:  Friday, November 13, 2015 12:52 PM MST  | Updated:  Friday, November 13, 2015 01:01 PM MST  

The Antarctic ice sheet is so enormous it’s hard to fathom.

It is almost 14 million square km in surface area and contains 30 million cubic km – that millions of cubic kilometers, not cubic meters – of ice.

It holds about 90 per cent of the world’s fresh water, vastly more than in all the lakes on Earth. The Great Lakes are a drop in the bucket.

Were it to melt, the world’s oceans could rise by as much as 70 meters.

Goodbye Vancouver. Goodbye Halifax and much of St. John’s. Goodbye New York, Mumbai, Miami, Guangzhou, Sydney and even London and parts of Montreal.

So if the Antarctic ice sheet truly is in danger of a meltdown and if human-generated greenhouse cases are to blame, then environmentalists are right: Drastic action is needed to control carbon emissions – now.

But a recent study by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center shows that far from shrinking, the Antarctic ice sheet is growing – a lot.

Using thousands of satellite readings taken all over the polar continent, NASA glaciologists determined that ice was accumulating by an average of “112 billion tons a year from 1992 to 2001.” Since then, the buildup as slowed somewhat. But on average, the ice cap is still growing by an average of 82 billion tons annually.

There is a net loss of ice from the much smaller western region of Antarctica – the part of the sheet that has built up largely over the Antarctic oceans. But as the NASA scientists showed, over the eastern region and the western interior – the portions over land – “ice gain exceeds the losses in the other areas.”

This is doubly significant because NASA’s Goddard centre is the former home of the godfather of climate alarmism, James Hansen. The report does not come from a think tank affiliated with oil companies.

We are told constantly by environmentalists and climate scientists that the melting of the Western Antarctic ice shelf has accelerated so much in recent years as a result of manmade global warming, that it is close to the point of no return.

That is a scare tactic that will be repeated again and again next month in Paris when the UN convenes a summit of global leaders to negotiate a new climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto accords.

But the news about the Eastern Antarctic buildup will be nowhere to be found in Paris.

And here’s another thing the alarmists – politicians, activists and many climate scientists – will overlook in Paris: Since the 1970s, geologists have known the deterioration of the Western Antarctic ice shelf is due mainly to physics, not carbon emissions.

As early as 1977, Glaciologist Richard Cameron was writing “We’re seeing the west ice sheet on its way out. It has nothing to do with climate, just the dynamics of unstable ice.”

It’s a huge ice block extending hundreds of kilometres over water rather than land. At some point, some or all of it is going to “calve” into the sea.

So why won’t we hear this other evidence that contradicts the alarmist rhetoric of the David Suzukis and the Al Gores and their political followers such as new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau?

Is it a conspiracy? Probably a little bit. There have been instances of prominent climate scientists manipulating their data to make the climate scare worse than it is.

But mostly it’s a mindset. We don’t hear the other side because it doesn’t fit into the activists’ and politicians’, scientists’ and journalists’ worldview.

It doesn’t match their beliefs that humans are causing the Earth to go to hell in a handbasket, that corporations are evil and developed nations uncaring, and that governments need to be more powerful to regulate all these other bad actors.

Much of the climate scare is ideological, not scientific.

lorne.gunter@sunmedia.ca


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Nov 2015)

Zwally's research is actually pretty interesting and exciting. We will see if it stands up to review, it certainly brings up lots of questions regarding measurement accuracy.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Nov 2015)

Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day

The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.

But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?

Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.

When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/08/climate-change-the-hoax-that-costs-us-4-billion-a-day/


----------



## suffolkowner (16 Nov 2015)

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071

Zwally's article. I wasn't sure about posting the pdf so this is the link it is open access


----------



## larry Strong (16 Nov 2015)

"The following is a lecture delivered by Patrick Moore, formerly President of Greenpeace Int’l, to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London. He is a vocal critic of faulty science that supports climate-change caused by humans. Since he was a legend in the eco-movement, his current assessment is credible and authoritative."  Technocracy

A little to long to post here, but well worth the read....

http://technocracy.news/index.php/2015/10/30/former-president-of-greenpeace-scientifically-rips-climate-change-to-shreds/



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2015)

Many thanks for that Larry.  I have already forwarded it to my Facebook clan.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2015)

George Orwell, call your office:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/12/one-of-the-longest-running-climate-prediction-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/



> *One of the longest running climate prediction blunders has disappeared from the Internet*
> Anthony Watts / 7 days ago November 12, 2015
> 
> Readers of WUWT and millions of climate skeptics have read this article before, and in fact it is likely one of the most cited articles ever that illustrates the chutzpah and sheer hubris on display from a climate scientist who was so certain he could predict the future with certainty. Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit who famously said:
> ...


----------



## Bass ackwards (20 Nov 2015)

I saw this this morning on the Weather Network. Reproduced here under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act:

*Climate change warnings appear on Canadian gas pumps*
Cheryl Santa Maria	
Digital Reporter

Friday, November 20, 2015, 8:55 AM -	North Vancouver, B.C. is thought to be the first city in the world to add mandatory climate change stickers to its gas pumps.

The bylaw was passed unanimously by city council in a vote Monday night. It was championed by Our Horizon, a not-for-profit that called the vote an "historic global first."

Our Horizons founder Rob Shirkey told the CBC other Canadian and U.S. cities are supporting similar warnings, but North Vancouver is the first city to make the labels mandatory.

Officials hope to have the stickers on all city gas pumps by early 2016. Gas stations will need to maintain them in order to keep their business licence. 

******************************************************************************************************************************

The remainder of the article and some photos of the signs (they look kinda like the warnings on cigarette packages but not as gross) can be found at this link:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/n-vancouver-puts-climate-change-warning-labels-on-gas-pumps/60027/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2015)

I'll bet the only place you can get the approved stickers is from Our Horizon :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Nov 2015)

Well now....

http://news.yahoo.com/fossilized-tropical-forest-found-arctic-norway-133918104.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=fb


----------



## Furniture (23 Nov 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Yes, it was. Thanks for coming out.



Care to provide some context for the images? 

Like the link to the study which clearly lays out how they determined such small temperature changes from a period nearly 1000 years ago?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2015)

Long term climate change explained:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2015)

Needs no comment, does it?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/



> A German professor has confirmed what skeptics from Britain to the US have long suspected: that NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies has largely invented “global warming” by tampering with the raw temperature data records.
> 
> Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert is a retired geologist and data computation expert. He has painstakingly examined and tabulated all NASA GISS’s temperature data series, taken from 1153 stations and going back to 1881. His conclusion: that if you look at the raw data, as opposed to NASA’s revisions, you’ll find that since 1940 the planet has been cooling, not warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

Glad our political leaders are "doing something" about global warming:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/29/obamas-trip-to-the-un-global-warming-summit-emits-more-co2-than-driving-72-cars-for-a-year/#ixzz3t1XVdLmx



> *Obama’s Trip To The UN ‘Global Warming’ Summit Emits More CO2 Than Driving 72 Cars For A Year*
> Michael Bastasch
> 9:01 PM 11/29/2015
> 
> ...



I'll treat "Global Warming" as a crisis when _they_ do. Of course since real science suggests we are heading into a little ice age, perhaps we should be thankful they are taking steps to keep the planet warm....


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

Follow the money indeed. If the supposed payout by oil companies to skeptics was even half as lavish as this, then you know where the "settled science" would be right now:

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/12/1/climate-change-last-years-fad-goes-to-paris



> *Climate Change: Last Year's Fad Goes to Paris*
> By Roger L SimonDecember 1, 2015
> 
> Someone should tell Barack Obama and all the potential scavengers attempting to make a haul at COP-21 in Paris this week -- global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is over.
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2015)

10 inconvenient truths:

Paris climate conference: 10 reasons why we shouldn't worry about 'man-made' global warming

The UN Climate Change Conference in Paris would have us all terrified about the future of the environment. Here's why I'm not 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/paris-climate-change-conference/12025836/Paris-climate-conference-10-reasons-why-we-shouldnt-worry-about-man-made-global-warming.html


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2015)

Too good to pass up:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2015)

Very nice graphic "Climate and Human Civilization over the last 18,000 years"

https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line_updated2.pdf

Enjoy!


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2015)

At least she wasn't burned for heresy:

http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/i-was-tossed-out-of-the-tribe-climate-scientist-judith-curry-interviewed/



> *‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed*
> 
> For engaging with sceptics, and discussing uncertainties in projections frankly, this Georgia professor is branded a heretic
> 
> ...



And this is the fate of a global warming _supporter_!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2015)

BBC sends people to re education camps for daring to question received wisdom. The Inquasition just burnt you at the stake and got it over with, but I suppose there would be too much CO2 from burning heritics.....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/06/mandatory-indoctrination-for-bbc-officials-who-broke-climate-rules/



> *Mandatory Indoctrination for BBC Officials who Broke Climate “Rules”*
> Eric Worrall / 14 hours ago December 6, 2015
> 
> Guest essay by Eric Worrall
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2015)

Facts getting inthe way of the narrative again.....

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/07/did-emissions-take-a-dip-this-year/



> *Did Emissions Take a Dip This Year?*
> 
> While delegates from around the world sit down for a second week at the negotiating table in Paris to try to hammer out a Global Climate Deal, a group of scientists is reporting something surprising: Global greenhouse gas emissions might actually have decreased this year. The FT reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2015)

Remember, accordiong to climate alarmists it is the _oil companies _ who are paying people off. Jerry Brown and his crony capitalist buddies demonstrate the real reason Global Warming has such traction:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/jerry-brown-lets-it-all-hang-out.php



> *Jerry Brown Lets It All Hang Out*
> 
> I suspect liberals are envious of Europe not so much for its high taxes and generous welfare states (which aren’t actually that much more generous than our own if you add it all up correctly), but for its more open authoritarianism. Either that or there’s something in the water over in Paris that prompted Jerry Brown (who is attending the UN climate summit right now) to let his freak flag fly.
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember, accordiong to climate alarmists it is the _oil companies _ who are paying people off. Jerry Brown and his crony capitalist buddies demonstrate the real reason Global Warming has such traction:
> 
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/12/jerry-brown-lets-it-all-hang-out.php



So this is how socialist tyrants can see themselves ruling the world these days.

I kind of prefer the old style Stalin-type tyrants. At least they were up front about the whole thing.

'The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money' 

M. Thatcher

Meanwhile, on the film set in Calgary: http://calgaryherald.com/entertainment/celebrity/that-awkward-moment-when-you-have-to-explain-a-chinook-to-leo-dicaprio


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2015)

Someone has something to hide:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/now-its-noaa-caught-in-a-new-climate-data-scandal-it-revolves-around-the-agencys-refusal-to-pro/



> DECEMBER 22, 2015
> NOW IT’S NOAA CAUGHT IN ‘A NEW CLIMATE DATA SCANDAL:’ It revolves around the agency’s persistent refusal to provide to Congress documentation of its methodology for collecting and using data in climate models. The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology subpoena’d the documents earlier this year, and Judicial Watch, the non-profit transparency watchdog, filed a Freedom of Information Act request for them as well. Neither got the requested documents from NOAA. But then Judicial Watch filed an FOIA lawsuit against NOAA on Dec. 2 and shortly thereafter the agency coughed up the documents to the committee.
> 
> The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group’s Ethan Barton quoted Judicial Watch chief Tom Fitton saying “Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science in advance of global warming alarmism.” Stay tuned.


----------



## jpjohnsn (25 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Facts getting inthe way of the narrative again.....
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/07/did-emissions-take-a-dip-this-year/


Yes, emissions have dropped.  I heard a long-form interview on Quirks and Quarks about this and it was pointed out that this is a positive sign because it is the first time emissions have dropped while the overall global economy grew.  Previous drops usually coincided with downturns. 

What was made clear, however, was that while emissions dropped, there is still carbon being put into the atmosphere in huge amounts.  While reduced emissions are a positive, unless there is zero emissions - or carbon is being captured at a greater rate than it is being produced, we're still in trouble.  To only look at the reduction of emissions as an indicator is like being in a leaky rowboat and claiming you don't need to bail because the water is now coming in at a slightly smaller rate than it was a few minutes ago.  Unless you fix the leaks or bail like crazy, you're going for a swim.

 A major caveat being that, as third-world countries start to built an industrialized economy, inevitably they start with coal as a fuel source so the current drop may be relatively short-lived.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Dec 2015)

And the "Chicken Little" crowd will continue to claim that the end is near; no matter what is placed before them.


----------



## Loachman (25 Dec 2015)

There have always been scares, both real and imagined.

AGW falls within the latter category. There is absolutely no substance to it. It is merely the crowning monument to the propagandist's twisted art, built upon nothing more than lies and reciprocal gullibility. Our climate has always fluctuated, and will continue to do so, with or without us. There have been warmer periods during human history, and civilization flourished during those.

Here is an example of a real environmental crisis in our recent past:

Climate crisis? Horse manure  

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun  

First posted:  Wednesday, December 23, 2015 06:28 PM EST  | Updated:  Wednesday, December 23, 2015 09:22 PM EST  

Ever since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his gigantic delegation of Canadian politicians returned from the Paris climate conference they've been throwing around the idea of "decarbonizing" the Canadian and global economies.

To which one can only respond: "Oy, vey."

It's clear from the statements they're making they don't understand what they're talking about.

Wind and solar power are simply not ready to replace the use of coal, oil and natural gas to produce energy.

They aren't reliable or efficient enough to deliver the power required to fuel modern industrialized countries like our own, or developing nations that want to become part of the first world, like China and India.

The two technologies we have that can most effectively lower global greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change, while providing the necessary power, are non-emitting nuclear power and low-emitting natural gas, both of which should be used wherever possible to replace coal as a power source for electricity.

But there's another reason all those poobahs who were running around like chickens with their heads cut off in Paris, screaming that the seas will swallow us and the Arctic will melt if we don't decarbonize immediately were so absurd.

That is, their fear-mongering is based on the assumption that 100 years from now, we will be producing energy in the same way we do today.

To understand the absurdity of this, think of someone in 1900 trying to imagine the world in 2000.

Think of all the things they would know nothing about.

The first example of powered flight by the Wright brothers was still three years away, and space flight, to say nothing of nuclear power, was the stuff of science fiction.

In that context, the Chicken Littles at the Paris conference should remind us of another gathering of similar worthies at the world's first urban planning conference held in New York in 1898.

Back then, the delegates weren’t obsessed with fossil fuels but with horse manure. Literally.

In New York in 1898, 200,000 working horses each produced an average of 24 pounds of horse manure daily, meaning almost five million pounds of manure were being dumped on city streets every 24 hours.

As Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner recount in their best-seller, Superfreakonomics:

"In vacant lots, horse manure was piled as high as sixty feet. It lined city streets like banks of snow. In the summer time, it stank to the heavens; when the rains came, a soupy stream of horse manure flooded the crosswalks and seeped into people's basements ... All of this dung was terrifically unhealthy. It was a breeding ground for billions of flies that spread a host of deadly diseases. Rats and other vermin swarmed the mountains of manure to pick out undigested oats and other horse feed ... cities around the world were experiencing the same crisis."

Delegates to the conference concluded that given population growth, global cities would soon become uninhabitable, creating a massive refugee crisis as millions fled for their lives.

Except they failed to account for the rise of the electric streetcar and the mass use of the automobile which, ironically, was originally hailed as the environmental saviour of cities.

Just as we will survive the latest climate "crisis", not because of political scientists who call themselves environmentalists, but because of real scientists and engineers who are already hard at work inventing an energy future for us that we cannot possibly imagine today.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2015)

If all the money they spend promoting climate change actually went to research into making economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, we'd probably be weaning off them right now. These "climatologists" simply don't know what they want. We could have gotten rid of coal by switching to nuclear and natural gas, but nuclear is "unsafe" and any fossil fuel is bad fuel. Meanwhile, they post on the internet all about the evils of carbon emissions from their new iPhone 6 built in a third world country powered solely by coal/oil power plants, and shipped to North America on giant container ships spewing carbon from the stacks.

The hypocrisy is astounding.


----------



## Loachman (25 Dec 2015)

So is the idiocy.

We could go back to horses again...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Dec 2015)

Clean burning coal plants in NA & Europe produce next to nothing in emissions. Even when they claim they are shutdown, they still have to keep the boilers fired at near normal capacity in case they have to bring them back on line for emergencies. McWynne lies again. :


----------



## George Wallace (25 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If all the money they spend promoting climate change actually went to research into making economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, we'd probably be weaning off them right now. These "climatologists" simply don't know what they want. We could have gotten rid of coal by switching to nuclear and natural gas, but nuclear is "unsafe" and any fossil fuel is bad fuel. Meanwhile, they post on the internet all about the evils of carbon emissions from their new iPhone 6 built in a third world country powered solely by coal/oil power plants, and shipped to North America on giant container ships spewing carbon from the stacks.
> 
> The hypocrisy is astounding.



You left out the fact that all those Windmills and Solar Farms are products of the Petroleum Industry.  Without the Petroleum Industry there would be no plastics, not lubricants, etc. necessary to construct these "safe" means of energy production.  Without the Petroleum Industry there would be means to produce those iPhone 6's, those 'faux furs', etc.; most of the items that these twits require in their daily lives.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If all the money they spend promoting climate change actually went to research into making economically viable alternatives to fossil fuels, we'd probably be weaning off them right now. These "climatologists" simply don't know what they want. We could have gotten rid of coal by switching to nuclear and natural gas, but nuclear is "unsafe" and any fossil fuel is bad fuel. Meanwhile, they post on the internet all about the evils of carbon emissions from their new iPhone 6 built in a third world country powered solely by coal/oil power plants, and shipped to North America on giant container ships spewing carbon from the stacks.
> 
> The hypocrisy is astounding.




You understand that skeptics being paid by the fossil fuel industry are exactly the reason why this is still a "debate" right? This is exactly why people have to "promote" climate change. Because it's not good for certain people in certain industries. We've seen the report that Exxon itself realized climate change was a risk in the late 70s. THEY FUNDED THEIR OWN STUDIES. And promptly buried them and began a misinformation campaign because they knew what it meant for their business. Why are you guys still holding on?


----------



## Journeyman (29 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Why are you guys still holding on?


Because I rode my Harley on Christmas day.  I WANT global warming;  f*ck Florida sinking -- don't care.   :nod:


----------



## Loachman (29 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You understand that skeptics being paid by the fossil fuel industry are exactly the reason why this is still a "debate" right?



And who is funding the warmistas?


----------



## cld617 (29 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And who is funding the warmistas?



People with much smaller bank accounts who are not a part of the single largest industry on the planet.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Dec 2015)

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/26/how-to-cool-the-planet

 By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun  
First posted:  Saturday, December 26, 2015 07:00 PM EST  


TORONTO - Readers often ask me what I would do about anthropogenic, or man-made, climate change, since I’m always criticizing politicians for what they’re doing.
I typically answer it’s not my job to propose something that works.

Rather, it’s the job of governments to propose something that isn’t doomed to fail, such as imposing carbon taxes, cap-and-trade and expensive, unreliable and inefficient technologies like wind and solar power on the public.
Indeed, the foolish arrogance of politicians who claim they can fix the weather -- because they’re always confusing weather with climate -- through a carbon tax or a new stock market, which is all cap-and-trade is, is laughable.
Neither has been effective at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change, not Norway’s quarter century old carbon tax or Europe’s decade old cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper was right -- carbon pricing today is not about reducing emissions, but about raising new revenues for governments desperate for cash.
While I have never denied the reality of man-made climate change, I don’t regard it as an imminent, existential threat to humanity, but rather one of many environmental problems we must address, such as air, water and land pollution and cleaning up toxic waste dumps.
From an environmental perspective, for example, we could do far more good for the health of Canadians simply by providing clean water to all aboriginal reserves.
This is something within our power to do now, with technologies that exist today.

That’s as opposed to our politicians running around like Chicken Littles, proclaiming the climate sky is falling, and wasting billions of our dollars on so-called solutions that don’t work and have never worked.
With those qualifiers, here’s what I would do:

1.  Replace coal-fired electricity in Canada and globally with nuclear power and natural gas. Nuclear power does not emit GHG while natural gas emits carbon dioxide at half the rate of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel. This is the single greatest initiative we could undertake to dramatically cut GHG emissions globally, instead of fighting ad nauseam over minuscule issues like the oil sands, which produce one one-thousandth of global emissions.

2.  Abandon cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, replacing them with a system called carbon fee and dividend, in which every dollar raised from the public by raising sales taxes on carbon-intensive goods and services (meaning virtually all of them) is then returned in the form of lower income and business taxes. In Canada, the Greens are the only party to support a version of carbon fee and dividend, which is an attempt to use the taxation system to change human behaviour into consuming less (due to higher consumption taxes) while encouraging productivity and savings by letting people keep more of the money they earn through lower income taxes.

3.  End all subsidies for all forms of energy generation -- including fossil fuels, wind, solar, biomass, hydro and nuclear power. Subsidies allow inefficient forms of power generation to survive when they should not. Exposing the energy sector to the actual costs of production will raise prices in the short term, but dramatically lower them in the long term, due to the necessity of finding new ways to decrease the costs of energy production, in order to capture a greater share of the energy market.

4.  Veto any form of carbon pricing that hands over billions of public dollars to major industrial polluters to buy their political support for carbon pricing schemes, whose primary purpose is to raise revenues for governments. Both Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s cap-and-trade plan and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s carbon tax, will, when they start in 2017, take billions of dollars away from the public and hand it over as undeserved, windfall profits to major industrial emitters.

5.  Finally, no program to reduce emissions can succeed if people in the developed world don’t change their consumer habits. The more we consume, the more fossil fuel energy it takes to provide us with the goods and services we demand, leading to the release of ever-increasing amounts of GHG emissions. One need not take a vow of poverty to be environmentally responsible, but people who say they are worried about climate change while buying McMansions and taking two foreign vacations a year, are the biggest climate hypocrites on Earth. Does that sound like anyone we know.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Dec 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> People with much smaller bank accounts who are not a part of the single largest industry on the planet.



Pharmaceuticals fund the deniers?


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Dec 2015)

> Climate change professor Mike Hulme from the UK’s University of East Anglia baldly asserts: “We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us. … Rather than trying to ‘solve’ climate change … we need to approach climate change as an imaginative idea, an idea that we develop and employ to fulfill a variety of tasks for us. Because *the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs*.”



Per: Michael Hart, Special to Financial Post | November 25, 2015

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/countdown-to-paris-new-world-order-ii


----------



## a_majoor (29 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And who is funding the warmistas?



Governments mostly. I especially love government figures who _fly jets to conferences all over the world_ to tell us not to emit carbon, and the hangers on and "public figures" who get buckets of government money to promote the message (and the "Climate scientists" who feed off government funds, and the "Green" businesses who taxpayers are forced to support via subsidies....)

Kilo is correct in understanding that the climate scam is worth trillions of dollars, he is just pointed 1800 from the target, which is too bad, since his pocket is being picked to pay for the scam.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Dec 2015)

There is where you lose me. What government would want to "promote" global climate change? What politician actually wants to tell voters "Hey look I know you've been used to cheap gas, travelling where ever and whenever you want, consuming all you want, but we're going to have to make major changes. And we're probably going to have to tax you more to do it."? I know you seem to think this is a conspiracy to justify more government, but no politician is willing to pay a political price for this. We're going to have mount a project akin to the space race to get ourselves off of fossil fuels. This is a daunting task. No one wants to do the work, and no one would invent something like this. 

Isn't it more likely that politicians have been leery of acting on this, because they know it will cost them politically? And that inaction is convenient only to a point? 



Just going to leave this here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/iceland-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/



> The sun has not risen above the North Pole since mid-September. The sea ice—flat, landlike, windswept, and stretching as far as the eye can see—has been bathed in darkness for months.
> 
> But later this week, something extraordinary will happen: Air temperatures at the Earth’s most northernly region, in the middle of winter, will rise above freezing for only the second time on record.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2015)

The UN has found a new enemy for us all to hate - and a new reason to denounce unbelievers.

Hate. Fear. Loathing.   Same tools.  Different hands.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Just going to leave this here:
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/iceland-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/



Well.....I sure didn't know that Mother Earth could make storms we couldn't do anything about.  Gee, thanks for that..... :


The last 2 years of record-breaking cold in Ontario was due to the effect of global warming........this years heat wave is due to the effect of global warming......frig, I know who killed Kennedy now.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Dec 2015)

You do understand that it can be warm in some places, cold in others, and the planet can still be warming right?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Dec 2015)

More deep thought......


----------



## cld617 (30 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You do understand that it can be warm in some places, cold in others, and the planet can still be warming right?



Ignorance is often mistaken as the strongest weapon in the denier arsenal, no sense arguing against it.


----------



## MJP (30 Dec 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> Ignorance is often mistaken as the strongest weapon in the denier arsenal, no sense arguing against it.



It is part and parcel of any toolbox for any side on any argument.....


----------



## Loachman (30 Dec 2015)

cld617 said:
			
		

> People with much smaller bank accounts who are not a part of the single largest industry on the planet.



Greedy governments, drooling over more excuses to levy more taxes.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You do understand that it can be warm in some places, cold in others, and the planet can still be warming right?


Or cooling for that matter.... And to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes weather is just....weather.


----------



## Sub_Guy (31 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There is where you lose me. What government would want to "promote" global climate change? What politician actually wants to tell voters "Hey look I know you've been used to cheap gas, travelling where ever and whenever you want, consuming all you want, but we're going to have to make major changes. And we're probably going to have to tax you more to do it."? I know you seem to think this is a conspiracy to justify more government, but no politician is willing to pay a political price for this. We're going to have mount a project akin to the space race to get ourselves off of fossil fuels. This is a daunting task. No one wants to do the work, and no one would invent something like this.
> 
> Isn't it more likely that politicians have been leery of acting on this, because they know it will cost them politically? And that inaction is convenient only to a point?
> 
> ...



Just going  to leave this here

http://globalnews.ca/news/2426030/north-pole-to-see-unseasonably-warm-temperatures-but-dont-panic/


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There is where you lose me. What government would want to "promote" global climate change? What politician actually wants to tell voters "Hey look I know you've been used to cheap gas, travelling where ever and whenever you want, consuming all you want, but we're going to have to make major changes. And we're probably going to have to tax you more to do it."?...



Ontario's, to start.  Governments love one thing the most -- staying in power.  Second to that, they love collecting taxes and spending it as they wish.  

The Global Warming narrative perfectly fits Governments' skills at leveraging naively supported initiatives such as help curb the Earth's cyclical temperature variations, into raw cash.  It's pretty much that simple.  Some folks can feel good about peeing in their dark suit, but most of the world will pass on by without giving the dude wearing the dark, but imperceptibly wet suit a second look.

So how many people here have ticked off the "use my air miles to help offset carbon tax" last time they bought airline tickets?  Yup, thought so...

Honestly, the best thing mankind did was outlawing chlorofluorocarbons in the late 80's, and the ongoing recovery of the Ozone Layer to shield against UV B rays' contribution to global warming.  Trivia question:  What was the first United Nations protocol ever unanimously ratified by 100% of the UN members?  Hint: the meeting where the Protocol was written is in a Canadian city, where another rather figurative international organization is headquartered. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

So if anthropomorphic climate change is somehow a "government conspiracy" designed to "levy more taxes" (the holes in this argument are big enough to drive a bus through as I've outlined above), why did several petroleum producers begin to prepare for its effects? 

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/#nt=outfit



> A few weeks before seminal climate change talks in Kyoto back in 1997, Mobil Oil took out a bluntly worded advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post.
> 
> “Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ontario's, to start.  Governments love one thing the most -- staying in power.  Second to that, they love collecting taxes and spending it as they wish.
> 
> The Global Warming narrative perfectly fits Governments' skills at leveraging naively supported initiatives such as help curb the Earth's cyclical temperature variations, into raw cash.  It's pretty much that simple.  Some folks can feel good about peeing in their dark suit, but most of the world will pass on by without giving the dude wearing the dark, but imperceptibly wet suit a second look.
> 
> ...



I disagree (big surprise there ). As I wrote above, what government, what politician relishes the thought of telling voters that they will have to raise taxes, that the way we live our lives will have to change? The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :

This is exactly why nothing has been done. Because it would be so politically unpopular to tell Americans for example that they can no longer drive vehicles that have a certain level of emissions. Or how does the US government tell one of its biggest industries and employers "Hey turns out your entire business model will have to change if we're going to save the world." This is a tough conversation to have, in Canada as well, or for that matter many countries. 

Think for a moment about what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that it's easier politically for governments to invest trillions the world over to prevent a problem that (while it's becoming serious now) will have severe effects on the next two generations. This is NOT how politics works. Politicians are in a short term game, so we are particularly ill-equipped to deal with a long term problem like climate change. Add to that the array of economic interests aligned against action and it's easy to see what is really happening here. You can't tell me that a few thousand scientists and universities have more power than the companies that literally power our entire world. These interests are deeply embedded. 

This forum is going in circles, and the data is only mounting on one side of the discussion. The science keeps moving forward, so at what point do we all agree "We should probably something?"  As the article I posted above shows, the oil and insurance industries knew more about climate change than our governments did, because they knew if would affect their bottom line. This is capitalism at work. These companies were being responsible to their shareholders by forecasting future conditions in which they would be doing business. Science was working on behalf of the market,  it just turns out the market didn't like the message.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Dec 2015)

Just two quick points...



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government.


Do you honestly believe that Canadian governments have been lowering taxes and becoming smaller?  Do you have a credible source [preferably one that covers Federal and Ontario governments...where my money is being drained]?




			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Or how does the US government tell one of its biggest industries and employers ....


Again, why do some posters continually cite the US in attempting to somehow make a point -- regardless of relevance?  You do know that this is Canada, right?


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree (big surprise there ). As I wrote above, what government, what politician relishes the thought of telling voters that they will have to raise taxes, that the way we live our lives will have to change? The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :



I'll match your disagreement and raise you a point or two of GST/HST that Trudeau will inevitably have to raise within his mandate to keep the deficit anywhere near his "$10B a year for the next three years."

Road tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, booze tax, pot tax (to come)...of course the Governments love to tax us...they just believe that we believe them when they tell us they aren't going to raise your taxes.  In March 2017, after I've done my 2016 taxes, I'll tell you if I'm paying less...or (more likely) more taxes.  

This one of yours bears repeating:



> The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government.



Do you actually believe that?  Seriously?  Oh, I see, you're including Harper's Conservatives as part of that trend for "liberal democracies"...

Wow... :not-again:


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Dec 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'll match your disagreement and raise you a point or two of GST/HST that Trudeau will inevitably have to raise within his mandate to keep the deficit anywhere near his "$10B a year for the next three years."
> 
> Road tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, booze tax, pot tax (to come)...of course the Governments love to tax us...they just believe that we believe them when they tell us they aren't going to raise your taxes.  In March 2017, after I've done my 2016 taxes, I'll tell you if I'm paying less...or (more likely) more taxes.
> 
> ...



Our tax burden has decreased substantially since World War 2 overall. Now, it depends where you are in the tax bracket. The wealthy used to pay far more taxes, both as a group share of national revenue and as a percentage of their income. So did corporations. The tax burden IS now disproportionately carried by the lower and middle classes as a result of tax cuts for the aforementioned. But generally, unless you are in the lowest tax bracket, you were paying the same or more taxes in the 60s, the 70s and so on. 

As for the other smaller taxes  you mentioned, it's true they have gone up. But for example, if we continue to provide subsidized healthcare, it would make sense as public policy to discourage habits like smoking/drinking, because those are costly to treat. Taxes are a tool of public policy. They don't exist just because governments love them. 

Why wouldn't I include Harper's Conservatives in that trend? A "liberal democracy" is what Canada is, and they were our government. Unless you're confusing the term "liberal democracy" with the Liberal Party??

As for your point about the GST, most economists agree that cutting it was a major mistake. It looked good politically, but if you're middle class or lower income, it's not going to help as much as say, a reduction in income tax would. But the government couldn't do that in any meaningful way because of the aforementioned cuts to the highest tax brackets and corporations.

Look our system isn't perfect, but before we go too far into the weeds around taxes, let's remember that the wealthy used to pay 80% on income, and corporations quite recently paid as much as 40%. If you're feeling squeezed, I would suggest that it might make sense to raise those taxes again to relieve the pressure on middle and lower income Canadians. 

This is a history of corporate income tax in Canada:

http://www5.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/pub/itdat60-05/pdf/tax_e.pdf

I'm still trying to find the consolidated report that you asked for that includes provincial rates over a historical period.  But there are numerous public sources that have specific income tax information for specific provinces and tax brackets if you feel like googling for 5 hours.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just two quick points...
> Do you honestly believe that Canadian governments have been lowering taxes and becoming smaller?  Do you have a credible source [preferably one that covers Federal and Ontario governments...where my money is being drained]?
> 
> Again, why do some posters continually cite the US in attempting to somehow make a point -- regardless of relevance?  You do know that this is Canada, right?




Here's a report that shows Canada is 26th in the world for individual income tax burden (the US was 25th). So there is misconception that we are highly taxed when compared to other advanced countries.

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2014/overview_tax_wages-2014-3-en#page1


At any rate, both of you are proving my point. The revenue required to wean ourselves off fossil fuels could only be gathered by taxes, and clearly that idea is very unpopular. So my initial point stands, no government's strategy to STAY IN POWER revolves around massive new taxes for everyone. It makes absolutely no sense.


As for your second point, climate change is a global issue. The big players (the UN, petroleum producers) are also multi-national, not to mention individual governments. Keeping our discussion limited to Canada makes little sense as well. The name of this thread is *"Global"* Warming/Climate Change after all.


----------



## Loachman (31 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :



Creating an artificial scare can cause many people to accept almost any negative action, including additional revenue for pet projects. There is nothing new in that tactic.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/30/why-carbon-cash-grabs-fail

Why carbon cash grabs fail  

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun  

First posted:  Wednesday, December 30, 2015 06:22 PM EST  | Updated:  Wednesday, December 30, 2015 06:25 PM EST  

_*Any political leader - such as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley - who imposes a carbon pricing scheme on Canadians that is not 100% revenue neutral, is not interested in reducing man-made global warming.

She, or he, is interested in a cash grab from the public, which isn’t surprising since both the Ontario and Alberta governments are deeply in the red.
*_
A similar debate is underway in B.C., where Premier Christy Clark and NDP opposition leader John Horgan differ on what should be done with monies raised from any future increases to B.C.’s $30-per-tonne carbon tax.

Clark argues the money should be returned to the public as tax credits -- B.C.’s current policy.

Horgan told the Vancouver Sun the money should go to green infrastructure projects such as public transit.

This mirrors plans by Wynne and Notley to spend the revenues from their carbon pricing schemes (cap-and-trade for Wynne, carbon taxes for Notley) on so-called green initiatives like transit.

Simply put, Clark is right. Wynne, Notley and Horgan are wrong.

Any government serious about reducing industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change, does not view carbon pricing as a generator of more government revenue, subject only to vague commitments of future “green” iinvestments.

Rather it seeks to change human behaviour through the tax system, the only effective way to lower emissions.

Truly revenue-neutral carbon pricing returns 100% of the money raised by increasing sales taxes or prices on goods and services that are created using fossil fuel energy, to the public in equivalent income tax cuts.

The purpose is not to grow government revenue but to encourage people to make less carbon-intensive choices in their consumption habits.

That doesn’t mean people stop buying things, causing a recession, but rather that they factor in the fossil fuel energy it takes to produce them in making their purchases.

The 100% return of these new revenues the government receives from carbon pricing as income tax cuts, encourages increased productivity and savings by allowing people to keep more of the money they earn.

The only federal leader to support a version of this policy -- known as carbon fee and dividend -- is the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already made it clear that whatever national carbon pricing scheme he develops with the provinces will not be genuinely revenue neutral.

Thus, it will not lower emissions effectively.

First, building so-called “green” infrastructure such as public transit increases emissions over the short term because of the fossil fuel energy it takes to produce them.

Second, it may well increase them over the long term as well, since political rather than planning considerations often play into where transit is built. Three-quarter empty subways to nowhere don’t cut emissions.

Third, using new carbon pricing schemes to fund already planned infrastructure violates the principle of “additionality” when it comes to lowering emissions.

Additionality means any emission-reducing infrastructure project must be in addition to projects the government was going to build anyway, since we know from real-world experience that emissions will keep rising if governments do “business as usual”.

Simply renaming already planned public transit projects -- which used to be called capital spending and is something governments have done for generations -- as “green” infrastructure projects, is meaningless when it comes to cutting emissions.

It’s time our politicians stopped pretending otherwise.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You can't tell me that a few thousand scientists and universities have more power than the companies that literally power our entire world.



If it were just a "few thousand scientists" involved, then there would be many more thousand pushing the alternate side - the real truth. Once governments and people like Al Gore, who have become even richer from pushing this scam, that's become a little more of a challenge. Government research grants can buy a lot of official university compliance. Many scientists who attempt to get the truth out have been suppressed in a variety of methods, and many major organizations have been caught "adjusting" data to comply with the outcomes that they desire.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> the data is only mounting on one side of the discussion.



And that is the non-AGW side. Expect that to increase even further over time.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2016)

While no doubt Kilo will claim these people are in the pay of the Illuminati, here's more debunking of science by "consensus". Fewer scientists believe in Global Warming than Canadians who voted for the Liberals on a percentage basis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/



> *Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis*
> James Taylor , CONTRIBUTOR
> 
> It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
> ...


----------



## Loachman (1 Jan 2016)

Well, it's settled then.

Happy New Year to all of my fellow deniers.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Jan 2016)

And to start off 2016, here is a link to a post that discusses the emerging theory that global warming and global cooling are caused by volcanic activity affecting the ozone layer. It arose after a volcanologist noted a relationship between CFC use and warming, including the apparent halt after their use was banned. Rather than try to explain it, I instead suggest you read the paper and decide for yourselves. 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/


----------



## MJP (1 Jan 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Well, it's settled then.
> 
> Happy New Year to all of my fellow deniers.



Happy New Year to you as well.  I for one started the year off right with a good old tire burning, following by needlessly idling my vehicle while ensuring all lights in my house were on.  After all that strenuous activity I took a bath in my shillbucks from Big Oil!  Man I hope they keep paying me in 2016 with oil prices so low.


----------



## TheHead (1 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While no doubt Kilo will claim these people are in the pay of the Illuminati, here's more debunking of science by "consensus". Fewer scientists believe in Global Warming than Canadians who voted for the Liberals on a percentage basis:
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/




This is a terribly misleading article.  This was a non-scientific survey done of engineers,geoscientists and even economists who work in Alberta`s petroleum industry. I believe none of them surveyed were climatologists or were in a field pertaining to climate change. If you take a look at the study itself right in the introduction claims that among climate scientists there is "broad consensus" even though skepticism remains.

 This is typical Heartland institute cherry picking.  The same tactic used when they were trying to convince people smoking was not bad for your health.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2016)

Just to clear: 

Heartland=junk

Greenpeace= beyond reproach

Not advocating. Just curious if you believe that certain messengers (as opposed to the info conveyed by the messengers) are inherently biased?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2016)

TheHead said:
			
		

> This is a terribly misleading article.  This was a non-scientific survey done of engineers,geoscientists and even economists who work in Alberta`s petroleum industry. I believe none of them surveyed were climatologists or were in a field pertaining to climate change.  This is typical Heartland institute cherry picking.  The same tactic used when they were trying to convince people smoking was not bad for your health.



Okay, I'll play along.  How about a peer-reviewed paper by a Waterloo University professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry published in the _International Journal of Modern Physics B_?



> *Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says*
> May 30, 2013
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jan 2016)

Come on G2G- that study can't be valid. The U of Waterloo is clearly in the the pay of the Oil industry....

[sarcasm]


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll play along.  How about a peer-reviewed paper by a Waterloo University professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry published in the _International Journal of Modern Physics B_?



The only issue I take with that article is the claim of no warming since 2002. That and the claim that there is an inconclusive correlation between co2 and temperature rise, again claims which do not match up to others findings. 

Overall though, it's nice to see that even the deniers are posting articles which conclude that AGW is a reality. Intentional?  :


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Jan 2016)

cld617 said:
			
		

> The only issue I take with that article is the claim of no warming since 2002. That and the claim that there is an inconclusive correlation between co2 and temperature rise, again claims which do not match up to others findings.
> 
> Overall though, it's nice to see that even the deniers are posting articles which conclude that AGW is a reality. Intentional?  :



Of course AGW has formed part of the overall rise in global temperatures.  The whole point of the 1980's targeted reduction in CFCs, culminating in the Montreal Protocol, was to reduce the proportion of GW that was caused anthropogenically.

So, to help you with the "no warming since 2002" thing, how about we look to a recognized organizations specializing in atmospherics, say the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and go to its reference page for "Climate at a Glance" for Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies page and set 1880 to the present for its search parameters: (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global)

We get:







So, if Dr. Lu did the same thing as I would, statistically (levels of confidence, error bars, etc...,) his statement that from 2002 onwards, and really about 1999-2000, the temperature has (within error margins) remained relatively unchanged at 0.6ºC above the mean, seem to hold ground.

Perhaps you see something other than a flattening trend for the above-mean temperature anomaly?  ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2016)

I see a trend upwards that is consistent with the rise over the last 150+ years. It's not as aggressive as it has been in the past, but as we're continually setting new record annual highs, it's not dismissable as unchanged. With China exploding as the world's industrial superpower with poorly enforced regulation, it'll be interesting to see how the trend carries forward.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2016)

It also trended down for the 150 years before that, so in net change, aren't we back to roughly 1700s temperatures?


----------



## Loachman (1 Jan 2016)

With any luck, it'll soon be warm enough for Scandinavians to begin farming on Greenland again, like it was when temperatures were at a normal level.


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> aren't we back to roughly 1700s temperatures?



No, we're not. We're significantly higher. 



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> With any luck, it'll soon be warm enough for Scandinavians to begin farming on Greenland again, like it was when temperatures were at a normal level.



With any luck, you'll find a new argument to regurgitate that hasn't been discussed and debunked ad nauseam in this very thread.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2016)

cld617 said:
			
		

> No, we're not. We're significantly higher.



Signifcantly higher than when the global mean temperature was 73F? Just for some reference, we're at 60F right now. You're cherry picking 150 years out of a planet who has 4.5 BILLION years of climate history, including an ice age, and a time when the polar regions were not covered with ice at all.

Here's that pesky, climate denier science organization, NOAA, breaking down your alarmism:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

Do we need to get away from carbon pollution? Sure do, look at the smog in China/India. Are we going to do it in 20 years or else the planet cooks itself like an egg? Sure as hell don't. We need to move away from fossil fuels more due to air quality than we do because some crazy super storms like in the movies are going to destroy us.


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Signifcantly higher than when the global mean temperature was 73F? Just for some reference, we're at 60F right now. You're cherry picking 150 years out of a planet who has 4.5 BILLION years of climate history, including an ice age, and a time when the polar regions were not covered with ice at all.



Care to share a reference that puts the average temperature of the globe at 7 deg Celsius higher 300 years ago than it is today? Best of luck in that search. 

I'm not cherry picking anything, I'm pointing out the correlation between the advent of fossil fuels and temperature increases never before seen without massive natural disaster. 



> Here's that pesky, climate denier science organization, NOAA, breaking down your alarmism:  https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been



Congrats on your ability to improperly discern information. If you think that the earth being hot through natural forces before through natural cycles excuses the rapid shifts that man has caused in the last few dozen decades, then I hate to break it to you, but you're an idiot. Are you this incompetent when it comes to understanding another field of science which relies heavily on an understanding of adaptation too with evolution, or do you simply chose to reject it as well?


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2016)

cld617 said:
			
		

> but you're an idiot.



Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science. You're either completely out of arguments, or blinded by the halo glow of Al Gore and David Suzuki's collective angelic ideas.

Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived. The "we're dead in 20 years" crowd really doesn't have a leg to stand on. We're not going to do anything, other than invading China/India, to reduce emissions to near pre-industrial revolution levels. They are growing economies that cannot afford to piss money away at dubious "green" technology.

I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.


----------



## cld617 (1 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science.



I've spent plenty of time discussing the science. However it's all too often rejected because it doesn't conform to the latest news article you and people like you read on forbes or whatsupwiththat. Go back and see how many sources I've referenced throughout the last dozen or so pages, then compare that to how many were met with a counter-argument. It's a waste of time when the likes of you would rather falsely interpret heartland institute funded bullshit than to actually discuss the findings of real academic bodies. 



> Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived.



Your inability to understand that the argument "we've been warm in the past" is not a valid one is why you earned the title idiot. The issue is the speed in which temperature is changing, not that change is occurring. You want to discuss science? Understand the very basics of this topic and then maybe it'll be worthwhile. Until then, carry on relying on your own interpretations. 



> I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.



Considering the success of renewable energy sources in countries like Denmark, no I'm not willing to cancel it. Nuclear is a viable carry-over alternative for the next century, however the efforts need to be made towards truly renewable sources. What you call "piss money away at dubious "green" technology", is actively being used to power the homes of millions. The only one here stuck in their ways is the one who refuses to accept that is already a success. 

I'll get off your lawn now, try not to have a stroke.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Jan 2016)

cld617 said:
			
		

> I'll get off your lawn now, try not to have a stroke.



Couldn't resist the ad hominem attack, could you?

By dubious "green" technology, how much carbon is produced for the manufacture of a solar panel? How about all the oil required to keep a wind turbine working? All the metal fabrication to make those blades is staggering. Not to mention the efficiency just isn't there to wholesale change to "green" tech. Take a look at the US numbers of Levelized Cost of Electricity, Solar/Wind is staggering compared to NG/Nuclear, but the green lobby is pushing solely for geothermal/Solar/Wind as the only viable option. I wonder why that is? Are they creating themselves a market for their technology? Do they have a personal interest in the profitability of these companies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2016)

Cld,

I wonder if you would care to comment on the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI).

This article (not from the Heartland Institute) seems to convincingly indicate that you: 

A. Never get your net energy returned to you using only solar and wind

B. Cannot run a modern industrialized civilization on pure solar and wind. Nuclear and hydro seem to be your best bet.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

This is why I am sceptical of AGW. The "energy" solutions seem laughably unrealistic. In short- I would rather take my chances with weather (which, may or may not go the way you seem certain), than watch our entire civilization "de-powered".

Notice how I did that without one single personal insult directed at you, even though I disagree with you?


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Isn't that just typical, resort to personal insults instead of debating the science. You're either completely out of arguments, or blinded by the halo glow of Al Gore and David Suzuki's collective angelic ideas.
> 
> Yep, we sure are warmer in the past 11,000 years. Equally true, is that the Earth has been significantly warmer in the past and thrived. The "we're dead in 20 years" crowd really doesn't have a leg to stand on. We're not going to do anything, other than invading China/India, to reduce emissions to near pre-industrial revolution levels. They are growing economies that cannot afford to piss money away at dubious "green" technology.
> 
> I'll put this to you: Would you support us cancelling all wind/solar power projects, and replace them (along with coal) with nuclear/natural gas plants as an interim measure before better technologies emerge through proper time spent on research? If your answer is anything other than yes, you are simply a fossil fuel/G20/Globalization hater, that cannot be appeased by anything that resembles the "establishment", as long as those coal-powered factories in China still make your latest iPod or Starbucks coffeemaker.



You're quoting claims that have been proven wrong over and over again. Don't you think that the hundreds of scientific institutions around the world that agree AGW is a reality have access to these papers that you're posting? Do you really think you found some nugget of truth here?

cld617, I've back and forth with these guys a hundred times. They'll find one or two papers which seem legit, written by people someone at the Heritage Institute usually, even though the papers themselves have been debunked by mainstream science a thousand times over.

I've posted numerous links to legitimate scientific websites that are dedicated to debunking this stuff and it doesn't matter. The "denial" camp has changed their argument so many times, and some of the arguments over years would seem to cancel each other out. First it was that warming wasn't even happening, then it was the volcanoes, then it was solar activity. 

There are mountains and mountains of data that show AGW is a reality, and the data is only getting stronger. I mean, this link is to the very same site Puckchaser referenced  :  I guess he didn't bother to see what the NOAA's actual official position on AGW is. This is under the FAQ section for god's sake.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide6



> There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause. Thousands of weather stations worldwide—over land and ocean—have been recording daily high and low temperatures for many decades and, in some locations, for more than a century. When different scientific and technical teams in different U.S. agencies (e.g., NOAA and NASA) and in other countries (e.g., the U.K.'s Hadley Centre) average these data together, essentially the same results are found: Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5°F (0.85°C) since 1880.[15]
> 
> The primary cause is that, over the last 200 years, human activities have added about 500 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, increasing the abundance of this heat-trapping gas by about 40 percent. Today, humans add about 70 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every day. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 278 parts per million (ppm) in 1800 to about 398 ppm today.[19] Today's carbon dioxide levels are unusually high; much higher than at any other time in the last 800,000 years. The warming influence of heat-trapping gases was recognized in the mid-1800s.[14]
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Of course AGW has formed part of the overall rise in global temperatures.  The whole point of the 1980's targeted reduction in CFCs, culminating in the Montreal Protocol, was to reduce the proportion of GW that was caused anthropogenically.
> 
> So, to help you with the "no warming since 2002" thing, how about we look to a recognized organizations specializing in atmospherics, say the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and go to its reference page for "Climate at a Glance" for Global Land and Ocean Temperature Anomalies page and set 1880 to the present for its search parameters: (ref: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global)
> 
> ...




Again, on the VERY SAME SITE, their official position on climate change:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability



> Third U.S. National Climate Assessment Key Findings
> 
> Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
> Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.
> ...




None of us are specialists here, so I'm not sure why anyone here thinks their analysis of scientific data is relevant at all. Not when you can easily find the official position of any institution on climate change.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're quoting claims that have been proven wrong over and over again. Don't you think that the hundreds of scientific institutions around the world that agree AGW is a reality have access to these papers that you're posting? Do you really think you found some nugget of truth here?
> 
> cld617, I've back and forth with these guys a hundred times. They'll find one or two papers which seem legit, written by people someone at the Heritage Institute usually, even though the papers themselves have been debunked by mainstream science a thousand times over.
> 
> ...



If we are all unreconstructed Neanderthals, too stupid to see the truth, why do you continue to bother?

What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If we are all unreconstructed Neanderthals, too stupid to see the truth, why do you continue to bother?
> 
> What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?



Evangelical zeal is something that pertains to faith. I don't have faith that climate change is occurring, I _understand_ it is based on a few factors:

1. The sheer weight of all the scientists/scientific institutions that have arrived at this conclusion. I'll post this for what must be the 100th time: 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

2. Understanding that the dominant industries of our time, indeed our whole way of life are at risk if we accept this conclusion leads me to believe that it is perfectly plausible, if not likely that the "debate" we are having is due to a deliberate misinformation campaign that has been extremely successful. This is well documented in numerous articles, documentaries that I have posted here before too. Heck, I posted this only a few days ago. What, to your way of thinking, explains the about-face described at the link below? Do you honestly believe that it's more likely that ALL of the scientific institutions listed at the link above are in on some "green conspiracy?" Or that they've all been fooled? Nonsense.

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/

3. The understanding that this has become a political debate, not a scientific one. This is never more obvious than when looking at the sources the "deniers" seem to consistently reference. They're never anything close to being academic. In fact they're usually blogs that reference fraudulent studies or cherry-pick real science. In the world of real science you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone that will conclusively say, "this isn't due to human activity." See points 1 and 2.

To still be a denier in the face of all the evidence we have suggests it is YOU who suffers from "evangelical zeal."


----------



## Loachman (2 Jan 2016)

I remain amused.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> What drives your near evangelical zeal to convert us?





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Earth's average surface temperature has risen by about 1.5°F (0.85°C) since 1880.


Less than ONE DEGREE temperature change in 135 years...  anic:   


             :soapbox:      It's so _obvious_  SKT; you [and your "denier" ilk  ~_spit_~ ] just don't get it.





[Personally, I'll stick to _Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption _ for my preachin' ]


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Less than ONE DEGREE temperature change in 135 years...  anic:
> 
> 
> :soapbox:      It's so _obvious_  SKT; you [and your "denier" ilk  ~_spit_~ ] just don't get it.
> ...



This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that sets us back. It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough to understand your own statement. Less than 1 degree in 135 years (some say it's 0.8 degrees in 100 years) is 10 times the rate of any warming in the past, and it nicely coincides with our own carbon emissions. Actually, because we understand that there is a time lag between carbon emissions and noticeable change in climate (around 40 years mainly because the oceans act as a heatsink) it's even easier to make the direct link between carbon emissions and climate change. 

We know that carbon absorbs infrared radiation. This has been demonstrated in labs for over a hundred years. Can anyone explain why carbon (its molecular structure doesn't change) would behave any differently in our atmosphere? 

Can any of you explain the precise correlation between carbon emissions (and corresponding PPM in our atmosphere) and the temperature increase in the last 100 years? 

You would be overturning some basic building blocks of science if you could present a plausible case for why the above is incorrect.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2016)

Once again, Kilo, I will ask you-

Why do you bother?

You roll in here about monthly, post a bunch of links and articles, state how (obviously) smart and enlightened you are, call us a bunch of stupid jerks for not applauding your brilliance, then leave in a huff for about a month.

This question has nothing to do with AGW, per se. And it is not designed to trap you. I am genuinely curious to understand your motivation.

You seem to have a clarity of view on the data set that I do not share (admittedly, I don't spend my whole online like immersed in AGW). Maybe it because I am old and always figure when that when someone is trying really, really hard to sell me something, there is more at work than meets the eye.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough to understand your own statement.



That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2016)

Yes, I am suddenly curious, too.

I know who Journeyman is in real life. He is actually a pretty smart dude. And has some pretty cool academic qualifications.

Kilo...who are you, exactly?


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> (some say it's 0.8 degrees in 100 years)


"Some say" lots of things.   :dunno:   I just used what *you* posted -- feel free to contradict yourself as readily as everyone else.

Quite frankly, I posted my views here.  I assure you, I haven't been swayed otherwise in the interim. 



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's clear you're not scientifically literate enough...


Hurtful man, just hurtful.  :'( 

I think I'll stick to the chemtrail, alien landing, and lizard overlord conspiracy sites; they don't throw it in my face that I'm just a simple country bumpkin.




			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I know who Journeyman is in real life.


         _shhhh
_
I was going to say "don't listen to him Kilo,"  but then, I can't imagine him starting to listen now.   ;D


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Once again, Kilo, I will ask you-
> 
> Why do you bother?
> 
> ...



I'm on this site mainly because of my interest in the military. But when I see threads like this, where people are posting what are clearly fraudulent articles, attaching very political rhetoric to what should be straightforward data (ie green conspiracy, socialist agenda, the UN blah blah) I try to present "the other side" which in this case, I'm sorry to say, is simply reality. 

I could just as easily question the motivation of many posters here. Why deny all of this science? Do they believe what they are posting, or does it merely fit within a rigid ideology? I think they main reason people deny this science is that accepting it would require some sort of collective action. That doesn't sound very libertarian or jive with more conservative views on the role of government, so they merely deny the science. Does carbon still absorb infrared radiation if you're a conservative? I don't know.

A true debate around climate change should consist of, "We know it's happening, but what do we do about it?" 




			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yes, I am suddenly curious, too.
> 
> I know who Journeyman is in real life. He is actually a pretty smart dude. And has some pretty cool academic qualifications.
> 
> Kilo...who are you, exactly?



A concerned citizen who has a hard to kick interest in the military.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?



I can read (and navigate the interweb), and did a minor in biology at university. This gives me a basic level of scientific literacy that exceeds that of the average Canadian. That's not a boast, that's a fact. 
Instead of questioning who I am, address the argument I just made. 

Do you, Michael O'Leary, personally know everyone on this site who has argued AGW is NOT occurring? Are their backgrounds up for questioning as well? 

Is anyone going to deny that carbon absorbs infrared radiation?

Can anyone present evidence that the 0.8 (or 0.7) temperature rise in the last 100 or so years has no correlation with increasing carbon emissions over the same period? 



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Some say" lots of things.   :dunno:   I just used what *you* posted -- feel free to contradict yourself as readily as everyone else.
> 
> Quite frankly, I posted my views here.  I assure you, I haven't been swayed otherwise in the interim.
> Hurtful man, just hurtful.  :'(
> ...



So do you accept that 0.7 (or 0.8, I included that because there IS a range within the overall consensus) IS a major increase given that it's 10 times the rate of any historical warming? 

Your assumption that this increase is nothing to worry about is demonstrably false. Can you elaborate as to why YOU are qualified to infer that a temperature increase 10 times the rate of any naturally occurring warming in the past is not cause for alarm?

I assume we are agreeing that the temperature HAS increased by at least 0.7 degrees right? Why isn't that rate a problem for you?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo,

I want to thank-you for answering my question frankly. Your answer humanizes you.

However, it is clear to me that your day job is not sales. The first rule of selling something is: do not insult your customers, ever.

In short- you want to convince me of something, try to avoid calling me an idiot while you are doing so. I too, happen to both care about the environment and the future of humanity. I just happen to see the potential cures for AGW (if it truly exists and is not caused by volcanoes, solar cycles or space aliens) as way worse than the disease.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

I believe it was someone else who used the term "idiot." However if I have come across as being rude I apologize.  

At the same time, using the term "scientific literacy" is not meant to insult, it's a widely used term and the most descriptive I think. 

Actually my day job IS sales  ;D

As far as actions (or cures) around climate change, that is EXACTLY where I think the discussion should be taking place. Rational and informed people can certainly disagree on how much of a role government should play, or the "market." But we are really wasting time discussing the science behind it. Many conservatives the world over have accepted AGW as reality, so let's focus on what we should do.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2016)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That makes me curious. What, exactly, are your qualifications to be a self-proclaimed expert on this topic?



If I remember correctly, you may have already asked that question many pages ago, and the reply was that he had no such qualifications; but I could be wrong.   :dunno:


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, you may have already asked that question many pages ago, and the reply was that he had no such qualifications; but I could be wrong.   :dunno:



If the weight of scientific evidence is on "my" side, shouldn't you be more (or at least equally) concerned with the qualifications of people who are denying AGW even exists?

All I'm doing here is quoting readily available scientific reports, and that's all the other side is doing. The difference is again, the weight of evidence I'm presenting. Mathematically, the vast majority of serious scientists and scientific institutions in the world agree AGW is a reality. 

As I've posted above, you have to start denying the very basics of science to deny AGW. 

So again, when your buddy posts something like "Gee it's snowing today so AGW can't be happening," do you also question HIS background or qualifications? If you don't then it's clear this isn't a real debate for you, your mind is made up no matter what evidence you're presented with.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Jan 2016)

cld617 & kilo-302,

You have both received warning for your ad hominem attacks. No one has the right to attack others by calling them idiots, nor is it acceptable to keep inferring (yes, this is not the first time) that others lack any kind of scientific literacy. It simply alludes to the intolerance of your own positions, not any kind of superiority on your parts. The Warning ladder has very few rungs on it.

---Staff---


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> There are mountains and mountains of data that show AGW is a reality, and the data is only getting stronger. [/url]



Of course there are mountains and mountains of data that 'may' show AGW is a reality.  There are also mountains of data that will show that there is not as serious of a threat as you may seem to think.  What is even more important is the lack of mountains and mountains of data that explore other non-man-made causes.  

What exactly has been researched on the expansion of the Sun in its aging process, or the affects of Solar Activity?  If the surface of Mars is experiencing similar climatic changes as Earth, what has mankind done to affect that planet?  Huh?  

What exactly has been researched in the change in our Magnetic North Pole over the years and its' affect on the climate?  As our Magnetic Poles shift, there must be some affect on our environment.  Does mankind have any affect on the annual Magnetic Declination?  Do we have to research a means to stop it?

There are mountains and mountains of data that still do not exist to explain a vast number of things that may affect our environment, so I personally am not going to get into a panic and do the "Chicken Little - The Sky is Falling.  The Sky is Falling." dance.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> cld617 & kilo-302,
> 
> You have both received warning for your ad hominem attacks. No one has the right to attack others by calling them idiots, nor is it acceptable to keep inferring (yes, this is not the first time) that others lack any kind of scientific literacy. It simply alludes to the intolerance of your own positions, not any kind of superiority on your parts. The Warning ladder has very few rungs on it.
> 
> ---Staff---



I will agree that calling someone an idiot is not acceptable, but I will disagree that using the term scientific literacy should be construed as an insult when we are attempting to debate science. 

In the specific instance you are referring to, Journeyman suggested (with no small amount of sarcasm which I think is equally unhelpful) that 0.7 degrees is insignificant. This demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy, as we have seen this rate of warming is 10 times above anything that's ever occurred. 

"Idiot" comment aside, the fact that you're singling out cld617 and myself for "ad hominem" attacks and no one else underlines you're more concerned with our positions than our civility (or lack thereof). Singling us out also means you're suggesting no one else has made ad hominem attacks against us. I just finished explaining who I was and why I was on this site. That is the very definition of ad hominem.

I would ask then that you retract your suggestion that only cld617 and I have engaged in ad hominem attacks, or modify it by including at least some of the litany of ad hominem attacks we have faced recently on this thread. Or I can re-post them OR send them to you via PM.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Your assumption that this increase is nothing to worry about is demonstrably false. Can you elaborate as to why YOU are qualified to infer that a temperature increase 10 times the rate of any naturally occurring warming in the past is not cause for alarm?
> 
> I assume we are agreeing that the temperature HAS increased by at least 0.7 degrees right? Why isn't that rate a problem for you?


I'll try again:

*I*         <-- inferring me only;
*don't* <-- a contraction for "do not" (to avoid any misunderstanding; it denotes a negative)
*care*  <-- there are many, many issues in my life involving f*ck-giving -- maybe even cause for alarm; global warming, regardless of its degree of natural or anthropogenic causality, is not one of them.


Now, I know people for whom the juniper berry blight in Scotland and Argentina is cause for alarm.  I don't drink gin, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know some people who drive diesel-fueled Volkswagens, so they're concerned about their next emissions test.  I don't drive a VW, therefore it's not a problem for me.

I know people who can't get past PM Trudeau's hair; I'm not a hairdresser, therefore it's not a problem for me.

The main difference in all of these is, not one of these people wants my money because of something _they_  consider alarming.


And I assure you, my "suggestion" that a 0.7 degree temperature change is insignificant is not remotely sarcastic -- it is simply my perspective.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'll try again:
> 
> *I*         <-- inferring me only;
> *don't* <-- a contraction for "do not" (to avoid any misunderstanding; it denotes a negative)
> ...




So now your perspective (I reuse this term because by definition a perspective is NOT a position) is "it might be happening, but I don't care." If this is the case, your contributions are meaningless.

If on the other hand, you're suggesting that we needn't be worried by AGW, that's another discussion I am happy to have.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If this is the case, your contributions are meaningless.


Unless one is willing to consider that their pet project is not necessarily all-consuming for everyone.  Not everyone's world is black & white.  You may wish to consider that there is another group of people who are neither fixated and 'right-thinking,' nor in complete, apparently-deluded denial when it comes to demanding government funding.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...None of us are specialists here, so I'm not sure why anyone here thinks their analysis of scientific data is relevant at all. Not when you can easily find the official position of any institution on climate change.



So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)

Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.

You will note in the previous discourse, that not only did I acknowledge AGW as a contributor to the overall issue, but also pointed to direct links to a fairly reputable scientific body (you don't seem to have an issue picking phrases of theirs with which you generally agree) and noted my own personal views of what the statistical trending in the last decade and a half meant to me.  You can see a continuing upward trend, that is your right.  I see a statistical flattening of the previous steeper curve.  Perhaps we can continue this discussion in another five years when you can take NOAA up on their recommendation to look at things in context, considering decade averages to be a greater indicator of overall trends in GM, natural and man-made.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Go CANDU!


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.
> 
> ...



If you can provide greater context then I will look at it. But you haven't explained why on the very NOAA site they state their position on climate change quite clearly. They list the causes and the potential negative effects. I'm of the mind that an organization's officially stated opinion in the matter provides more context than the specific report you cited. Presumably, the NOAA took that report into consideration when forming their public opinion on the matter.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So critical thought is not required, just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)
> 
> Thanks, but no thanks.  As a physicist and engineer with a fairly decent background in statistics, I'll apply a bit of my own critical thought to data and various organizations' analysis of them, but you are of course welcome to defer personally to others' views with which you agree.
> 
> ...



As for "just trust the [insert personal choice of scientific organization] web site? (or singular parts you like)", I'll post this list again:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


    Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
    Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
    Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
    Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
    Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
    Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
    Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Académie des Sciences, France
    Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
    Academy of Athens
    Academy of Science of Mozambique
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academy of Sciences of Moldova
    Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
    Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
    Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
    Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
    Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
    Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
    African Academy of Sciences
    Albanian Academy of Sciences
    Amazon Environmental Research Institute
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Anthropological Association
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American College of Preventive Medicine
    American Fisheries Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Institute of Physics
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    American Public Health Association
    American Quaternary Association
    American Society for Microbiology
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Civil Engineers
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Australian Academy of Science
    Australian Bureau of Meteorology
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Institute of Marine Science
    Australian Institute of Physics
    Australian Marine Sciences Association
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society  
    Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
    Botanical Society of America
    Brazilian Academy of Sciences
    British Antarctic Survey
    Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
    California Academy of Sciences
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Canadian Association of Physicists
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Geophysical Union
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Canadian Society of Soil Science
    Canadian Society of Zoologists
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
    Center for International Forestry Research
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
    Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
    Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
    Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Crop Science Society of America
    Cuban Academy of Sciences
    Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
    Ecological Society of America
    Ecological Society of Australia
    Environmental Protection Agency
    European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    European Science Foundation
    Federation of American Scientists
    French Academy of Sciences
    Geological Society of America
    Geological Society of Australia
    Geological Society of London
    Georgian Academy of Sciences  
    German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina  
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Indian National Science Academy
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences  
    Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
    Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
    Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
    Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
    InterAcademy Council
    International Alliance of Research Universities
    International Arctic Science Committee
    International Association for Great Lakes Research
    International Council for Science
    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    International Research Institute for Climate and Society
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
    Islamic World Academy of Sciences
    Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Korean Academy of Science and Technology
    Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
    l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Latin American Academy of Sciences
    Latvian Academy of Sciences
    Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
    Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
    Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
    National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
    National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
    National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
    National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
    National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration  
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    National Association of State Foresters
    National Center for Atmospheric Research  
    National Council of Engineers Australia
    National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    National Research Council
    National Science Foundation
    Natural England
    Natural Environment Research Council, UK
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Network of African Science Academies
    New York Academy of Sciences
    Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Oklahoma Climatological Survey
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Pakistan Academy of Sciences
    Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
    Pew Center on Global Climate Change
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Romanian Academy
    Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
    Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
    Royal Astronomical Society, UK
    Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
    Royal Irish Academy
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
    Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
    Royal Society of Canada
    Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    Science and Technology, Australia  
    Science Council of Japan
    Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
    Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Slovak Academy of Sciences
    Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
    Society for Ecological Restoration International
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of American Foresters   
    Society of Biology (UK)   
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America  
    Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Sudanese National Academy of Science
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    The Wildlife Society (international)
    Turkish Academy of Sciences
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
    United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
    World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
    World Federation of Public Health Associations
    World Forestry Congress
    World Health Organization
    World Meteorological Organization
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Critical thought is exactly what this is about. Being able to understand what a quality source is versus one that doesn't stand up to academic rigour is exactly what we are doing here. The list I posted above clearly shows that a vast majority of recognized scientific institutions are in broad agreement that climate change is anthropomorphic. In the scientific community, the real discussion now is what we do about it. 

Scientists have been wrong before, of that there is no doubt.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Jan 2016)

Was going to continue...but with this much consensus the onus is definitely on the tiny minority of voices who doubt that AGW exists or is even problem.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2016)

> Kilo_302:
> Was going to continue...but with this much consensus the onus is definitely on the tiny minority of voices who doubt that AGW exists or is even problem.



Since I have repeatedly acknowledged AGW's contribution to overall GW, I see you're not referring to me then.

As an aside, what is your perspective on the validity of 'qualified' statements, versus I 'quantified' statements,  you seem to like qualified statements, yet eschew quantified statements and/or records that are demonstrably detailed and agreed upon by all, including that long list of organizations you provided.  

I agree that consolidated support appears to be an important factor for you, as it should.  There is also no doubt that whether it is flattening or still trending towards an increase, that 0.6°C incremental anomoly above mean is a rather large amount of increased energy within the Earth's atmosphere, and whatever reasonable an truly achievable measures that can be taken to reduce the trend, should be. Banning of CFCs was a worthy, and although arguable to some, positive action taken by mankind to reduce the pact of humans upon the environment.  Until true alternatives are found for fossil fuels, GW, be it A or N, will continue to influence the oceanic and terrestrial environments. My own personal choices for high energy efficiency at home and a ULEV for both me and my wife (and use of oublic transportation where possible) sit well with me as my part to directly reduce the impact I personally place on the Earth.   Getting grid-neutral, or even off-grid and minimal impact footprint (abd not just CO2, or whatever the next flavour of the month/year will be) remains a personal lifestyle goal, but that will occur within my own educated and analytical framework/perspective.  

Let me ask you this, Kilo, do you volunteer your own frequent flyer points to help reduce green house gas emmisions when you buy your ticket?  I don't because I don't trust the Governments or other regulatory agencies to translate such personal concessions into actions/activities that positively and correlatably improve the  AGW situation.

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2016)

The Religious-like fanaticism of the 'climate crazies' will cause us more damage than the CO2, sadly:

The Climate-Change Religion

Earth Day provided a fresh opening for Obama to raise alarms about global warming based on beliefs, not science.

Instead of letting political ideology or climate “religion” guide government policy, we should focus on good science. The facts alone should determine what climate policy options the U.S. considers. That is what the scientific method calls for: inquiry based on measurable evidence. Unfortunately this administration’s climate plans ignore good science and seek only to advance a political agenda.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jan 2016)

Journalists warm up the story

It’s time for another round of extreme weather hysteria, this time about the “melting North Pole.” It’s the kind of reporting that has made newspapers and TV news among the least-trusted institutions in America. Let’s start with an example of professionally done journalism to show how far the rot has spread: excerpts from “Freak storm in North Atlantic to lash UK, may push temperatures over 50 degrees above normal at North Pole” by Jason Samenow (editor and meteorologist) at WaPo, 28 December.

“Big Icelandic storms are common in winter, but this one may rank among the strongest and will draw northward an incredible surge of warmth pushing temperatures at the North Pole over 50° above normal.  This is mind-boggling.

… Ahead of the storm, the surge of warm air making a beeline towards the North Pole is astonishing. In the animation {computer model forecast} below, watch the warm temperature departures from normal, portrayed by red shades, explode towards the Pole between Monday and Wednesday.

“It’s as if a bomb went off. And, in fact, it did.”

Samenow demonstrates how weather reporting has become misleading. Forecasts are “mindboggling” and “astonishing”, and their results are described in tabloid-like terms (“a bomb went off”). He makes no comparisons with history to show that this storm looks unusual (see the some actual data below). Predictions create both fear and clicks in modern journalism.

That’s not the oddest aspect of the story. America has thousands of meteorologists and climate scientists, but journalists increasingly turn for lurid copy to climate activists lacking any professional qualifications. Preferencing the analysis of a fiction writer with actual climate scientists is low-grade propaganda, not journalism. But the WaPo does so…

http://fabiusmaximus.com/2016/01/04/melting-north-pole-story-92549/#more-92549


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Religious-like fanaticism of the 'climate crazies' will cause us more damage than the CO2, sadly:
> 
> The Climate-Change Religion
> 
> ...



The proper way to fight Earth Day propaganda is to celebrate "Human Achievment Day" with family and friends as an alternative to "Earth Day". Nothing like a little counter propaganda to derail a narrative  :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2016)

The colision between real science and politicised science:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/02/scientist-ruthlessly-debunks-one-of-nasas-central-climate-claims/



> *Scientist Ruthlessly Debunks One Of NOAA’s Central Climate Claims*
> Michael Bastasch
> 12:06 PM 02/02/2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (5 Feb 2016)

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/

David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate

“What data? “  David Suzuki on Q&A

David Suzuki’s performance on Q&A last night was extraordinary. I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures that even the UK Met Office and IPCC lead author climate scientists like Hans von Storch are discussing.

How afraid is Suzuki about man-made global warming? So afraid, it doesn’t occur to him to check the data, incredibly he doesn’t even know what the data is. Tony Jones had to rephrase the questions to explain them to Suzuki, who doesn’t even understand them.

How much is his reputation as a scientist worth when he doesn’t even bother to check the evidence for a cause he stakes his reputation on?

Three times in Q&A he admitted he didn’t know — he didn’t know there was a pause in warming for the last 15 years, he didn’t know how global temperatures are measured, and he didn’t know that cyclones were not increasing over the Great Barrier Reef. He wants politicians jailed for “denying the science”. “You bet!” he exclaims, but then admits he hasn’t thought that through either.

The cartoon-like responses were incongruous. Should we go nuclear to reduce emissions? Suzuki tosses numbers, evidence, and cost-benefits down a deep well of ignorance: “It’s just crazy”. “What the hell is going on”. “You’ve got sunlight!” “Solar farms could be spread everywhere”.  “There is plenty of sunlight beyond anything humanity needs”. The audience member who asked then pointed out we don’t have the batteries to cope with sunless cloudy days. Even Tony Jones asks how realistic solar is. At this first prod, Suzuki throws his hands up in the air, “I don’t know”.

The man is emphatically an activist who might as well be innumerate. He is unburdened by data, evidence or logic. Why is the ABC giving him such a hallowed space, which is usually only given to PM’s?

Credit to the ABC for allowing Bill Koutalianos and Professor Stewart Franks to ask the first two questions and to respond. The event quickly became the “Professor Stewart Franks versus Professor Steve Sherwood Show”, because it was obvious it was a waste of time asking Suzuki a scientific question. The two of them, for a short while, were debating by proxy, and Suzuki was sidelined. He simply didn’t know enough to keep up. Even Tony Jones knew more about climate science than Suzuki did.

With typical bias, Stewart Franks was introduced as simply a professor of Environmental Engineering while Steve Sherwood was introduced as a “professor” and a “lead author of the IPCC” and a “Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW” (8:50). Stewart Franks had to point out that he is an expert reviewer of the IPCC report as well.

Suzuki’s research on our atmosphere amounted to reading Naomi Oreskes, Jim Hoggan and DeSmog. He promotes the smear campaign against senior scientists but apparently has never read anything those senior scientists have written. This is living in a fishbowl, where Suzuki made a religious decision years ago to believe in the evil of corporate polluters and only ever reads people who agree with him. It leaves him completely naked in any science debate, knocked over by the average reader of any skeptical blog.

Credit to Tony Thomas for asking if Suzuki still thought politicians should be jailed for denying the scientific consensus, thus exposing the inner-totalitarian. For a man who argues that consensus is a reason to be alarmed about the climate, it’s a tad hypocritical that Suzuki later discussed GM, where he disagrees with the consensus. He later  talks about how the Canadian government is building new jails and seems to be afraid of being jailed himself: “I’m wondering whether our Prime Minister thinks he is going to be creating new categories of crime, like eco terrorism or, as he calls us, environmental radicals, radical extremists.” Righto. Talking power to truth again David. He hasn’t noticed that all the power and money is on the climate consensus side. His principle seems to be “jail them if they disagree with me”.

Suzuki’s world view is simplistic: “Government good, corporations bad”. He says ” …big corporations are bigger than most governments on the planet, they have the ability to fund political campaigns…” . There go the numbers again. The US Government has a $4 trillion annual budget, while the largest corporations in the world have less than $500bn annual revenue each. The US Government also has that slight military advantage over those scary corporations, who may wield malevolent cheques, but not so many missiles.

When I was a student of science communication we were wheeled out to see David Suzuki speak as a hero of the field. That says it all really.

Andrew Bolt was right.


----------



## GR66 (5 Feb 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/
> 
> David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate
> 
> ...



Totally true...but also old news.  This was a 2013 TV appearance.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2016)

Australia vs. Canada. Compare and contrast:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0209/Australia-redirects-climate-research-funding-blow-to-science-or-boon-for-innovation



> *Australia redirects climate research funding: blow to science or boon for innovation?*
> The chief executive of the country's main scientific research agency has announced deep cuts to two departments studying climate change, prompting international concern.
> 
> The chief executive of Australia’s main scientific research agency has announced deep cuts to its climate change programs, prompting intense criticism from scientists around the world who say that the new focus on "innovation" and corporate cooperation is a misguided move that will severely limit understanding of how global warming will impact the Southern Hemisphere.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2016)

So tell me again, where does the energy to drive the global climactic system come from......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3444633/What-happened-sun-Solar-activity-remains-quietest-century-trigger-mini-ice-age.html



> *The silent sun: Eerie image revealed as solar activity remains the quietest it has been in more than a century - and some claims it could even trigger a mini ice age*
> We've had smallest number of sunspots in this cycle since Cycle 14
> This cycle reached its maximum solar activity in February of 1906
> Low solar activity can lead to extended periods of cooling, researchers say
> ...



I'm sure science deniers will be out in full force to tell us this just isn't so....


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

More great news:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/14/february-breaks-global-temperature-records-by-shocking-amount



> February smashed a century of global temperature records by “stunning” margin, according to data released by Nasa.
> 
> The unprecedented leap led scientists, usually wary of highlighting a single month’s temperature, to label the new record a “shocker” and warn of a “climate emergency”.
> 
> ...


----------



## cavalryman (17 Mar 2016)

More great news:  [

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601055/global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-have-now-been-flat-for-two-years-running/#/set/id/601047/



> New data published by the International Energy Agency extends the surprising finding, discovered last year, that global carbon dioxide emissions have stopped growing despite continued economic growth. The latest data show the trend has continued for a second consecutive year, which the IEA says is a result of renewable energy accounting for 90 percent of new electricity generation in 2015. China’s slowing economic growth has played a key role in these figures as well, though, and with India and several other developing economies set to grow substantially over the next several years, it’s not clear how long we can expect this “decoupling” trend to continue.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> More great news:  [
> 
> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601055/global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-have-now-been-flat-for-two-years-running/#/set/id/601047/



I read this this morning, it is indeed great news. It means that the fears of addressing climate change leading to a collapse of our economy are unfounded. We can grow AND we can switch over to renewables which are becoming cheaper and more viable by the day. We can have our cake and it too. Of course, scientists and policy people have been saying this all along, despite the protests from the fossil fuel industry. It's clear it's time to move on.


----------



## Loachman (17 Mar 2016)

So one lone report is absolute confirmation of your religion...

Interesting.

And _anybody_ have his/her cake and eat it, too.

It is trickier by far to eat one's cake and have it, too, however - which is the correct version of the most-frequently screwed up cliche ever.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> So one lone report is absolute confirmation of your religion...
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> ...



A religion suggests I have faith in something. This describes your position much more accurately. A meaningless, useless belief in something lobby groups are paid to say. Praise be to Big Oil!


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> A religion suggests I have faith in something. This describes your position much more accurately. A meaningless, useless belief in something lobby groups are paid to say. Praise be to Big Oil!



 ???

Let me see now.....Many have not followed in lock step with your views, so they must be the ones who are ignorantly following a meaningless, useless belief in something that lobby groups are being paid for by "BIG Oil".  All those of your ilk, who religiously follow the lobbyists touting "Global Warming" are in no way fanatics.  Interesting concept.  

I think you are full of it.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Let me see now.....Many have not followed in lock step with your views, so they must be the ones who are ignorantly following a meaningless, useless belief in something that lobby groups are being paid for by "BIG Oil".  All those of your ilk, who religiously follow the lobbyists touting "Global Warming" are in no way fanatics.  Interesting concept.
> 
> I think you are full of it.



This is for you George. Enjoy.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html


----------



## George Wallace (17 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is for you George. Enjoy.
> 
> http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html



Sorry.

 I did not enjoy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Mar 2016)

Actually, George, I have a strange feeling that you and I had Plato read and mastered well before Kilo was born. Truly, it's not enjoyable anymore (not to mention that many other more recent and relevant philosophers have come along since.) 

Ah well! Que sera sera.


----------



## Loachman (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Praise be to Big Oil!



So Big Oil caused the Mediaeval Warm Period and controls solar activity?

Powerful juju indeed.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> So Big Oil caused the Mediaeval Warm Period and controls solar activity?
> 
> Powerful juju indeed.



Right back into arguments that have been debunked over and over again. 

http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/


----------



## cavalryman (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right back into arguments that have been debunked over and over again.
> 
> http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/



All hail the propaganda of Big Enviro  >

*cavalryman genuflects before the image of a giant watermelon*  [Xp


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> *cavalryman genuflects before the image of a giant watermelon*  [Xp



You are supposed to worship the Great-Black-Kettle-in-the-Sky, you apostate you!


----------



## Loachman (18 Mar 2016)

"Global Proxies"...

Right.

Nobody's proven that previous warm periods have been any less global than this one, either.

All of the warmista dogma has been thoroughly debunked, too.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> So Big Oil caused the Mediaeval Warm Period and controls solar activity?
> 
> Powerful juju indeed.



Don't forget Big Oil also casued the collapse of the Bronze Age Empires across the Middle East as well....


----------



## cavalryman (18 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Don't forget Big Oil also casued the collapse of the Bronze Age Empires across the Middle East as well....



Wow!  Is there nothing Big Oil can't do?  Where is its altar so I may worship It?


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Wow!  Is there nothing Big Oil can't do?  Where is its altar so I may worship It?



Apparently they are going to give all of us big cheques to hang on our walls... I've got my spot picked out already >


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Mar 2016)

Big Oil was also behind the eruptions of Vesuvius, Krakatoa, Mt St Helens.  All that wonderful holy carbon puked into the air at once, it must have been rapturous!


----------



## Loachman (20 Mar 2016)

Mount St Helens certainly made for some lovely sunsets at least as far as Fredericton/Gagnam, for several weeks.

Thanks for that, Big Oil!!!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2016)

I particularly enjoyed the asteroid that Big Oil made hit the Earth 65 million years ago.

If not for that, we would be serving our lizard overlords, right now.

Thanks, Big Oil!


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Mar 2016)

Big Oil needed that asteroid to create oil in the first place, so they sent Bruce Willis back in time to set off a nuclear weapon on one to change its course to hit us. He didn't make it back, but they made a lovely montage with Aerosmith in his memory.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2016)

And if Mother Nature had listened to all those Environmentalists and left the oil in the ground, we would not have to be cleaning up her oil spill in the Oil Sands of Alberta. 

Too bad Quebec didn't get into the act and suck up the oil oozing to the surface off the  Îles de la Madeleine and transport it to Levis for purification.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Big Oil needed that asteroid to create oil in the first place, so they sent Bruce Willis back in time to set off a nuclear weapon on one to change its course to hit us. He didn't make it back, but they made a lovely montage with Aerosmith in his memory.



Wow- Big Oil is all powerful. I mean, time travel with nuclear weapons and Bruce Willis is child's play, but booking Aerosmith- Wow. :bowdown:


----------



## cavalryman (31 Mar 2016)

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/



> While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven’t been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
> 
> We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
> 
> ...


----------



## biernini (31 Mar 2016)

In case anyone was interested in the source of those quotes by Edenhofer free from such slanted editorializing here you go.

The reply just before that controversial "redistribution" quote?


> Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.


Sounds like grave concern for the global temperatures to me, less so someone "consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state."


----------



## a_majoor (31 Mar 2016)

I'm going to repost the entire article so the context is clear, even the context of attempting to prevent the use of inexpensive, easy to use energy. And the statements by _multiple people _ are all reinforcing the same point; this is an attempt to control the global economy, not the global climate. And of course the hypocrasy of the "some for me, none for thee" carbon emissions schemes between the third and first world also make the "goals" of climate change alarmists pointless, China alone pumps out more emissions of all sorts than the combined totals of many first world nations:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/



> *Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare*
> The climate alarmists want the public to think they are trying to avoid a burnt world, but what they really want is something altogether different. (AP)
> 3/29/2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> China alone pumps out more emissions of all sorts than the combined totals of many first world nations



Leonardo di Caprio, Al Gore, and David Suzuki, combined, are not far behind either.


----------



## cavalryman (31 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Leonardo di Caprio, Al Gore, and David Suzuki, combined, are not far behind either.


An inconvenient truth indeed.  >


----------



## George Wallace (31 Mar 2016)

An interesting article what lead to this movement:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.


> Climate Alarmist Admits The Real Motive Behind Warming Scare: Redistribution Of Wealth
> Technocracy
> News and Trends
> MARCH 29, 2016
> ...




More on LINK.

Original article in: INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Mar 2016)

You're all right, carbon DOESN'T absorb heat. And vaccinations give you autism. Yeehaw!


Morons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're all right, carbon DOESN'T absorb heat. And vaccinations give you autism. Yeehaw!
> 
> 
> Morons.




Well, you finally did it. Once more, without provocation, you've decided that no one but you can be right. Then to add emphasis to your statement you call the members here morons for not submitting to your creed.

You've been warned repeatedly. Moved yourself up the Warning Ladder to where you have no rungs left.

The site will no longer abide by your constant flaunting of the rules.

You are now Banned.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> An interesting article what lead to this movement:
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> ...



I've read elsewhere that some *cough Gore cough* and others have also profited from this shakedown.  It does make one wonder who to believe.


----------



## Lumber (31 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I've read elsewhere that some *cough Gore cough* and others have also profited from this shakedown.  It does make one wonder who to believe.



Scientists. Between the aristocrats, the oligarcs, the cartels and the scientists, believe the scientists.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Scientists. Between the aristocrats, the oligarcs, the cartels and the scientists, believe the scientists.



Yes, but even they have been caught cooking the books as well.


----------



## Lumber (31 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, but even they have been caught cooking the books as well.



Yes, of course they have. Corruption exists in every walk of life. But here the way I look at it. 

The scientific method, by which all scientific study operates, is based on weeding out all possible errors and coming up with a truth that has been filtered through multiple layers of review. Therefore, at heart, Scientists are the seekers of fact and truth.

Are politicians and capitalists the same? Polticians seek approval ratings and re-election, and capitalists seek profit and share price. Neither of these things require the truth, and in many cases, the truth will work against their goals.

Yes, there are Scientist who's morals can be corrupted and they can alter their findings to suit either their own personal beliefs, or the greed of others. But as a whole, is this group more reliable in determing and presenting the ground truth? 

I say, yes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

I will agree that of the three groups, scientists are the least bent and therefore more dependable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I will agree that of the three groups, scientists are the least bent and therefore more dependable.



That may be but SOMEONE still has to pay the bills......

Like I argued with my Daughter the other day, if "they" had been right when I was a teenager we would all be [a] frozen, [b} dead from pollution.
These were scientific "FACTS" just as the climate change "FACTS" are today.......darn, almost said global warming and we're not scientifically allowed to call it that now.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

And I thought you'd say live like the Jetsons.  While I believe scientists are the most trust worthy of the three, they've still lied.  And make mistakes, which leaves me scratching my head on who/what to believe.


----------



## biernini (2 Apr 2016)

Lies and mistakes get outted eventually as a matter of principle in the scientific world. No other institution in the debate surrounding climate change can claim that. No one is suggesting that the process to fulfilling that principle is flawless or efficient, but either you believe that rationalism and objectivity are paramount matters in the scientific world, or you don't. If you don't, it's a little puzzling for me to suggest that the 97% (or whatever) of scientists germane to the debate are largely in agreement because funding is of paramount interest to them when the funding of the so-called skeptics is vastly greater.

In other words, if funding is the most important consideration of most or all scientists they would go to where the funding is, rationalism and objectivity in their findings be damned.

But they don't.  They flock to where per capita the funding is worse, and not only do they flock to where it's worse they kill their opportunities to where the funding is better by agreeing on something that is antagonistic to claims of those that would provide superior funding.

Why does the phrase "follow the money" mean so much in every other walk of life except when it comes to climate change?  Did we not learn anything from the "Tobacco Scientists"?


----------



## Rick Goebel (2 Apr 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> Lies and mistakes get outted eventually as a matter of principle in the scientific world.
> 
> One would have hoped that this would be true in the climate change community but it is not.  If you Google "site:ipcc.ch warming hiatus" (the climate change community prefers hiatus to pause) you can easily find papers written by IPCC-affiliated scientists for IPCC-affiliated bodies and included in IPCC-generated reports that do state that warming paused in the late 90's.  Some writers in these reports even make statements to the effect that "clearly our models are wrong and need to be corrected".  Instead, the warming community made excuses about things like the deep oceans absorbing more warming than the models allowed for.  Eventually, they changed how they measure Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) until it matched the models predictions.  That is not what most people think of as good science.


----------



## cld617 (2 Apr 2016)

> Why does the phrase "follow the money" mean so much in every other walk of life except when it comes to climate change?  Did we not learn anything from the "Tobacco Scientists"?



Considering arguments have been made in this very thread, citing those very scientists and institutions who lobbied for how harmless smoking was, no we didn't.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Apr 2016)

Why does the phrase "follow the money" only apply to AGW skeptics?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2016)

One should consider how much the Canadian taxpayer paid to jet the huge cavalcade of "delegates" to the just concluded Paris climate conference. And of course all the other conferences that jet setting "delegates" go to all around the world for the past two decades.

As Instapundit says: "I'll treat it like a god damned emergency when they do"

Follow the money indeed.


----------



## biernini (3 Apr 2016)

Rick Goebel said:
			
		

> biernini said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"Good science" incorporates relevant new information as necessary. This isn't chemistry or biology, we aren't talking about a branch of scientific inquiry that is entirely reproducible and falsifiable.  So unless the new information renders the old hypothesis entirely untenable it is expected that new information will add to the resolution (in both senses of the word) of the original hypothesis. This isn't lying, or misrepresentation, or moving the goalposts, or evidence of shenanigans.  It's the scientific process at work in much the same way that hypotheses about the nature of pulsars or the origins of life and the universe have changed over time.

"Most people" are not scientists, nor have the same values, principles and objectives. I fail to see how or why their opinions should matter so much.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Apr 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> Did we not learn anything from the "Tobacco Scientists"?





			
				biernini said:
			
		

> "Most people" are not scientists, nor have the same values, principles and objectives. I fail to see how or why their opinions should matter so much.



Colour me confused.......


----------



## biernini (3 Apr 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Why does the phrase "follow the money" only apply to AGW skeptics?


As I said, either rationalism and objectivity are paramount concerns of scientists or they are not. If they are not, it would be expected that most or all scientists and scientific bodies would readily prostitute themselves out to the highest bidder. The highest bidder in this debate are those with connections to the fossil fuel industries.

But we don't see massive, institutional prostitution to moneyed interests in the scientific world, least of all to the fossil fuel industries.  Much more often (i.e. 97% or so) we see research that contradicts the claims of those connected to the moneyed interests.  Therefore since rationalism and objectivity are the motivating principles of the scientific world claims that counter those must be treated with greater skepticism.

I've been summarily dismissed on this site by others for having the alleged "minority opinion", but in this case the evidence simply does not support the minority opinion here. Furthermore unlike government research where the supposed motivation for a contradicting claim is murky and ill-defined the AGW-skeptics have clear financial motivations for opining as they do.  I'm genuinely surprised so many give them so much good faith.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Apr 2016)

Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

Etc...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural


----------



## biernini (3 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One should consider how much the Canadian taxpayer paid to jet the huge cavalcade of "delegates" to the just concluded Paris climate conference. And of course all the other conferences that jet setting "delegates" go to all around the world for the past two decades.
> 
> As Instapundit says: "I'll treat it like a god damned emergency when they do"
> 
> Follow the money indeed.


I don't get your point.  Are you suggesting that most or all scientists concerned about AGW are attending these supposedly recurring conferences?  Or are you suggesting that when their chosen representatives use air travel it is indication of indifference to emissions and possibly hypocrisy?  Because obviously the first is patently untrue, and the second is a fallacious No True Scotsman argument.  I suppose when leaders of the free market and captains of industry make significant donations to charity they're secretly communist as well.


----------



## biernini (3 Apr 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Colour me confused.......


What's not to get? The scientific world is not a monolithic entity. There is no licensing, no process of disbarring.  There is just credibility founded on reason and objective or empirical measurement.  Credibility is earned, not bought.  Hence "tobacco scientists" and as far as I'm concerned, "AGW-skeptical science".


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Apr 2016)

biernini, since you're on a roll answering everyone's questions, don't forget daftandbarmy's... 



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.
> 
> Etc...
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural



:nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Apr 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.



I am not going to get into a debate on GW, but, from a scientific point of view, the statement above is scary, and not the way one might think. In fact, it is scary because it supports that which it claims to refute.

Earth's geological time starts somewhere around 4.6 billion years ago. During the first billion year, as the earth cools down and is raked by mega volcanoes, it produces 99,9999% of its carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pretty well all it will ever produce. Then about 2.7 billion years ago, we find the first evidence of bacteria's capable of photosynthesis producing oxygen - which requires a sufficiently high enough concentration to be noted in rocks of the era. 

For men to then appear and in its whole history of only about 10,000 years, an insignificant amount of "geological" time - not even equivalent to a second in a day, to produce as much as 0.00022% of the CO2 is (to quote the Donald) "huge, a huge amount" in the shortest of time.

Thus, that sentence read in its proper scientific meaning does not debunk GW, but tends to support it.

C.Q.F.D.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Apr 2016)

OGBD, interested to know the reference for the 99.9999% CO2 production rate you quote. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I am not going to get into a debate on GW, but, from a scientific point of view, the statement above is scary, and not the way one might think. In fact, it is scary because it supports that which it claims to refute.
> 
> Earth's geological time starts somewhere around 4.6 billion years ago. During the first billion year, as the earth cools down and is raked by mega volcanoes, it produces 99,9999% of its carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pretty well all it will ever produce. Then about 2.7 billion years ago, we find the first evidence of bacteria's capable of photosynthesis producing oxygen - which requires a sufficiently high enough concentration to be noted in rocks of the era.
> 
> ...



Homo Habilis is identified at 2.4 Million years BP
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-habilis

Homo Erectus is identified as using fire for cooking in caves at 1.8 Million years BP
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/09-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire

Homo Heidelbergensis is identified as slaughtering each other at 430,000 years BP
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32890697

And we shouldn't forget the contributions of bright sparks like these;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3439042/Birds-prey-starting-fires-DELIBERATELY-Brown-falcon-dropped-smouldering-twigs-Australian-bush-smoke-mice-insects-say-researchers.html


----------



## Loachman (3 Apr 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> As I said, either rationalism and objectivity are paramount concerns of scientists or they are not. If they are not, it would be expected that most or all scientists and scientific bodies would readily prostitute themselves out to the highest bidder. The highest bidder in this debate are those with connections to the fossil fuel industries.



Scientists are neither more nor less human, neither more nor less rational, neither more nor less noble, neither more nor less corruptible, and neither more nor less susceptible to putting their own interests ahead of everything else, than the rest of us.

They require sufficient income to provide for a decent standard of living, just like anybody else, and their employment depends on satisfying their employers' demands and expectations.

Who is paying the salaries and expenses of the warmista scientists? Are they funding their own research through bake sales and the like? Doing it out of the goodness of their little hearts while begging for alms like monks of old? Hardly. People are benefitting from this Greatest Fraud Ever Perpetrated on the Human Race, and they are willing to fund those scientists that back them up.

China is free to pollute as much as it wants, while Western countries with much cleaner economies restrict themselves and toss "carbon taxes" and "cap-and-trade" regimes around. China is laughing. Western companies ship production and jobs to China where it's cheaper to do business. It is in China's best interest to quietly fund scare programmes. Our Oil Sands are a threat to middle-eastern oil-exporting dictatorships. They still have a ton of money to slip to those who will trash our production. Western governments direct where research money goes. Spooking populations into accepting greater and greater tax burdens is a very old ploy. Traditionally, war or the threat thereof has been the excuse. This is just a variation. If you truly believe that nobody is benefitting from warm-mongering, then you are incredibly naive.



			
				biernini said:
			
		

> Much more often (i.e. 97% or so) we see research that contradicts the claims of those connected to the moneyed interests.



This claim of consensus between 97% of scientists is a complete fabrication, and I have previously posted articles that prove it. See also the articles that I have posted below (the second is an older one, but I do not believe that it has been previously posted here). Now, you have applied that mythical percentage to not only the portion of the scientific community to which it has "normally" and dishonestly been applied, but to the amount of research that has been generated. It must be a wondrously universal figure indeed. That number does have some validity, but not in ways that you erroneously think. It appears in the two articles.

Regardless, that "consensus" has no basis in fact.

And no greater proportion of anti-warmist scientists are motivated by money than warmist scientists. They all have bills to pay. No lesser proportion of anti-warmist scientists are motivated rationalism and objectivity than warmist scientists.



			
				biernini said:
			
		

> Therefore since rationalism and objectivity are the motivating principles of the scientific world claims that counter those must be treated with greater skepticism.



This whole global warming/climate change has taken on the characteristics of a bad religion. Anyone who speaks against it is denounced as a heretic, and therefore those who know better fear to do so. People have lost jobs, lost research grants, been harassed, and had law suits launched against them for speaking the truth. If warm-mongers were so rational and objective, that would not be happening. Their arguments in favour of their position would suffice. They do not, however. To believe in man-made climate change requires one to disbelieve that big, bright thing in the sky that is the source of our warmth, and its cyclical activity. We will be able to prevent climate change when we can put a thermostat on the sun, and not before.



			
				biernini said:
			
		

> I've been summarily dismissed on this site by others for having the alleged "minority opinion", but in this case the evidence simply does not support the minority opinion here. Furthermore unlike government research where the supposed motivation for a contradicting claim is murky and ill-defined the AGW-skeptics have clear financial motivations for opining as they do.  I'm genuinely surprised so many give them so much good faith.



The over-riding motivation for disproving the outlandish claims of warmism is simply the truth, and nothing less.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/u-of-ts-decision-not-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels-is-still-all-wrong-about-climate-science

FP Comment

U of T’s decision not to divest from fossil fuels is still all wrong about climate science

Special to Financial Post | March 31, 2016 3:28 PM ET

With pressure mounting from the University of Toronto’s climate-alarmist community and off-campus environmental activists, university president Meric Gertler announced Wednesday that the school would not, despite their demands, be divesting itself from its investments in companies that produce fossil fuels. The U of T warmists are in a state of despair, just as they are at McGill, UBC, Dalhousie, and other schools where divestiture demands from student activists have ultimately been rejected.

The 43-page report reads almost as if it could be a blueprint for making the university a centre for climate activism

But Gertler’s position is not exactly a victory for those skeptics who perceive climate science as more complicated and debatable than environmental activists insist. As an apparent compromise, Gertler decreed that when choosing its investments going forward, the university would consider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors, including climate risk. This new approach, he wrote, "is consistent with the Committee's recommendation in favour of 'targeted' and dynamic divestment" - in the sense that he expects that the same fossil fuel companies targeted by the divestment activists would likely be ruled out for future investments under the new strategy.

Gertler’s 43-page report reads almost as if it could be a blueprint for making the university a centre for climate activism. It declares the existence of a "consensus that we must take action to limit the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts on the planet and humanity." The "reality of anthropogenic climate change, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in response," Gertler claimed, "is now well established and widely accepted."

But, as anyone familiar with the actual state of scientific acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is aware, no such consensus on projected catastrophic man-made climate change really exists. Most recently, in January, researchers from George Mason University surveyed the members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and found significant disagreement on the issue.

Surveys show there is no scientific consensus on catastrophic climate theories

The AMS survey might have been expected to show the opposite. One of the study's authors, after all, was among the six George Mason University professors who last year signed a letter, addressed to President Obama, calling on the administration to restrain climate skepticism and investigate organizations "that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change."

It is easy to see how this likely discouraged some climate skeptics from answering the survey. In fact, American climate blogger Anthony Watts (a skeptic) wrote that two of his colleagues received the survey but did not respond "because they didn’t believe their opinion or identity would actually be protected."

And yet, despite the fact that some skeptics were unwilling to participate, the survey’s results were far from unanimous. Of the 4,092 AMS members who responded (a 53.3 per cent participation rate), just two-thirds (67 per cent) believed that climate had changed in the past 50 years, and that the change was mostly or entirely caused by human activities. That’s a fair majority, but it is nothing close to a consensus. Furthermore, only half predicted that local climate change would be more harmful than beneficial in the next 50 years.

Other surveys suggest that many scientists are skeptical about the quality of climate science. A survey of climate scientists published in 2010 and authored by researchers with the Institute of Coastal Research found a significant lack of confidence in the ability of atmospheric models to deal with clouds and precipitation, and in the ability of global climate models to predict precipitation values and extreme weather for the next 50 years.

The survey also showed that climate scientists were more likely to view climate change as a political issue than a scientific one, and that many believed research over the past decade had been tainted by external politics. There was also disagreement on solutions to climate change: 42 per cent were more inclined towards mitigation while 28 per cent favoured adaptation.

These surveys show there is no scientific consensus on catastrophic climate theories. However, one wonders how much a scientific consensus is worth, anyways. Climate alarmists often claim that 97 per cent of scientists support their position, but as Ross McKitrick noted in the Financial Post last May, "the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998." As a percentage of inaccuracy, that happens to work out to 97 per cent, too.

Matthew Lau is a finance and economics student at the University of Toronto.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much

FP Comment	

The con in consensus: Climate change consensus among the misinformed is not worth much

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | May 11, 2015 7:22 PM ET

Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists; many misunderstand core issues

In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments, especially Canada's, to fall in line with the global warming agenda and accept emission targets that could seriously harm our economy. One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world's scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it. In the face of such near-unanimity, it would be understandable if Prime Minister Harper and the Canadian government were simply to capitulate and throw Canada's economy under the climate change bandwagon. But it would be a tragedy because the 97 per cent claim is a fabrication.

Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013 President Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is "real, man-made and dangerous." As it turns out the survey he was referring to didn't ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are "a grave danger." But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50 per cent) of the post-1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. But it does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, so we do not know how many experts agree with it. And the statement, even if true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs.

One commonly-cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. And again, both statements are consistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of agreement.

More than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue

The most highly-cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position.

Two recent surveys shed more light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52 per cent said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly manmade (the IPCC position). The remaining 48 per cent either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53 per cent agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

So no sign of a 97 per cent consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66 per cent agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don't know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97 per cent consensus behind the IPCC.

But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as "climate experts," a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature.

But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented

Regarding the recent slowdown in warming, here is what the IPCC said: “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years.” Yet 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998.

Three quarters of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement "Climate is chaotic and cannot be predicted." Here is what the IPCC said in its 2003 report: "In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

Looking into further detail there are other interesting ways in which the so-called experts are unaware of unresolved discrepancies between models and observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity.

What can we take away from all this? First, lots of people get called "climate experts" and contribute to the appearance of consensus, without necessarily being knowledgeable about core issues. A consensus among the misinformed is not worth much.

Second, it is obvious that the "97 per cent" mantra is untrue. The underlying issues are so complex it is ludicrous to expect unanimity. The near 50/50 split among AMS members on the role of greenhouse gases is a much more accurate picture of the situation. The phony claim of 97 per cent consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence.

The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama's website (barackobama.com) says "97 per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made…Find the deniers near you - and call them out today." How nice. But what we really need to call out is the use of false propaganda and demagoguery to derail factual debate and careful consideration of all facets of the most complex scientific and policy issue of our time.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2016)

Yup, Progressives just "love" science (part 1):

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/12/when-liberals-attack-social-science.html



> Why Some of the Worst Attacks on Social Science Have Come From Liberals
> 
> By Jesse Singal
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2016)

(Part 2)



> But as Dreger explains, Bailey, being someone with a penchant for poking mischievously at political correctness, wasn’t too concerned about the political dimension of what he was arguing in his book. From a scientific perspective, he explicitly viewed the idea that “everybody is truly and easily assignable to one of two gender identities” as an oversimplification; part of his motivation for writing The Man Who Would Be Queen was to try to blow it up, to argue that transsexuality is more complicated than that. So it shouldn’t be surprising that some trans activists and allies didn’t appreciate the book’s argument — and they obviously have every right to disagree with Bailey and Blanchard’s views. What is surprising is just how big an explosion The Man Who Would Be Queen sparked, and how underhanded the campaign against Bailey subsequently got.
> 
> A small group of activists led by Lynn Conway, a transgender University of Michigan electrical engineer and computer scientist, and Andrea James, a trans activist, started going after Bailey shortly after the book’s publication. In allegations laid out on a large UM-hosted web page built by Conway, they charged that Bailey — as summed up by Dreger — “had failed to get ethics board approval for studies of transgender research subjects as required by federal regulation; that he had violated confidentiality; that he had been practicing psychology without a license; and that he had slept with a trans woman while she was his research subject.” Central to their argument was the idea that Bailey had dragged his trans subjects out into the spotlight without their consent, that he had callously manipulated them and used them for his own purposes — a particularly potent charge given that outing someone as transgender can, in the most extreme instances, put their life at risk given the scary levels of violence this population faces at the hands of bigots. (Conway’s website originally included Dreger’s own name on a list of trans activists and allies who were furious with Bailey over his book, even though, at that time, Dreger was only faintly familiar with the controversy and had never even expressed a public opinion on the issue. Dreger asked Conway to remove her name.)
> 
> ...



and what passes for science these days is less accurate than throwing darts at a piece of paper with random letters and numbers:

https://www.facebook.com/nntaleb/posts/10153658794008375



> What we are seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking "clerks" and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think... and 5) who to vote for.
> 
> With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30y of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, microeconomic papers wrong 40% of the time, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating only 1/5th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
> 
> Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren't even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. I have shown that most of what Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types call "rational" or "irrational" comes from misunderstanding of probability theory.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2016)

Atlantic sea levels have been falling for the last six years. The formatting of the article makes it difficult to cut and paste, but the graphs and evidence is pretty clear. Just for juxtaposition the article contains an alarmist claim which has been thoroughly debunked by the real world evidence:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/23/falling-sea-level/

Schadenfreude is a wonderful word......


----------



## biernini (6 Apr 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> biernini, since you're on a roll answering everyone's questions, don't forget daftandbarmy's...


In any debate involving science if the writing is not peer-reviewed I don't tend to give it much of my attention: Too much time and effort to cut through the biases, editorializing, agendas and rhetoric for too little in return.

If the numbers provided by daftandbarmy and Oldgateboatdriver are even remotely accurate then I'm with OGBD; that's an astounding amount of CO2 in the geological blink of an eye.


----------



## biernini (6 Apr 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> [Scientists employed by governments] require sufficient income to provide for a decent standard of living, just like anybody else, and their employment depends on satisfying their employers' demands and expectations.


Demands and expectations?  I'm genuinely curious, since it's seemingly so obvious where is it explicitly written that governments want to prove AGW exists? What vested interest in government am I apparently completely overlooking does this satisfy?

By the way, here's the actual paper that your article badly misrepresents as some kind of profound skepticism from the American Meteorological Society. Here's a strongly repudiative statement from the authors's themselves about this misrepresentation.  And lastly here's a pretty choice quote from the study, for me at least:


> While we found that higher expertise was associated
> with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming
> as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong
> than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Apr 2016)

biernini said:
			
		

> Demands and expectations?  I'm genuinely curious, since it's seemingly so obvious where is it explicitly written that governments want to prove AGW exists? What vested interest in government am I apparently completely overlooking does this satisfy?
> 
> .....



I believe the answer to your question of "what does government seek to justify?" is: government.

King, Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight
Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister, Associate Deputy Minister, Director-General, Director

Paychecks and influence.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2016)

Funny what happens to all these save the world schemes when you run the numbers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/06/dont-be-fooled---elon-musks-electric-cars-arent-about-to-save-th/



> *Don't be fooled - Elon Musk's electric cars aren't about to save the planet*
> BJØRN LOMBORG
> 6 APRIL 2016 • 7:08PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Funny what happens to all these save the world schemes when you run the numbers:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/04/06/dont-be-fooled---elon-musks-electric-cars-arent-about-to-save-th/



Ozzie Zehner, author of  Green Illusions, being interviewed on CBC Radio on his views on electric cars and the problems they produce.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2016)

Politicized science. People who wonder why scientists would prostitute themselves for false narratives should consider this:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230886/



> THE GOVERNMENT WAS CONTROLLED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND PUSHED “SETTLED SCIENCE” THAT WAS FAKE AND DAMAGING: In 1972, a British scientist sounded the alarm that sugar – and not fat – was the greatest danger to our health. But his findings were ridiculed and his reputation ruined. How did the world’s top nutrition scientists get it so wrong for so long?
> 
> In 1980, after long consultation with some of America’s most senior nutrition scientists, the US government issued its first Dietary Guidelines. The guidelines shaped the diets of hundreds of millions of people. Doctors base their advice on them, food companies develop products to comply with them. Their influence extends beyond the US. In 1983, the UK government issued advice that closely followed the American example.
> 
> ...



And getting access to billions of dollars of tax dollars is the other great benefit of prostituting yourself for the narrative.


----------



## beirnini (8 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I believe the answer to your question of "what does government seek to justify?" is: government.
> 
> King, Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, Baronet, Knight
> Prime Minister, Minister, Deputy Minister, Assistant Deputy Minister, Associate Deputy Minister, Director-General, Director
> ...


I won't disagree that there are very likely positions and portfolios in the typical Western government that are probably not the best or most honest allocation of resources. As we've seen with the American Drug War Western governments are not above fabricating and maintaining some pretty awful fictions if it is politically expedient.  But to suggest that the primary objective of government and that which it engages in is first and foremost to justify itself borders on tautological at best, and paranoid lunacy at worst. Western democracies are not perfect but by definition they are not autocratic either: There is no need for a fundamental fable about a right to rule, divine or otherwise, to impose on the masses.

But putting that aside for a moment let's pretend that what you and your ilk say is true; that most or all scientists are little more than PR flacks prostituting their credibility to and for whomever pays their bill.  The first and most glaring problem with that supposition is that there's logically nothing to suggest that science produced or proffered by skeptics is any more convincing than that produced by those doing the alleged "dirty work" of government. In fact with such a supposition there's no such thing as scientific skepticism at all, just pure cynicism. The second problem with that supposition is that if most or all scientists are the equivalent of prostitutes there's a curious, self-defeating habit among most of them: In a world with many very rich, very well connected clientele comprising a large, significantly under served market (i.e. science in the service of the fossil fuel industries) most "prostitutes" intentionally get "syphilis" and "gonorrhea", they mutilate their faces and degrade their appearance and in general spurn most opportunities for better paid escort work with those rich clientele.

That's a curious thing to do as a prostitute, one should think.


----------



## Lumber (8 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Politicized science. People who wonder why scientists would prostitute themselves for false narratives should consider this:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230886/
> 
> And getting access to billions of dollars of tax dollars is the other great benefit of prostituting yourself for the narrative.



This article proves absolutely nothing.
1. It does not prove in any way that the mentioned diets that were recommended were the cause of the rise in obesity. I'll even go on an unsuported limb and say it was really the cause of expert marketing by food companies more than anything else;
2. It does not prove in any way that those scientists who had came up with that diet (or food recommendation, whatever you want to call it) had modified or falsified their data to fit some purpose;
3. It does nothing to disprove that perhaps those scientists truly did believe in their conclusions, but simply got it wrong.

Conclusion: I still trust scientists more than politicians. If they're going to prosititute themselves and just say whatever their boses want to, why do any research at all?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Apr 2016)

Lumber: It' is Thuc citing the incredibly biased and useless source "instapundit" as his sole support.

Nothing more need be said  ;D.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2016)

The point is not that there were bad intentions- near as I can tell, everyone was genuinely concerned about health. The problem is- one guy got it wrong (it turns out), a herd mentality took over and no one challenged the underlying assumption that "fat is bad" for nearly 50 years.

Any of this sound even remotely familiar.....?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2016)

Pluses SKT.

It is not that scientists, or politicians, or used care salesmen, are any more venal than the rest of us.  It is that they are subject to exactly the same pressures as the rest of us.  When confronted with the daily challenges of life, raising a family, paying the bills, the default setting is to do that which will most easily guarantee bread on the table.

And most often - that means going along to get along.

If somebody has already decided that the sun sets at dawn then it is simpler just to rewrite the dictionary and carry on as usual.

By the way, on the food side, Thuc isn't wrong.  These issues have been debated at least since I got out of university in the 70s.  You heard echoes of the debates in the high protein, high fat diets.  And in the beginning it was "Big Milk" that was being roasted for arguing that Butter was better than Margarine.  Now it is "accepted" that the "man-made" saturated fats (commonly known as trans-fats) are harmful while both "natural" saturated fats, like tallow, lard and butter are less harmful and might, like cholesterol, even be good for you.

Science is never settled.  Science is only a collection of opinions that seek to explain the situation.  Some of the models work some of the time.  Some of the models work most of the time.  Some models are just plain wrong.

An alternative to PJMedia - CNN on the US Food Guidelines for 2015 to 2020.  - New info.  New Opinions.  New Suggestions.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Apr 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The point is not that there were bad intentions- near as I can tell, everyone was genuinely concerned about health. The problem is- one guy got it wrong (it turns out), a herd mentality took over and no one challenged the underlying assumption that "fat is bad" for nearly 50 years.
> 
> Any of this sound even remotely familiar.....?



The body building/ weight lifting community has been sounding off on this since I started over 25 years ago.  The consensus has always been that if sugar had just been invented it would be a controlled substance for the not-so-good effects on the human body and it's addictiveness.

But hey,......just coal faces who do the job, not paid school monkeys......


----------



## beirnini (9 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is not that scientists, or politicians, or used care salesmen, are any more venal than the rest of us.  It is that they are subject to exactly the same pressures as the rest of us.  When confronted with the daily challenges of life, raising a family, paying the bills, the default setting is to do that which will most easily guarantee bread on the table.


That doesn't explain why most climatologists and the like are generally not offering their much sought after "services" to the fossil fuel industry.  Also if research scientists are little more than used car salesman are we really so comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as scientific skepticism? As has been said, why bother doing any research at all?


> And most often - that means going along to get along.
> 
> If somebody has already decided that the sun sets at dawn then it is simpler just to rewrite the dictionary and carry on as usual.


You obviously don't know any research scientists or have much of a clue about their motivations. Generally speaking their professional purpose is to challenge the scientific status quo. They dream of having high school science textbooks changed because of their research.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Apr 2016)

No lad, I never met a research scientist in my life.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2016)

beirnini said:
			
		

> You obviously don't know any research scientists or have much of a clue about their motivations.



I occasionally have coffee with Dr Chris Essex from UWO, and his take on the climate alarmists as venal boot lickers looking for a handout tracks with many of the other observations here. I also find his impromptu lessons on statistical analysis and how it applies to climate research fascinating. It certainly helps me deconstruct the bumph being fed to the public by the media......


----------



## biernini (10 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I occasionally have coffee with Dr Chris Essex from UWO, and his take on the climate alarmists as venal boot lickers looking for a handout tracks with many of the other observations here. I also find his impromptu lessons on statistical analysis and how it applies to climate research fascinating. It certainly helps me deconstruct the bumph being fed to the public by the media......


Which is all well and good for you, but none of which detracts from the points that I've raised here:

If most or all climate scientists are indeed corrupted by the "demands and expectations" of their employers, from whence is our scientific skepticism?

If most climate scientists are so venal as to "boot lick" for handouts why do they not hit up more regularly the deep-pocketed and clearly under served fossil fuel interests?

And Chris Pook, just because I've aged without trading in my rationality and experience for what appears to be crusty closemindedness does not give you liberty to presume your superiority.  I'd appreciate it if you'd stow the patronizations, if you don't mind.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Apr 2016)

I want to jump back in on this one and take an approach to this that many may not have considered. I believe there is a spectrum with regards to climate/carbon relationship. I recently saw an NRCS (USDA) thermal satellite re-play of the continet from Winter through to late fall, impressive.

There is no black and white causes or solutions to this mess.

Its yet another message of hope.

First to talk about carbon in the atmosphere. There is natural ways it ends up (living critters breathing, forest fires, volcanoes, dirt getting turned up by landslides, grassfire, brushfire, muslides, etc) and there is un-natural ways it gets up there (fossil fuels, wood burning for many reasons, PLOWING and FARM TILLING these are a megasource of carbone emmissions, Most forms of combustion).

We do need some carbon up in the air (plants need it to make sugar by combining Carbon molecules + Hyrdogen molecules split from Oxygen molecules inside the plant making CARBOhydrates, look up stomata). SO WHAT? 

Plants store sugars in their leaves, stems and roots (arguable a better place to park the carbon) and they also exudate sugars into the soil to help form Glomalin with hyphae and spores of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. HUH?

For each 1g of carbon stored in the soil, it holds 8g water in there as well.

Basically instead of arguing about whether we need to do something about carbon in the air (we always need some), LETS GET IT PARKED IN THE GROUND AND IN THE PLANT!!! Its useful there, natural, feeds peoples and animals, creates majestic scenery, improves water cycles, reverse desertification and is much more productive than wind turbines, enormous solar panels, cap and trade BS, carbon credits (what a load of crap that is, basically buy permission to create more pollution).

HOW armyrick, how do we do this?

As a society
-DEMAND intensive holistic rotational grazing of ruminant livestock (thats me and my gang) and rotate other livestock
-DEMAND stop plowing and tilling and encourage no-till mixed cocktail, year-round cropping systems
-ENCOURAGE everybody to grow their lawn grass and legumes LONGER and stop butchering it down to stubby useless grass 
-ENCOURAGE more multi-facetted aqua-farms like Bren Smith of Green Wave who grows huge loads of kelp, mussels, oysters and scallops WHICH clean nitrogen and carbon out of the Oceans
-PLANT Clovers, vetches, alfalfa and trefoils with your grass lawns, they look beautiful and they put nitrogen back in the soil
-GROW thick gardens with companion plants and have plants growing closely packed and in succession 

Do this AS A SOCIETY, you will be amazed at the results


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Apr 2016)

Rick,

You are my hero!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Apr 2016)

Hear, Hear!! However, I think you neighbours/city council, might be a little upset about "-ENCOURAGE everybody to grow their lawn grass and legumes LONGER and stop butchering it down to stubby useless grass."


----------



## a_majoor (10 Apr 2016)

Rick, while you are actually talking about a realistic and useful plan (on many levels, especially controlling soil erosion and groundwater runoff), you are up against a lot of forces against you.

People like Elon Musk "save" about a ton of CO2 through the production of electric cars vs a comparable diesel car. This is worth 5 pounds sterling under EU "Cap and trade" regulations, but Tesla motors gets @4000 pounds sterling per electric car as a tax incentive. Guess he's not going to be planting more grass.

As well, the propaganda has sunk so deep that when my daughter was in grade 9, she was given an assignment on how to reduce carbon emissions in class. I showed her some sources to research and she came up with replacing plowing the soil with seed drills and multi cropping (unturned soil does not release carbon, and seed drills require less energy to pull than a plow, win-win for reducing carbon emissions). For her trouble, she was given a failing grade. since she didn't follow the party line of renewable energy, biking to work etc. The parent teacher conference was rather heated afterwards as well....

People who actually observe and look at the evidence will be on board with you, but there are a lot of people with a vested interest in milking the Global Warming industry for all the billions of tax dollars available. Planting grass and using alternative agricultural practices don't offer opportunities for graft and corruption, certainly not on that scale.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Apr 2016)

Your right about being up against some tough resistance

However, best weapon is spreading of information. Every presentation I have done, I get people hooked on it and they say it all makes sense. It will take time but as long as we keep spreading this information, we will prevail. 

I am very happy about the work Allan Savory and the Savory institute has been doing for years. Allan takes on the toughest critics and beats them senseless with logic. The people who try and tear apart his theories do a very poor job of it and usually have big holes in their arguments or try to cherry pick, a bad debating topic IMO.

Having been involved with this type of farm/ag planning and practicing for more than three years, it works very well but it does take hard work and has a steep learning curve.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Apr 2016)

How long ago and when did your daughter receive this grade? If it was recent, PM me, I will engage the school HARD. It will not be the first time and I have yet to not succeed when I engage people or organizations (except Vegans)


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2016)

If you can't beat them with logic and evidence, then use the power of the State to silence them:

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/11/liberal-ags-have-begun-a-war-against-the-first-amendment/



> Liberal AGs Have Begun a War Against the First Amendment
> Kim Holmes	/ @kimsmithholmes / April 11, 2016
> 
> Once the legal regime protecting free speech is gone, it can be abused by anyone, including by people who may disagree with them. (Photo: Andrew Schwartz/Newscom)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2016)

More on "settled science". I find the reported outcome very disappointing, since science is a powerful tool when _used correctly_, but economics teaches us that people follow _incentives_, and this trend is strongly self reinforcing.
(Part 1)
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress



> *SCIENTIFIC REGRESS*
> by William A. Wilson
> May 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2016)

Part 2



> Older scientists contribute to the propagation of scientific fields in ways that go beyond educating and mentoring a new generation. In many fields, it’s common for an established and respected researcher to serve as “senior author” on a bright young star’s first few publications, lending his prestige and credibility to the result, and signaling to reviewers that he stands behind it. In the natural sciences and medicine, senior scientists are frequently the controllers of laboratory resources—which these days include not just scientific instruments, but dedicated staffs of grant proposal writers and regulatory compliance experts—without which a young scientist has no hope of accomplishing significant research. Older scientists control access to scientific prestige by serving on the editorial boards of major journals and on university tenure-review committees. Finally, the government bodies that award the vast majority of scientific funding are either staffed or advised by distinguished practitioners in the field.
> 
> All of which makes it rather more bothersome that older scientists are the most likely to be invested in the regnant research paradigm, whatever it is, even if it’s based on an old experiment that has never successfully been replicated. The quantum physicist Max Planck famously quipped: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” Planck may have been too optimistic. A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied what happens to scientific subfields when star researchers die suddenly and at the peak of their abilities, and finds that while there is considerable evidence that young researchers are reluctant to challenge scientific superstars, a sudden and unexpected death does not significantly improve the situation, particularly when “key collaborators of the star are in a position to channel resources (such as editorial goodwill or funding) to insiders.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2016)

A law actually is being broken here, only by the US State Prosecutors and environmental groups: conspiracy to deprive people of civil rights

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxonmobil-states-idUSKCN0XC2U2



> *U.S. state prosecutors met with climate groups as Exxon probes expanded*
> HOUSTON | BY TERRY WADE
> 
> A coalition of U.S. state attorneys general received guidance from well-known climate scientists and environmental lawyers in March as some of them opened investigations into Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change risks, documents seen by Reuters showed.
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 May 2016)

One of my clients is a well known fire behavior specialist. Being a scientist, she finds this stuff very interesting and notes that, because of climate change, within a couple of decades the fire behavior in our boreal forest will approach that of Australia (i.e., abso-friggin-lootely insane), where she did a lot of her research.

She also referred to the emergence of the 'Canadian Savannah', essentially the result of continuous fires burning for centuries and creating a giant swath of grassland across the (once) boreal forest.

Cool


----------



## RocketRichard (7 May 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont believe in so called climate change,rather its mother nature at work starting fires with lightning.Its how she renews the land.


It's not a question of 'belief'. It's science.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> It's not a question of 'belief'. It's science.



Actually, it is a bit of both.  The Great Fire of 1922, well before all this Climate Change Conspiracy started, is listed as one of the top ten worst natural disasters in Canadian history.  Previously, there was The Great Fire of 1916.  In less than ten years, most of Northern Ontario and Northeastern Quebec had been laid waste to fire.  It is a natural occurrence.   Science has studied it, but to blame man for climate change is getting a bit much.


----------



## RocketRichard (7 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, it is a bit of both.  The Great Fire of 1922, well before all this Climate Change Conspiracy started, is listed as one of the top ten worst natural disasters in Canadian history.  Previously, there was The Great Fire of 1916.  In less than ten years, most of Northern Ontario and Northeastern Quebec had been laid waste to fire.  It is a natural occurrence.   Science has studied it, but to blame man for climate change is getting a bit much.


We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 May 2016)

It is actually science.

But here is the real, currently accepted as correct, scientific knowledge of wildfires in Boreal forests (i.e. just about everything north of Chicago's latitude):

Naturally occurring wildfires (due to lightning) are part of the natural renewal cycle of the Boreal forests (i.e. it's the same in Siberia). Without man's intervention - which started around the 1800 - these forest fires destroyed and renewed about 3 to 5 % of the surface of the forest every year.  The natives had long ago learned to protect their summering grounds and villages by actually doing controlled burns around them early in the season.

And T6: We actually have more water bombers in Canada than are held in the USA. For some reason, in the US, you prefer to employ helicopters with buckets. It is all irrelevant anyway. Such fires burning themselves out is the norm for large ones. Most forest fires are extinguished in early stages nowadays, but every year, there are two or three that cannot be stopped and must be let to die of "natural" death - sometimes as a result of snow in the fall, but most other time by careful work of the fire fighting service slowly managing and directing the edges of the fire so it runs itself into a natural fire wall, such as a large river, lake or rocky mountain or combination of these. It's hard work that can take weeks, if not months.


----------



## Loachman (7 May 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> It's not a question of 'belief'. It's science.



It's bad science, bad politics, and bad religion. Man-made "climate change" is the biggest fraud ever to be perpetrated upon the human race. There's a whole thread regarding that elsewhere on here anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... There's a whole thread regarding that elsewhere on here anyway.


And here it all is, together.


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2016)

Here are some facts for the TREE HUGGERS, CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY/THEOROISTS, GREEN PEACE and other so called "scientists with no Degrees on the Subject" to mull over.

From Shawn Bevins:



> Karmic my ass...ignorant idiots.The climate-tards, treehuggers, green-peacers and fork-tongued activist politicians and their misguided and deceiving ways strike again... The wildfires have absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change. They are due to millions of acres of dead lodgepole and jack pine that were killed by the naturally occuring Mountain Pine Beetle. During the 90's Provincial Biologists in BC had the chance to stop the Mountain Pine Beetle by clear cutting and burning Beetle mitigation zones in the initially infected areas which happened to be in a National Park, but those attempts were thwarted by tree-huggers blocking roads, threatening and using violence and chaining themselves to the trees.
> 
> It wasn't politically correct to build Pine Beetle mitigation areas by clear cutting and burning in a National Park and so instead they let the beetle run it's course and destroy millions upon millions of acres of boreal forest. Drought and El Nino are weather patterns that are natural occurrences and both are part of the environment and climate influencers of Western Canada as are wildfires. Our ridiculously asinine, weak and limp-wristed political response to a Naturally occurring disaster in waiting makes me physically ill. We should all be outraged at the levels of lies and deception used by these criminals but instead we eagerly gobble up their bullshit and blame "man-made climate change" because the "experts" know best. They call the shots from their ivory towers and their concrete jungle refuges.. The solution to the Kootenay 1934 Pine Beetle outbreak was this and I quote: "nothing has yet been found that will kill beetles as effectively and as cheaply as fire" It took courage to make the decision then but It worked and they avoided a disaster...
> 
> Pine Beetles have killed millions of acres of standing wood on both sides of the border. Since 2012 the leading edge of Beetle infestation has now moved east of Fort Mac. The trees may be green but they are most certainly dead, it can take up to three years before the tree actually looks dead. The Colorado fires that destroyed 360 homes, Slave Lake where a town was turned into a pile of ashes were a direct result of the same...If you look at this Mountain Pine Beetle distribution map you can clearly define where the fires are burning now and the high risk areas for future fires...Those trees are like gasoline waiting to be lit. These fires are the direct result of irresponsible mismanagement and politically correct leftwing Governments caving to their social justice warrior/ radical activist voter base. They and they alone should bear the cross of this horrific tragedy because ultimately it's because of them that this epidemic has been allowed to spread. I am so tired of the lies... #albertastrong









It would appear that indeed some of this catastrophe was man-made.  Man-made due to the orchestrations of fanatics from Green Peace and other 'Environmentalist' fringe groups who have prevented the eradication or restriction of "PESTS" that were defoliating the boreal forests creating fuel for wild fires.  So, don't blame the Oil Industry; BLAME the ENVIRONMENTALISTS, the fanatics who have prevented SAFE Forestry practices.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 May 2016)

There's not much point trying to assign blame to people.  The proposals to contain the pine beetle early on were not guaranteed to succeed.

What is overlooked is that we don't really have any historical records going back any useful length of time to tell us how often widespread beetle infestations occur.  For all we know they are routine events occurring every couple or few hundred years.

The underlying point is still valid: fire problems have very little to do with climate warming (catastrophic or mild).

Everything unfortunate or unusual these days is because of "climate change".  The irony is that often anthropogenic factors feature prominently in things like unusually difficult fires, or flooding and erosion - but they are not the factors that anyone wants to acknowledge, because there is less sympathy and less money thrown at governments who mismanage their habitat.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2016)

I have adopted the term "Climate Reform" as, if warming is in fact occurring (and there is no credible sign of that in almost two decades now), then we are merely coming back to normal temperatures and conditions as seen in the mediaeval Warm Period (and its predecessor warm periods).


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 May 2016)

Meanwhile as to all that supposed hydrocarbon wealth on the Arctic seabed:



> Bye, Bye Big Oil Drilling in US Arctic Waters
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/05/10/mark-collins-bye-bye-big-oil-drilling-in-us-arctic-waters/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## larry Strong (10 May 2016)

My guess is they got a big tax write off as it would be classified as "Exploratory" drilling. That's how it works in Canada and I don't see the US being much different. It will all go up for sale again sometime in the future, no ones going to let that much oil and gas go, especially if climate change continues and the ice pack becomes a lesser problem.



Just my 2¢......


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 May 2016)

I just had to put this in here. I  :rofl: :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2016)

One response to state sanctioned bullying and lawfare:


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2016)

Sadly, law fare seems only to be practiced by one side. It looks like it would be perfectly valid to prosecute these jackasses, and slap them with massive civil suits as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/30/the-imploding-cabal-to-criminalize-climate-dissent/



> OPINION
> *The imploding cabal to criminalize climate dissent*
> By Adam Brodsky June 30, 2016 | 8:52pm
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2016)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/

Global Warming Expedition Stuck in Arctic Sea Because of Too Much Ice

by Warner Todd Huston

21 Jul 2016

An expedition to the North Pole intended to measure the effects of global warming ground to a halt this month when the scientist’s ship got blocked by the ice packs near Murmansk, Russia, reports reveal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge set out on a two-month campaign hoping to prove that the ice at the North Pole was melting. As the expedition’s website explains, the group aimed to show “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

Despite their best intentions to show that the ice is melting and the temperature at the pole is higher than normal, the group has only been confronted with the exact opposite as ice continues to block their path.

The website Real Climate Science notes that the Polar melt season is half over, but temperatures have not climbed high enough to sponsor a large melt off of ice. According to the site, there has not been a big melt, and ice gains seem to be very close to the amount of ice lost because temperatures near the pole have been persistently below normal this year. And at the very least, large ice floes have blocked the ocean passages around the area.

The global warming expedition expected to be able to sail all around the Arctic Ocean through the Northeast and Northwest Passages because they assumed the ice would be gone, but they have been stymied because ice blocks most of the route they planned to take.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Jul 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The global warming expedition expected to be able to sail all around the Arctic Ocean through the Northeast and Northwest Passages because they assumed the ice would be gone, but they have been stymied because ice blocks most of the route they planned to take.



 :rofl:

Darn climate change.  You never know how humanity's baleful influence on Mother Gaia is going to turn out.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/
> 
> Global Warming Expedition Stuck in Arctic Sea Because of Too Much Ice
> 
> ...



Well, that's an unfortunate turn of events.  But, never mind.  It'll all be over soon



> SHOCK CLAIM: 'World will END' when poles flip and mega earthquake strikes ON JULY 29
> 
> THE world will reach a terrible and violent end in just EIGHT days, claims a shock video which has been viewed by nearly 2.5 million worried people.



http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/691945/SHOCK-CLAIM-World-will-END-when-poles-flip-and-mega-earthquake-strikes-ON-JULY-29


----------



## OrganishChemiker (28 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on "settled science".



Most of us hard scientists don't consider psychology a real science.

Reproducibility is a problem.  That's why it bugs me when people try cherry picking ONE single article that was recently published and has never been cited as though it absolutely proves or disproves something.

Bias due to funding sources is also a problem.  I should cut and paste what I wrote about pharmaceutical firms and clinical trials here.

Some climate change is definitely due to human activity.  It is not a fraud.  That is absurd.  The science of how carbon dioxide traps heat is really simple to understand.

================
merged
================

Quote from: George Wallace on 09-05-2016, 13:38:35

    Here are some facts for the TREE HUGGERS, CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY/THEOROISTS, GREEN PEACE and other so called "scientists with no Degrees on the Subject" to mull over.


Hypotheses and theories should be evaluated based on the evidence, not on whether the person making the argument has a degree on the subject.  That's an appeal to authority and it's a fallacy.  Maybe you're making a point about people claiming to be experts.  I don't care what experts say - I try to be skeptical of everything.  I know not everyone is the same because not everyone is scientifically literate.

A lot of what is in what you posted is just rhetoric.  If you want to debate the facts, that would be great.  But citing blogs that focus on a single issue and are half-rhetoric isn't convincing.  I think the way you've started your post is just meant to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.  Maybe the topic pisses you off.  That's fine, but if you're going to criticize the "tree huggers" for committing some kind of massive fraud then I think you should stick to facts, rather than making an appeal to emotions.

I'm sure that climate change has been misused, intentionally or otherwise, to accomplish some goal.  That doesn't mean climate change is a giant hoax.  It means that some people might try to take advantage of it.  It also means that others will wrongly believe they're offering solutions, when they aren't.


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2016)

:facepalm:

another energizer bunny.......


----------



## Scott (28 Jul 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> another energizer bunny.......



But the Energizer Bunny feigns the possibility of perpetual motion, I mean, they have never shown the thing slowing down like your old Walkman, right?

Aside: Maschinengewher,

Try forming one reply with your posts rather than quoting one in each reply, it makes you easier to follow and look less like you're on constant send. You can do this by having two tabs open on the site. One for a blank reply space, the other to use the quote post function with what you wish to reply to. Then copy and paste the code into the open and blank reply box. Go nuts underneath with your reply. Rinse and repeat.

Give it a try.

Scott
Staff


----------



## OrganishChemiker (28 Jul 2016)

Scott,

my apologies, I'm used to a forum that automerges double posts so I've developed some bad habits.
Oh and you can call me MG42 for short.

-----------------

The thing about climate change is that the Earth isn't a simple system.  It's easy to understand how heat gets trapped under carbon dioxide and methane, but it's not like all there is to the model is a layer of gas trapping heat over a solid sphere that reflects heat.  The Earth has heat sinks with high heat capacities (the oceans).  It becomes tough to really predict accurately.  It's a system that can become chaotic.  The math isn't simple and the answers aren't exact.

There isn't a known analytical solution to three body problem.  We can't even absolutely predict the interaction between the Sun, Earth and Moon (and those aren't the only bodies in the solar system).  Even the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't a sure thing: Earth's orbit could be perturbed by another body in the solar system and could end up drifting away from the Sun, out of the solar system.  That will take care of global warming, at least.  If we do stay in our current orbit, the Earth won't be able to hold liquid water in about a billion years because the sun will have increased just enough in size and luminosity.  Those scenarios are way in the future.

I saw another post about how most papers on climate change were probably absolutely wrong and that science will be swamped with so many faulty papers that climate change models will always be wrong and the self-correcting aspect of science won't kick in.  If all climate scientists are actually that bad and their models start to increasingly diverge from observation, then it won't be rational to use science any more and I guess we'll just have to give up and live in the dark ages.

I'm sure conflict of interest and bias do affect climate science.  Science is a social activity and it only works because it is subject to criticism.  I think people should be skeptical of climate change, but dismissing it outright and calling it a fraud isn't criticism.

I do have my own biases.  I'm inclined to trust other scientists.  I do always try to be skeptical but my inclination is to trust other scientists.  I'm not a climate scientist, but I think the basics of climate change are very simple and undeniable: carbon dioxide and methane trap heat.

I think anyone who wants to claim that the theory of anthropogenic climate change has to do is offer a better explanation that explains observations.  It isn't enough just to say that human-caused global warming is a fraud.  Science goes with the best explanation for our observations.  If you think you can offer a better explanation then please do so.


----------



## GAP (28 Jul 2016)

> But the Energizer Bunny feigns the possibility of perpetual motion, I mean, they have never shown the thing slowing down like your old Walkman, right?



Hey! I resemble that!!.............. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Aug 2016)

Anyone pointed this out to Al Grore?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/no-major-us-hurricanes-in-11-years-odds-of-that-1-in-2300/



> *No major US hurricanes in 11 years. Odds of that? 1-in-2,300.*
> Earl is dead now, as yet another hurricane has avoided the United States.
> ERIC BERGER - 8/5/2016, 10:15 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2016)

> But as the Capital Weather Gang warned this week, it also has the potential to lull coastal residents into a false sense of security. "It’s only a matter of time before the luck reverses and storms start bombarding the U.S. coast again," the influential weather site concluded. "Growing coastal populations and lack of recent hurricane activity, from Florida to Texas, raise concerns about the nation’s readiness."



They don't even know what's going on but they close with a fear paragraph to keep the sheeple scared.


----------



## FJAG (10 Aug 2016)

Good article about why the Ontario Green Energy program is resulting in a spiralling increase in electricity costs when in fact the wholesale price of electric energy is dropping.

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/ontario-electricity-has-never-been-cheaper-but-bills-have-never-been-higher

"Ontario electricity has never been cheaper, but bills have never been higher

Ross McKitrick, Special to Financial Post | August 10, 2016 8:10 AM ET

The more the wind blows, the bigger the losses and the higher the hit to consumers.

You may be surprised to learn that electricity is now cheaper to generate in Ontario than it has been for decades. The wholesale price, called the Hourly Ontario Electricity Price or HOEP, used to bounce around between five and eight cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but over the last decade, thanks in large part to the shale gas revolution, it has trended down to below three cents, and on a typical day is now as low as two cents per kWh. Good news, right?

It would be, except that this is Ontario. A hidden tax on Ontario’s electricity has pushed the actual purchase price in the opposite direction, to the highest it’s ever been. The tax, called the Global Adjustment (GA), is levied on electricity purchases to cover a massive provincial slush fund for green energy, conservation programs, nuclear plant repairs and other central planning boondoggles. As these spending commitments soar, so does the GA.

In the latter part of the last decade when the HOEP was around five cents per kWh and the government had not yet begun tinkering, the GA was negligible, so it hardly affected the price. In 2009, when the Green Energy Act kicked in with massive revenue guarantees for wind and solar generators, the GA jumped to about 3.5 cents per kWh, and has been trending up since — now it is regularly above 9.5 cents. In April it even topped 11 cents, triple the average HOEP.

So while the marginal production cost for generation is the lowest in decades, electricity bills have never been higher. And the way the system is structured, costs will keep rising.

The province signed long-term contracts with a handful of lucky firms, guaranteeing them 13.5 cents per kWh for electricity produced from wind, and even more from solar. Obviously, if the wholesale price is around 2.5 cents, and the wind turbines are guaranteed 13.5 cents, someone has to kick in 11 cents to make up the difference. That’s where the GA comes in. The more the wind blows, and the more turbines get built, the bigger the losses and the higher the GA.

Just to make the story more exquisitely painful, if the HOEP goes down further, for instance through technological innovation, power rates won’t go down. A drop in the HOEP widens the gap between the market price and the wind farm’s guaranteed price, which means the GA has to go up to cover the losses.

Ontario’s policy disaster goes many layers further. If people conserve power and demand drops, the GA per kWh goes up, so if everyone tries to save money by cutting usage, the price will just increase, defeating the effort. Nor do Ontarians benefit through exports. Because the renewables sector is guaranteed the sale, Ontario often ends up exporting surplus power at a loss.

The story only gets worse if you try to find any benefits from all this spending. Ontario doesn’t get more electricity than before, it gets less.

Despite the hype, all this tinkering produced no special environmental benefits. The province said it needed to close its coal-fired power plants to reduce air pollution. But prior to 2005, these plants were responsible for less than two per cent of annual fine particulate emissions in Ontario, about the same as meat packing plants, and far less than construction or agriculture. Moreover, engineering studies showed that improvements in air quality equivalent to shutting the plants down could be obtained by simply completing the pollution control retrofit then underway, and at a fraction of the cost. Greenhouse gas emissions could have been netted to zero by purchasing carbon credits on the open market, again at a fraction of the cost. The environmental benefits exist only in provincial propaganda.

And on the subject of environmental protection, mention must be made of the ruin of so many scenic vistas in the province, especially long stretches of the Great Lakes shores, the once-pristine recreational areas of the central highlands, and the formerly pastoral landscapes of the southwestern farmlands; and we have not even mentioned yet the well-documented ordeal for people living with the noise and disturbance of wind turbines in their backyards. We will look in vain for benefits in Ontario even remotely commensurate to the damage that has been done.

The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector. 

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at University of Guelph, is Research Chair, Frontier Centre for Public Policy."

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Aug 2016)

This one is for you FJAG and Thucydides:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13925338_817149658386234_3086406773356730668_n.jpg?oh=b1eb43f9a07de7bc61ae0b357b21c13f&oe=584CB9B8

What more proof do you need?  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2016)

Ha Ha Ha!

However, there is very real proof of climate change mechanisms, just not acceptance of it.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/



> *Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues*
> MICHAEL BASTASCH
> 11:05 AM 08/09/2016
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (11 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> This one is for you FJAG and Thucydides:
> 
> https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13925338_817149658386234_3086406773356730668_n.jpg?oh=b1eb43f9a07de7bc61ae0b357b21c13f&oe=584CB9B8
> 
> What more proof do you need?  ;D



 :rofl: 

:cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2016)

And on the actions front:



> The Moltex reactor can run off existing spent nuclear fuel, cleaning up the legacy headaches of old nuclear plants. "We can process nuclear waste very cheaply instead of burying it at enormous cost in steel tanks for 200,000 years underground," he said. The plan is switch to thorium as a "greener" source of fuel once Britain's stockpile of nuclear waste has been consumed.
> 
> The Moltex design slashes costs by using a convection process that avoids pumping molten salt around the system. This reduces corrosion, the metallurgy barrier has bedevilled molten salt projects.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/17/britain-should-leap-frog-hinkley-and-lead-21st-century-nuclear-r/

One of these days we will be using reactors in the oil patch.

A different type of reactor - http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/18/toshiba-oil-sands-reactor_n_2505738.html

And while we are talking about melting salt - how about using all those ruddy windmills to melt potash (Melts at 770 C and Boils at 1420 C) to store wind energy as high grade heat which can be used to generate steam and turn turbines on demand -  not just when the wind blows.

Edit:

Here is another article from AEP - this time extolling the virtues of SOME windmills

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/14/britains-vast-national-gamble-on-wind-power-may-yet-pay-off/

AEP is Not your usual proponent so I hear him with interest.  I still would be tying them to a storage system - like molten salts.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

More "solutions":



> The site includes two energy centres and a network of over 11 miles of pipe work which control a small fleet of biomass boilers, combined heat and power plants and water storage units.
> 
> Mr Petrie explains that biomass provides the steady baseload power needed throughout the day by burning waste wood sourced from UK landscapers at 650 degrees. To meet energy demand over peak demand periods the energy can also be stored in hot water tanks which are topped up using combined and heat and power boilers which run on gas.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/19/how-the-london-2012-olympic-legacy-could-turn-the-energy-busines/

For me the key take-aways here are:

A high temperature water-based heat storage system
Heat supplied by various sources
Combined Heat and Power plants
District heating

With the hot water system it doesn't matter what the energy source is.  It can be from Windmills, hydro, incinerators, thorium, gas, coal or even (back to the future) ineffiecient wood fired boilers - now suitably rebranded as biomass boilers.

The key issue is that the energy is converted into a storable, transportable form and that even low grade energy is utilized.

This is old news in Europe despite the article.  District heating from central power plants has been the norm since at least the 1930s.

In Canada, in Ontario, in Calgary or Vancouver - if the government wanted to make a difference then it would install neighbourhood power plants and pipe hot water, along with electricity, into the houses and businesses.  The powerplant could equally be the local incinerator with adequate sorting of the raw material and scrubbing of the exhaust.   You make up the energy shortfall with anything you like - agricultural waste, gas, oil, coal - transmitted electricity - thorium.

And again, if you must have windmills at least make them efficient by storing the energy as useable heat and not transient power.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Aug 2016)

Already done in Montreal, for Canada, for the longest time (started in 1947, but really took off in the 1960's): Most of the major skyscrapers in Montreal don't have boilers or main chillers: The centralized plant of the CCUM (Climatisation et Chauffage Urbain Montreal) provides the heating and the cooling from a single centralized plant in Griffintown for about one third of the downtown core buildings.

Much more efficient (and safer for the buildings occupants) than distributed plants in each buildings).

But the CCUM claims to be the second largest such system in Canada, so there is at least another one somewhere even bigger. Toronto?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Already done in Montreal, for Canada, for the longest time (started in 1947, but really took off in the 1960's): Most of the major skyscrapers in Montreal don't have boilers or main chillers: The centralized plant of the CCUM (Climatisation et Chauffage Urbain Montreal) provides the heating and the cooling from a single centralized plant in Griffintown for about one third of the downtown core buildings.
> 
> Much more efficient (and safer for the buildings occupants) than distributed plants in each buildings).
> 
> But the CCUM claims to be the second largest such system in Canada, so there is at least another one somewhere even bigger. Toronto?



Could be OGBD.  I wouldn't be surprised if the system existed in a number of older urban cores but just went out of fashion because it was probably cheaper to develop subdivisions relying on coal and oil fired furnaces.  

I know Yellowknife is doing the district heating bit:

http://aea.nt.ca/blog/2013/07/biomass-district-heating-videos


----------



## Journeyman (19 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But the CCUM claims to be the second largest such system in Canada, so there is at least another one somewhere even bigger.



Perhaps they were referring to Ottawa running on hot air, until that bubble burst creating the massive sinkhole?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2016)

Nothing like watching UK newspaper wars. The Guardian gets it in the chin from the Telegraph, and the BBC gets a kick aimed at it as well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/08/the-guardians-100-months-to-save-the-planet-was-always-just-a-fa/

[qote]
*The Guardian's '100 months to save the planet' was always just a fantasy*
CHRISTOPHER BOOKER
Christopher Booker 8 OCTOBER 2016 • 5:30PM

You may not have noticed, but 2016 was the hottest year for over 100,000 years. At least this was the claim reported last week by The Guardian, under the headline  “Planet at its hottest for 115,000 years thanks fo climate change, experts say”.

The “experts” in question are a bunch of US scientists led by James Hansen, the former Nasa employee who did so much to set the great global warming scare on its way in 1988. And of course such a claim could only be made by ignoring all the evidence that the earth was actually hotter than today during the Mediaeval Warm Period, less than 1,000 years ago, and even more so during the thousands of years of the Holocene Optimum, following its emergence from the last ice age 10,000 years ago.

But Hansen and his gang do not stop there.  They argue that we can only hope to save the planet by finding ways to suck vast quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere, at a cost, they estimate, of up to $570 trillion. That figure which may trip off the tongue, but it equates to seven times the world’s entire current annual GDP, or $77,000 for every human being now alive.

If this only shows how dottily desperate some of our wilder climate alarmists have become, we may come back to earth a little by focusing on another version of the great climate scare which also got The Guardian very excited eight years ago, when it launched a campaign under the heading “The final countdown”. This proclaimed that we then had only “100 months” left to save the world from “irreversible climate change”: soaring temperatures, melting ice caps, dangerously rising sea levels, more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, and all the other familiar harbingers of catastrophe.

Now those “100 months” are up, it has prompted the diligent Paul Homewood to publish on his website, Not A Lot of People Know That, a set of graphs meticulously compiled from official data. The show what has actually happened to the earth’s climate in these past eight years. Despite the 2016 El Nino spike, now rapidly declining, satellite measurements still show that the trend in global temperatures has not risen for 18 years. 

The Guardian's online article with the headline "THE FINAL COUNTDOWN" and a caption "100 months to save the world" above a vast picture of the Earth viewed from space

This went well

Far from the ice caps melting, the total amount of polar ice in the world is almost exactly the same in today’s Arctic and Antarctic as it was when satellite records began in 1979. Despite all those computer models predicting otherwise, the rise in global sea levels has been barely detectible, not having accelerated in more than a century. Despite Hurricane Matthew, there has been no increase in the incidence or power of tropical cyclones. Tornadoes in the US have been at a historic low level. The number of severe droughts across the world since the first half of the 20th century has actually declined.

All the computer models which predicted these horrors were programmed to assume that they would be the inevitable result of that increase of CO2 in the atmosphere which has steadily continued all through these past 100 months. Yet not one of their predictions has come true. Indeed the most startling of Homewood’s charts (taken from the BBC website, no less) shows that the most obvious consequence of the rise in CO2 has been its effect, as plant food, on the “greening” of the planet, helping to boost a dramatic rise in crop yields across the world.

Yet to all this our politicians remain wholly oblivious. The irony is that 2008, when global warming hysteria was still at its height, was the very year when they landed us with the Climate Change Act, committing us to spending hundreds of billions of pounds on “decarbonising” our economy, at a time when other countries, led by China and India, are planning to increase their own “carbon” emissions by far more each year than the UK’s entire annual contribution to the global total. Until that totally insane Act is repealed, we really are heading for national suicide.
[/quote]


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2016)

Shutting Down Debate

The Planet is Getting Greener

Hillary on Kremlin Support of Environmentalists


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2016)

Funny how folks have a knot in their face over Russian funded anti-fracking protests, but are fine with US funded anti-oil sands protests.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Funny how folks have a knot in their face over Russian funded anti-fracking protests, but are fine with US funded anti-oil sands protests.


There's no such thing as coherence among the various anti-fossil fuels faction hypocrites.  Besides George Soros and the Tides Foundation pays better than the Russians  >


----------



## FJAG (23 Dec 2016)

Russian says we're heading into the next little Ice Age

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared

 :subbies:


----------



## Chispa (23 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Russian says we're heading into the next little Ice Age
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared
> 
> :subbies:




First I question anything deriving from the Russians, although (LIA), already accrued as the northern parts of the world froze over from ca 1300 -1850.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


All this crying over Global Warming & Climate change is a easy $$$$$$$$$$$ grab, not counting years ago it was discovered most of the numbers were in fact fabrication.

The earth has warmed and cooled ca 5-7 times, while climate change, global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon that happens with mother earth. 

Canada has one of the highest natural release of gas owing too, forest fires, peatland, permafrost melting during the summer months, etc., what we humans contribute is quite small.  

Peatland fires and carbon emissions: Fire plays a significant role in forest ecosystems. An average of 9000 fires burn more than 2 million hectares each year in Canada. This is twice the average area burned in the early 1970s, and various modeling scenarios predict another doubling or more by the end of this century, because of warmer temperatures expected as a result of climate change. The growth in fire activity will have major implications for forest ecosystems, forestry activities, community protection and carbon budgets.

Impacts of climate change: Because peatlands vary in their moisture conditions and fuel structure, their vulnerability to burning and rates of fuel consumption also vary. However, human impacts, such as climate change and the draining of wetlands, are increasing the overall susceptibility of peatlands to fire.

Warming temperatures will lead to more droughts, greater evapotranspiration and a subsequent lowering of the water table, which will leave peat more vulnerable to burning. In North America, over the last 50 years, there has been an increase in both very large fires (greater than 100 000 hectares) and fires occurring late in the growing season, when the water table is usually lower.

Climate change may also lead to melting of permafrost, which can in turn lead to additional peat material being consumed by fire.

Understanding and acting on the implications of peat fires: Canadian Forest Service scientists are collaborating with other peatland researchers from government agencies and universities in Canada, the U.S. and Russia to study peatland fire and understand the implications of changing fire regimes on northern peatlands and the circumboreal forest. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/climate-change/forest-carbon/13103

Countless of antiquity civilizations pre and post bible, North and South American Indians disappeared from the face pf the earth owing to climate change in the areas they lived.

Note according too studies, the family dog contributes more in one year then a SUV.


C.U.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2016)

Climate alarmists are 1800 out of sync with the real world:

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared



> *Lawrence Solomon: Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared*
> Lawrence Solomon
> Thursday, Dec. 22, 2016
> Nathan VanderKlippe /National Post, file
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Dec 2016)

Thuc,

I do not take this as "proof" of anything (any more than I take warmistas claims at face value).

It is, however, a very interesting theory that does seem to fit the available evidence. It should certainly be tested further.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Dec 2016)

With apologies to the intrepid souls from the east coast:  Weather prediction can now be 100% accurate by analysing a single piece of neufie rock.

If the rock is wet, it's raining.
If the rock is swinging, the wind is blowing.
If the rock casts a shadow, the sun is shining.
If the rock does not cast a shadow and is not wet, the sky is cloudy.
If the rock is not visible, it is foggy.
If the rock is white, it is snowing.
If the rock is coated with ice, there is a frost.
If the ice is thick, it's a heavy frost.
If the rock is bouncing, there is an earthquake.
If the rock is under water, there is a flood.
If the rock is warm, it is sunny.
If the rock is missing, there was a tornado.
If the rock is wet and swinging violently, there is a hurricane.
If the rock has white splats on it, watch out for birds.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2016)

The best part is because it is real science, it _is_ testable.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jan 2017)

Science is a wonderful thing...especialy when you match observations to predictions like the ice sheets will be gone in 10 years....oh wait....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/greenland-enters-2017-adding-extraordinary-amounts-of-ice-and-snow/



> *Greenland Enters 2017 Adding Extraordinary Amounts Of Ice And Snow*
> Photo of Michael Bastasch
> MICHAEL BASTASCH
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jan 2017)

I got totally hung up on the 'eight gigatons of snow and ice'. Now I'm sitting here wondering what that would look like. I don't think I've ever heard a weight term, that big and that specific.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Jan 2017)

For reference sake, I just looked up the stats from the City of Montreal, who trucks its snow in winter. On average, they move, per winter, 3 million tons of snow, that come from an average snowfall of 225 cm.

So 8 gigaton is about 2667 times the amount of snow that falls on Montreal in one winter.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> For reference sake, I just looked up the stats from the City of Montreal, who trucks its snow in winter. On average, they move, per winter, 3 million tons of snow, that come from an average snowfall of 225 cm.
> 
> So 8 gigaton is about 2667 times the amount of snow that falls on Montreal in one winter.



[pedant]

Was that 3M tons or 3M tonnes?

[/pedant]

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Jan 2017)

G2G, don't you know that snow, like cereal, is sold by weight - not by volume.  [


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2017)

;D


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jan 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .... 'eight gigatons ...' Now I'm sitting here wondering what that would look like.


In my younger days, there was a girl at a place called Sassy's....   

/inappropriate   :bowdown:


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In my younger days, there was a girl at a place called Sassy's....
> 
> /inappropriate   :bowdown:



hmmmm.......that's a big memory......



 ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Jan 2017)

And to this day he can't believe he let her slip away.......


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2017)

How did I know that the 'older guys'.... probably with their own memories of Sassy's.... would likely 'weigh' in.   ;D


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2017)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How did I know that the 'older guys'.... probably with their own memories of Sassy's.... would likely 'weigh' in.   ;D



Contrary to the self image......you are one too.....


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2017)

GAP said:
			
		

> Contrary to the self image......you are one too.....


 :tempertantrum:    :tantrum:     anic: 

Au contraire; I used emojis in lieu of a rational response.   :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2017)

Christopher Booker does it again.

In the interests of progress London Smog is back and the gentry's forests are being felled at a rate not seen since before the Bishop of Durham created his coal cartel.  With American forests being thrown in for good measure.....





> This collective act of make-believe is devastating our environment and our budgets
> 
> Christopher Booker 28 JANUARY 2017 • 3:44PM
> 
> ...



And much more on this link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/collective-act-make-believe-devastating-environment-budgets/

The "waste into gas" is a particular obsession of mine.  I have been peripherally involved in a couple of these plants.  

Suffice it to say that, beyond the notion of creating an incentive to create waste to keep the plants operating profitably, something I have experienced in food processing plants where we created "rework" from virgin raw materials because our product formulations required it but our efficiencies had increased to the point we weren't generating enough "scrap" to "rework", beyond that notion, I still find that the most effective method of converting waste into heat is to simply burn it.

The Swedes have been making much out the fact that they are so effective at managing waste with their waste management plants that they are having to bring in waste to keep the plants operational.
This has been lauded by the environmental movement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sweden-s-recycling-is-so-revolutionary-the-country-has-run-out-of-rubbish-a7462976.html

But the key to the system is a combination of utilizing all the heat generated by the plants by using it to supply hot water for heating homes, which requires the plant be located in the neighbourhood it serves, and burning the waste.

In short the environmentally friendly Swedish solution is an incinerator in every subdivision.  A very clean incinerator with odour and heavy metals management, but still an incinerator.  And as district heating systems have been around in Sweden since at least the 1930s to my knowledge these incinerators probably started life as coal furnaces that were converted.

Way back in the 1970s (probably 1978) I read a book by a very smart man called Jerry Pournelle, "A Step Farther Out".  In it he examined the economics of generating energy from waste.  He said that there wasn't enough energy there to meet the demands and that what energy there was would be consumed in boiling off the water in the damp waste and sorting out the chunks of metal and scrubbing the exhaust.  In the last 40 years have seen multiple attempts, involving billions, if not trillions of dollars, to prove him wrong.

Sweden's call for more garbage suggests that Jerry is still not wrong.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2017)

Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt and the reason Australia did away with their Carbon Tax.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2017)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy?utm_source=jolt

Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret 

by Julie Kelly June 28, 2017 4:00 AM

Discarded solar panels are piling up all over the world, and they represent a major threat to the environment.

Clean energy may not be so clean after all. A new study by Environmental Progress (EP) warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear-power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there’s been little done to mitigate their potential danger to the environment.

“We talk a lot about the dangers of nuclear waste, but that waste is carefully monitored, regulated, and disposed of,” says Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, a non-profit that advocates for the use of nuclear energy. “But we had no idea there would be so many panels - an enormous amount - that could cause this much ecological damage.”

Solar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste,” and according to EP researchers Jemin Desai and Mark Nelson, scavengers in developing countries like India and China often “burn the e-waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled.”

This is one of the dirty little secrets behind the push for renewable energy. While consumers might view solar panels as harmless little windows made from glass and plastic, the reality is that they are intricately constructed from a variety of materials, making it difficult to disassemble and recycle them. Japan is already scrambling for ways to reuse its mounting inventory of solar-panel waste, which is expected to exceed 10,000 tons by 2020 and grow by 700,000 to 800,000 tons per year by 2040. Solutions are hard to find, due both to the labor-intensive process of breaking down the panels and to the low price of scrap. (Dan Whitten, a spokesman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, disputes EP’s study. In an e-mail to me, he claims that solar panels are “mainly made up of easy-to-recyle materials that can be successfully recovered and reused at the end of their useful life.”)

This will also be a problem here in the U.S., which has more than 1.4 million solar-energy installations now in use, including many already near the end of their 25-year lifespan. Federal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea. Meanwhile, at precisely the moment when, because of the rise of smartphones, Americans are generating less waste from consumer electronics, discarded solar panels are stacking up. EP estimates that Americans with solar roofs produce 30 to 60 percent more electronic waste than non-solar households.

Thankfully, renewable-energy sources are at last facing some much-needed scrutiny, even within the ranks of green activists. “At a time when iPhones have reduced our need for digital cameras, alarm clocks, GPS systems, and other electronics, solar panels risk increasing overall e-waste production,” Shellenberger says. “The people who could pay the price for this hazard are some of the poorest people in the world.”

This is not to even mention the environmental damage done by making solar panels in the first place. A 2013 investigation by the Associated Press found that from 2007 to 2011, the manufacture of solar panels in California “produced 46.5 million pounds of sludge and contaminated water. Roughly 97 percent of it was taken to hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, but more than 1.4 million pounds were transported to nine other states.” That’s no way for a state to keep its carbon footprint small; one renewable-energy analyst quoted by the AP estimated it would take “one to three months of generating electricity [from the solar panels] to pay off the energy invested in driving those hazardous waste emissions out of state.” Six years later, it’s safe to assume the amount of toxic waste is even higher as solar-panel production continues to ramp up.

Thankfully, renewable-energy sources are at last facing some much-needed scrutiny, even within the ranks of green activists. A group of prominent scientists recently rebuked a study by Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor and leading clean-energy (and anti-nuclear) activist, who had claimed that the U.S. could generate energy exclusively from wind, water, and solar energy by the year 2050. The scientists said Jacobson’s study “used invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” The group admonished policymakers to “treat with caution any visions of a rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power.”

As the Trump administration considers reforming federal energy subsidies, officials should look at how renewable technologies such as solar panels impact the environment once they’ve outlived their usefulness. There is nothing environmentally friendly about creating mountains of hazardous waste in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions

Julie Kelly is writer from Orland Park, Ill.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2017)

Just like wind towers. Do people not realize the amount of petroleum required to build and install a single unit? Or how much pollution is created when one lights itself on fire? I've been through the manufacturing plants and the electricity used to create the towers alone is humongously outrageous. Never mind the hundreds of people required to manufacture them. Wind power is a catch 22 and when ALL manufacturing and installation costs are rolled in, is a money pit that we can't escape from. As well, there has been no real solution to storing that wind power either.


----------



## Loachman (28 Jun 2017)

Yup. And masses of concrete to hold them up.

I also read somewhere, a few years ago (and have not tried to find the/a source) that hybrid cars such as Prius were extremely dirty once the materials in the batteries and pollution from shipping components all over the planet were factored in.

Edited to add:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm

http://www.thetorquereport.com/news/toyotas-prius-is-less-efficient-and-environmentally-friendly-than-a-hummer/

https://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/ "But if your local grid incorporates a fair amount of renewable solar and wind energy, like California, your electric vehicle is pretty clean." Maybe not so much...

https://axleaddict.com/cars/Prius

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1052110_five-reasons-buying-a-hybrid-prius-wont-save-the-planet

Just a handful of links with no clear result...


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2017)

Lots of links in the original.

http://canadafreepress.com/print_friendly/energy-secretary-right-on-climate-change

More politicians need Perry's courage

Energy Secretary Right on Climate Change

By Tom Harris June 29, 2017

Energy Secretary Rick Perry did a remarkable thing last week: he expressed skepticism about the causes of climate change in a TV interview and, even after widespread condemnation from environmentalists and the press, he did it again a few days later before a major Senate committee.

After telling a CNBC host on June 19 that he did not believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary “control knob” for climate, Perry said:

“this idea that science [of climate change] is just absolutely settled and if you don’t believe it’s settled then you’re somehow another Neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective. I think if you’re going to be a wise, intellectually-engaged person, being a skeptic about some of these issues is quite alright.”

Climate activists and many media were outraged. The Houston Chronicle reported, “Perry’s comments drew attacks from environmental groups, which called the former Texas governor a ‚Äòclimate denier.’” The Chronicle’s energy correspondent, James Osborne, condemned Perry for questioning “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change.”

“Rick Perry’s outrageous comments are the latest indication that this administration will do everything in its power to put polluter profits ahead of science and public health,” said Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Liz Perera.

Labeling Perry’s comments “anti-science,” Mashable, a prominent on line media company, headlined their coverage, “Rick Perry just said CO2 isn’t the leading driver of climate change, even though it is.”

On and on went the attacks from Associated Press, Salon magazine, Toronto Star, Market Watch, etc. Media outlets that reported uncritically on Perry’s comments were few and far between.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) even sent an open letter to the Secretary, warning him, “it is critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause [of recent global warming]... Skepticism that fails to account for evidence is no virtue.”

Most politicians would have responded to the onslaught by quickly issuing a mea culpa press release, pledging allegiance to political correctness. But not Perry. Only three days later, in response to intense questioning by Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) at the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing about President Trump’s 2018 energy department budget request, Perry asked, “Don’t you think it’s OK to have this conversation about the science of climate change…What’s wrong with being a skeptic about something that we’re talking about that’s going to have a massive impact on the American economy?”

Perry’s points about climate change, in both the TV interview and his Senate testimony, are justified. Being a skeptic about such a complex and uncertain field, especially one with expensive policy ramifications, is indeed “quite alright.” Besides being necessary for science to advance, skepticism is the duty of our elected officials when activists demand the allocation of vast sums of public money to contentious causes.

In fact, dozens of open letters and other public lists show that many experts do not support the hypothesis that we face a man-made climate crisis. The Climate Scientists’ Register assembled by the International Climate Science Coalition is perhaps the simplest document of its kind. In only a few days in 2010, over 100 experts from 22 countries agreed to the following statement:

“We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.”

And referring to the hypothesis that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are accelerating global warming as “one of the fundamental tenets of climate change,” makes no sense. The U.N.‘s point of view on climate change is not an irrefutable truth, like the tenets of a religion, or at least it shouldn’t be. Scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, are merely the educated opinions of experts based on their interpretations of observations and so can be, and often are, wrong. Philosophers since ancient times have understood that observations cannot prove truth. This is especially the case in climate science, a field that University of Western Ontario applied mathematician Dr. Chris Essex calls “one of the most challenging open problems in modern science.”

When it comes to climate change, tolerance of alternative perspectives, a much-vaunted hallmark of liberalism, vanishes. They should welcome, not condemn, questioning the status quo. Effective science and public policy-making needs skeptical enquiry, not mere acquiescence to fashionable thinking. Perry’s approach is a breath of fresh air. Bravo, Mr. Secretary!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

The tenet that climate change is a fact, indisputable and inculcate has only gained ground because successive liebral governments have pushed the idea and used Joseph Goebbels' PR tactics. It has always been about money. Anyone in disagreement was ridiculed, fired and embarrassed into silence. Jobs were lost by those that persisted in pushing the truth. Finally, someone is pulling the curtain back and the lefty liars are tying themselves in knots, trying to keep their narrative front and centre. Drill down to the bottom, what has been accomplished by the left? The sale of billions of dollars worth of carbon credits (a non existent commodity) to other countries, with no tracking or oversight. They stifle domestic oil production and use it to prop up their friends in the Middle East. Solar and wind power products are produced by global firms.

If you and I tried it, we'd be indicted for money laundering, because that's all it is, plain and simple. The globalists are moving and stockpiling billions of taxpayer dollars and have to produce absolutely nothing too keep it. The lie that the globalists are in it for the middle class is the biggest affront to honesty out there. Their intent is to destroy the middle class because they are free thinkers, with disposable income and freedom to do as they wish. The push for the 'living wage' for those that do nothing is the harbinger of what the rest of us will be living on. Everyone will be working for global industries and everyone will be paid enough to live on, but not enough to get ahead or own anything.

Don't forget, Al Gore invented the internet and is a world expert(?) on climate change. Even though he doesn't really understand or submit to it, nor has any training in it, or has a scientific background. At least Suzuki has a doctorate. It's for the life and sex cycle of fruit flies, but what the hey, he gets to call himself Dr. and became an instant CBC expert on climate change. You don't need to be a scientist, you just have to be capable of parroting the climate change mantra and be high profile.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (29 Jun 2017)

It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect. 

16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001, average ocean temps are rising (0.17C since 1969 on average), arctic ice is declining (and I know people will be quick to cherry pick a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica ) and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).

But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect.
> 
> 16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001, average ocean temps are rising (0.17C since 1969 on average), arctic ice is declining (and I know people will be quick to cherry pick a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica ) and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).
> 
> But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.



 :rofl: That's priceless!!! Milpoints inbound, but only a few because you forgot the sarcasm smilie. (  :sarcasm: )


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It's really funny reading through this giant loop of people caught in a false consensus effect.



Like the warmistas?



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> 16 of the hottest 17 years on record have occurred since 2001



Define "hottest".

One never sees that defined. Wonder why?

A slight increase within the statistical margin of error does not equate to a lot of additional hotness.

There are many ways to measure and analyze temperature changes as well, depending on the desired outcome of the report.

More surface temperature sensors are in urban areas - with large expanses of paved surfaces and industrial activity to skew the numbers - than rural ones.

The facts are that there has been no appreciable warming for almost two decades, and_*none*_ of the dire predictions of the warmistas have come to pass, and are not likely to.

Low-lying coastal areas are _*not*_ under a metre or several of arctic meltwater, and major tropical storms are neither more serious nor more numerous (in fact, they've declined of late).



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I know people will be quick to cherry pick



As warmistas are prone to do.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> a recent stat showing an up tick in arctic ice in certain, however the trend analysis needs to be looked at, and it's been an average of 2.5% decline per decade for sea ice area. And news stats show the decline is picking up again, with 287 gigaton loss per year in GL, and a 125 gigaton loss in Antarctica )



Danish Meteorological Institute Data Show GREENLAND ICE MASS BALANCE HAS GROWN IMPRESSIVELY Since 2014
http://notrickszone.com/2015/08/31/danish-meteorological-institute-data-show-greenland-ice-mass-balance-has-grown-impressively-since-2014/#sthash.aPKlXY9I.dpbs

And one of the comments:

"JaFree 3. September 2015 at 5:15 PM | Permalink The trends in the artic and antartic are cyclical, and they are approximately 180 degrees out of phase. Scientist have pretty much came to this conclusion, even the Warmists. Currently the Artic is due for a rebound and is showing signs and the anartic is due for a reduction after reaching record extents aand is showing signs. Please spare me the arguements that something strange is happening, most of us will be dead by the time future scientists are laughing at our current Warming Conclusions built on samples less than fly dung in the Pacific ocean relative the larger trends. NOBODY knows which way we are going other than 30 yr oscillations that are occasionally affected by Sun Min/Max and Stochastic events like Volcanos. If you want to find out who wins on this subject, you better find a way to extend your life. One bet I would make, is that our scientist have ZERO clues on this subject."

The climate is a complex thing.

Why the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are Not Collapsing
http://principia-scientific.org/why-the-greenland-and-antarctic-ice-sheets-are-not-collapsing/

"The actual break is inevitably a sudden event which can be built into a typical Greenhouse-Horror scenario. Early in 2007, when a piece of the Greenland ice shelf broke away, the scientists interviewed all said they were surprised at how suddenly it happened. How else but suddenly would a piece of ice shelf break off? And _*this was an area that was ice- free before the Little Ice Age. Arctic explorers used to get their ships a lot closer to northern Greenland than you can now*_."

And, speaking of the Little Ice Age, the man-made warming theory ignores history. The Norse farmed in Greenland beginning just over a thousand years ago, during the Mediaeval Warm Period, and before the planet cooled again. Who generated all of the carbon dioxide necessary to cause that "abnormal" heating trend, and how many people panicked? Global temperatures have just been returning to normal once more, yet a cooling period is about to start. Carbon dioxide fluctuations (especially, historically, man-made carbon dioxide fluctuations), do not influence temperatures as much as solar activity does - and past solar cycles can be directly correlated with periods of warming and cooling.

Mediaeval Warm Period
http://notrickszone.com/category/medieval-warm-period/#sthash.Djg8ox2w.dpbs



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> and CO2 levels are nearly 40% higher than they were in 1950, and nearly 33% higher than the highest historical prior to the industrial revolution).



So? Which came first? Increased carbon dioxide, or a pleasant rise in temperature to global norms? "Norm", of course, depends upon the time in which a person lived/lives - those who had to eke out an existence during the middle of a cool period and those who enjoyed the benefits of a much warmer one would have differing points of view regarding "normal" temperatures, but which would have been the happier?

Plants certainly love it.

Does increased atmospheric carbon dioxide cause warming, or does warming cause increased atmospheric carbon dioxide?

There is still argument about the former. As for the latter, take two two-litre bottles of pop. Put one in the fridge for several hours, and leave the other out in the pleasant warmth of a sunny day. Open both. Which gives up its dissolved carbon dioxide more readily?

An ocean nicely warmed during a natural solar warming cycle will, similarly, release more carbon dioxide than a nasty cold one during the trough of a horrible Little Ice Age.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> But, fine, you guys have created here a self licking ice cream cone where you can all reassure and cross support a opinion you feel more comfortable with and keep searching for cherry picked data points taken out of context to confirm the opinion you've already established.



Try and tell us that in twenty to thirty years.

In the meantime, I'll ignore the alarmists' self-licking iced cream cones, cross-supported opinions, cherry-picked, made-up, and falsified data, and false claims of consensus and settled science, and hypocrisy (Al Gore, David Suzuki, and Leonardo di Caprio etcetera, who each have the "carbon footprint" of a modest town), and enjoy the benefits of this magnificent Post-Mediaeval Warm Period for as long as I can, thank-you-very-much.

Food supply, heating bills, and a whole bunch of other things will suck a lot when the temperatures start dropping again.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2017)

We have palm trees on the southern most beaches of Ontario. I love it. ;D


----------



## QV (29 Jun 2017)

There is irrefutable proof of climate change.  But you have to examine the geological history of planet earth to have a better understanding.  Over the course of earth's history there have been many catastrophic events, extinction events, that have altered the climate one way or the other, essentially wiping the slate clean.  Humans have an impact but it is nothing compared to nature's impact.  There is a cycle of catastrophe that has been going on for a millennia.  Whether you drive a Prius or a Raptor, it ain't going to matter.  The catastrophic volcanic eruption (Yellow Stone?) or meteor strike (the Chelyabinsk meteor was only 20m imagine one 500m across) is what we need to worry about and plan for.  No carbon tax on earth is going to help with those.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jun 2017)

:goodpost:


----------



## NavyShooter (30 Jun 2017)

I will note that there have been many reports of late from the frozen battlefields of WWI in Italy.  These reports indicate that the bodies and weapons and equipment are being discovered because the ice and snow in the mountains is melting.

That means that the ice and snow is melting BACK TO THE LEVEL IT WAS AT 100 YEARS AGO.  

Is it global warming that's causing this?

Is it climate change? 

Does the earth have a cyclical pattern of warming/cooling that is coming back around?

I'm a skeptic, because from what I gather one of the premises of climate 'science' is that the impact of solar radiance from the sun is not factored in....and heavens to betsy, don't ever question because that means you are denying the science.


----------



## YZT580 (30 Jun 2017)

Of course climate changes.  There is no such thing as status quo in life and it is sheer arrogance to imagine that a puny little man can possibly alter the course of any change: definitely we can act on a small subset i.e. exterminating a single species such as the dodo or a micro-climate region by clear cutting or diverting water away.  Mt. St Helen's inserted more CO2 into the atmosphere than an entire years worth of burning coal.  Our politicians have a serious problem with reality that stems from their desire to control.


----------



## Remius (30 Jun 2017)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm a skeptic, because from what I gather one of the premises of climate 'science' is that the impact of solar radiance from the sun is not factored in....and heavens to betsy, don't ever question because that means you are denying the science.



Well there is a reason for that.  Solar Radiance hasn't increased in a while so that is a factor that can actually be ruled out if one is looking for a reason why the Earth might warming. 

The actual science explanation can be found here by the organisation that monitors solar radiance if you are able to understand most of the gobbledikook:  http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

I'm not debating the merits of climate change one way or the other, just the point about why Solar radiance isn't a considered a factor.


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2017)

"It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and _*as long as it is not used over solar cycle time scales*_ it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year."

There has been no appreciable global warming for almost two decades, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (yet is still a small fraction of the atmospheric composition).

Solar radiance is not a factor? Shut the sun off for a while and see. We could have 100% carbon dioxide atmosphere, and the globe would be much colder than it is.

When the sun sets in the evening, temperatures generally cool, and rise again when the sun rises (air mass temperatures vary, yes, but weather is the result of solar heating).

What bigger factor is there than solar radiance?

Our climate warms and cools in step with solar cycles. There is no bigger influence.


----------



## Remius (30 Jun 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and _*as long as it is not used over solar cycle time scales*_ it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year."
> 
> There has been no appreciable global warming for almost two decades, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases (yet is still a small fraction of the atmospheric composition).
> 
> ...



I think you misunderstand.  It is a factor in that it keeps the planet warm or cold depending on where the planet might be as it circles the sun and when it spins on itself to face the sun or not  but solar radiance is essentially the heat from the sun. It is shown by those measurements except there hasn't been any spike or increase one way or another.  Thus if you want to explain why the planet might be getting hotter it isn't solar radiance or an increase in it because there hasn't been any.  That's why it isn't a factor that can explain climate change or specifically why the earth might be getting warmer in the last little while.  think of solar radiance as though the sun is space heater set to a certain temperature.  The closer or further you are will change your temperature but the heat radiating from it remains constant.  The study is just showing no increase in heat from the sun for a few decades now. 

Solar cycles have roughly 11 year cycles and while it has been proven to have a small effect on climate change it doesn't explain why temperatures are much higher despite a decrease in solar activity in comparison to a century ago when solar activity was more intense.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Jun 2017)

Without getting into a (useless, as sceptics are sceptics as a unchangeable position, where climate change is concerned) debate on "global warming" or the "man-made" nature of it, I can attest to one thing: Every farmer in Canada will tell you that the climate IS changing and has been very noticeably modified in the past 15 years. I suspect that in a near (for agriculture) future, even the prairies will be able to start harvesting winter wheat.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (30 Jun 2017)

What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs that are just finally excited that they've agreed on something. They've figured it out, obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week. 

It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)

Good job cracking the case! Now sit back and tend to your November gardens.


----------



## YZT580 (30 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs that are just finally excited that they've agreed on something. They've figured it out, obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.
> 
> It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)he
> 
> Good job cracking the case! Now sit back and tend to your November gardens.



So if CO2 is the driving factor in the current changes explain why the early middle ages were warm enough to make both Greenland and Iceland (not to mention northern Newfoundland) appear attractive to Eric and his cronies. At the same time, the northwest passage was sufficiently clear that a significantly large Chinese fleet supposedly navigated successfully from west to east without significant difficulty. 
 There was certainly no increase in CO2 levels at that time.   Then explain further why your experts are more correct than my experts who provide the flip side of the argument.  When you have provided those explanations please explain why being warmer is so bad that we must expend countless millions to try and slow the rate of increase: what's wrong with harvesting winter wheat in Estevan?  

I just finished reading an article on the re-capture of Mosul.  The city has been almost totally destroyed with thousands of residents either displaced or dead but Iraq has defeated ISIS.  The point being that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  The operation was a total success but unfortunately, the patient died.  So too are the solutions to global warming (assuming your experts are correct and it is even happening because of CO2)


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (30 Jun 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So if CO2 is the driving factor in the current changes explain why the early middle ages were warm enough to make both Greenland and Iceland (not to mention northern Newfoundland) appear attractive to Eric and his cronies. At the same time, the northwest passage was sufficiently clear that a significantly large Chinese fleet supposedly navigated successfully from west to east without significant difficulty.
> There was certainly no increase in CO2 levels at that time.   Then explain further why your experts are more correct than my experts who provide the flip side of the argument.  When you have provided those explanations please explain why being warmer is so bad that we must expend countless millions to try and slow the rate of increase: what's wrong with harvesting winter wheat in Estevan?
> 
> I just finished reading an article on the re-capture of Mosul.  The city has been almost totally destroyed with thousands of residents either displaced or dead but Iraq has defeated ISIS.  The point being that sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.  The operation was a total success but unfortunately, the patient died.  So too are the solutions to global warming (assuming your experts are correct and it is even happening because of CO2)



I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> think of solar radiance as though the sun is space heater set to a certain temperature.  The closer or further you are will change your temperature but the heat radiating from it remains constant.



The sun is not set to a certain temperature, however, and its output does not remain constant.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> The study is just showing no increase in heat from the sun for a few decades now.



And there has been no measurable warming for about two decades.

Coincidence?



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Solar cycles have roughly 11 year cycles and while it has been proven to have a small effect on climate change it doesn't explain why temperatures are much higher despite a decrease in solar activity in comparison to a century ago when solar activity was more intense.



There are longer cycles as well, although these do not yet seem to be well-understood (and the same is true of all climate-related matters - the "science" is far from "settled").

The Sunspot Cycle
https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

"The Maunder Minimum

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

The Weakest Solar Cycle in 100 Years
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/the-weakest-solar-cycle-in-100-years/

Waiting For The Next Sunspot Cycle: 2019-2030
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sten-odenwald/waiting-for-the-next-suns_b_11812282.html

"Forecasters are already starting to make predictions for what might be in store as our sun winds down its current sunspot cycle in a few years. Are we in for a very intense cycle of solar activity, or the beginning of a century-long absence of sunspots and a rise in colder climates?"

"The bad news is that some studies show sunspot magnetic field strengths have been declining since 2000 and are already close to the minimum needed to sustain sunspots on the solar surface. This is also supported by independent work in 2015 published in the journal Nature. By Cycle 25 or 26, magnetic fields may be too weak to punch through the solar surface and form recognizable sunspots at all, spelling the end of the sunspot cycle phenomenon, and the start of another Maunder Minimum cooling period perhaps lasting until 2100."

And those "hottest" claims...

2016 Global Temperature: The Pause Never Went Away - 'Hottest' Claims Within Margin of Error
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/19/2016-global-temperature-the-pause-never-went-away-hottest-claims-within-margin-of-error/

"Above graph shows the 2016 temperature without the El Nino contribution, as calculated by the Met Office. 2015 – a year with an equally strong El Nino effect – is interpolated. It shows that the pause hasn’t gone away. It has simply been interrupted by two very strong El Nino years. By removing this temporary El Nino contribution from the Met Office’s 2016 data, it becomes obvious that global average temperatures would be essentially identical to where they were in 2014. Without the El Nino 2016 would have been statistically in the same region as the previous 15 years.
According to NOAA 2016 was 0.07°F warmer than 2015, which is 0.04°C. Considering the error in the annual temperature is +/- 0.1°C this makes 2016 statistically indistinguishable from 2015, making any claim of a record using NOAA data specious."

Observational Errors and Global Average Temperature Statistics
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/temperaturerrors.htm

Why NYT Hid The Numbers For The 'Hottest Year On Record'
http://thefederalist.com/2017/01/18/nyt-hid-numbers-hottest-year-record/

"They should have been in the first paragraph, but at least they’re in the third paragraph: “This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C—within the 0.1C margin of error—but….” There’s stuff after the “but,” but it’s just somebody’s evaluation. Even this report can’t give us a straight fact and leave it alone.

For the benefit of science reporters and other people who are unfamiliar with the scientific method, let me point out that the margin of error for these measurements is plus or minus one tenth of a degree Celsius. The temperature difference that is supposedly being measured is one one-hundredth of a degree - one tenth the size of the margin of error. To go back to sports reporting, that’s like saying that the football is on the 10-yard line - give or take a hundred yards."

Climate Change, Statistical Significance, and Science
http://www.senseaboutscienceusa.org/climate-change-statistical-significance-and-science/

Deceptive Temperature Record Claims
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

"But government spokespeople rarely mention the inconvenient fact that these records are being set by less than the uncertainty in the statistics. NOAA claims an uncertainty of 14 one-hundredths of a degree in its temperature averages, or near twice the amount by which they say the record was set. NASA says that their data is typically accurate to one tenth of a degree, five times the amount by which their new record was set.

"So, the new temperature records are meaningless. Neither agency knows whether a record was set.

"Such misrepresentations are now commonplace in NOAA and NASA announcements. They are regularly proclaiming monthly and yearly records set by less than the uncertainties in the measurements. Scientists within the agencies know that this is dishonest."

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz4lVcK2T6f

"Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged 'record' amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous 'warmest year', of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much."

It's not "hotter" than last year, or the year before, or the year before that. It's not even "warmer", by any noticeable amount, or even luke-warmer. This is merely withholding inconvenient information - like actual numbers - and carefully selecting words to frighten and deceive.

There are so many different data sets being bandied about, and so many interpretations, and so many agendae. Regardless, none of the dire predictions of the alarmists have come to pass, and history records previous warm and cold periods, and shows that the warm periods were far more conducive to human and other life than the cold ones.

There are indications of another Maunder Minimum cold period on its way, too, but that cannot be predicted with much more accuracy than death by sunlight.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Without getting into a (useless, as sceptics are sceptics as a unchangeable position, where climate change is concerned)



And the dogmatic believers hold equally-unchangeable positions.

Science, however, relies on sceptics in order to advance. If nobody ever questioned "accepted truth", we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

I question pretty much everything.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Every farmer in Canada will tell you that the climate IS changing and has been very noticeably modified in the past 15 years. I suspect that in a near (for agriculture) future, even the prairies will be able to start harvesting winter wheat.



Changes do not occur simultaneously around the planet. Arctic ice losses have been matched by Antarctic ice gains. Winters are generally warmer and shorter in Canada than in the seventies - noticeably so. There have been a few El Ninos/El Ninas during the past few years that influence our climate.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> What we have here is just a collection of ex-MWOs



Sorry. I do not conform to your model.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> obviously the scientists are wrong because one spot in Greenland saw more ice and it was cold here last week.



_*Some*_ scientists are wrong, and _*some*_ scientists are right, to various degrees. Not all are pushing the warmista faith.

There is still far too little understanding of any of the variables that influence either long- or short-term climate fluctuations, and that is the _*only*_ certainty at present.

I do look at all sides of the argument, plus history, plus current events. I see the previous warm periods that cannot be explained by human activity yet match with solar cycles. I see the failure of alarmist models to reflect actual conditions.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> It's willful blindness to the evidence that's plain to see and the experts (but I mean, obviously the experts are wrong/in the pocket of solar panel companies right?)



It's willful blindness to only look at one side and religiously follow the loudest and scariest without question. No scientist works for free. All need to court research grants. There is much money being poured into the warmista side by those who stand to profit, as this has become a huge wealth-redistribution programme. Al Gore, David Suzuki, Leonardo di Caprio and their ilk are getting richer by pushing this fraud.


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:



I'd never heard of it either, but:

http://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/31-annexes-30-31-32-evidence-of-chinese-fleets-to-northern-europe-%E2%80%93-vice-admiral-chou-wen/

http://www.economist.com/node/5381851

Yet maybe not:

http://www.1421exposed.com/html/1421_and_all_that_junk.html

Somewhat related:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/06/climate-craziness-of-the-week-nw-passage-open-first-time-in-history-and-all-that/


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jun 2017)

All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?


----------



## Loachman (30 Jun 2017)

Trump/Harper/The Russians/Carbon Dioxide.


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?



move to Saturn, but don't touch the rings!!


----------



## larry Strong (30 Jun 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I'm going to need a reference/citation on the chinese fleet through the northwest passage  :rofl:



http://www.economist.com/node/5381851


Cheers
Larry


----------



## YZT580 (1 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?


Our last act will be to have one final laugh at the idiots who were concerned about CO2 raising the temperature by 2 C over the course of an entire century.  There are far greater things to worry about


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Jul 2017)

I have 2 issues with the current "climate change" hypers. 

1.  No one ever talks about the benefits of what the planet looked like when it was warmer in terms of agricultural productivity.

2.  No one ever talks about the opportunity cost of NOT reallocating more of our "environmental budget" to preserve critical areas from deforestation, to halting airborne heavy and water borne heavy metals, or to cleaning up the massive pollution in our oceans and lakes.  To me this makes it certain that this so-called environmental movement has been co-opted by i.  The industrial corporations producing the technology used to reduce CO2, ii. Governments who are willing to jump on the bandwagon in order to create a new tax revenue source.

Until I see changes to these two key issues, I am firmly in the camp that this is a dog and pony show that is all about money, and has nothing to do with what's really best for our planet and those that are buying in, despite their best intentions, are making things worse rather than better  as forests are still being clear cut, the oceans are still being raped, and these people are out rallying about a harmless gas that can be easily filtered out by zero-costs plants and trees.

Sad....


Matthew.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jul 2017)

Stumbled across this article today, which raises the question about the economics and sustainability of replacing current power generation with so-called green projects:


Monumental, unsustainable environmental impacts

Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy would inflict major land, wildlife, resource damage


I make no warranty as to the veracity of the figures, or the soundness of the argument. Of course neither do I maintain that there is no bias at work, but the article does raise some valid questions. For example, is it reasonable to grow fuel crops on land that should be used for food crops?


----------



## Loachman (3 Jul 2017)

https://realclimatescience.com/


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (4 Jul 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All this talk about the sun has me wondering what the Climate Change Folk are going to say when the sun becomes a RED GIANT and swallows up all the planets out past Mars?



Should be good for another 3 or 4 billion years. Shouldn't be any threat to humanity since we'll certainly no longer be human at that point.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (4 Jul 2017)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> http://www.economist.com/node/5381851
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



Did you read it? They found a map that some guy named Gavin Menzies says is from 1421, they weren't sure if it was real, said they'll get the test results back in Feb 2007 and we haven't heard about that story since. It's nearly universally panned as lacking any shred of reliable evidence. In most references I've found Menzies is referred to a "pseudo-historian". 

Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis? 

I mean, take for instance, we have the current prevailing climate science, supported by mounds of evidence, supported by observable real world events, supported by the vast majority of the world's scientific community and you guys think it's all made up. On the other hand, some guy, universally dismissed, shows up out of the blue with what I can only assume at this point, a fake map, and you immediately agree China sailed through the Northwest Passage nearly 400 years before anyone else without even a ounce of hesitation.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2017)

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Did you read it? They found a map that some guy named Gavin Menzies says is from 1421, they weren't sure if it was real, said they'll get the test results back in Feb 2007 and we haven't heard about that story since. It's nearly universally panned as lacking any shred of reliable evidence. In most references I've found Menzies is referred to a "pseudo-historian".



And I posted both sides of the story in Reply 2811 above.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis?



Honestly how sketchy and nonsensical does something have to be before you guys will use even a tiny bit of critical analysis?

Seriously.

This fraud has moved from sketchy "science" to religious dogma for warmistas, and few dare to question it lest they be branded heretics.

Natural climate fluctuations due to solar cycles have been going on forever. we're not causing it, and we cannot stop it.

I'm not looking forward to the next Little Ice Age, and, while being able to say "I told you so" in twenty years will not make up for the annoyance of the cold, mountainous piles of snow disrupting life in urban areas, and food shortages, it will be satisfying nonetheless.



			
				RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> I mean, take for instance, we have the current prevailing climate science, supported by mounds of evidence, supported by observable real world events, supported by the vast majority of the world's scientific community and you guys think it's all made up. On the other hand, some guy, universally dismissed, shows up out of the blue with what I can only assume at this point, a fake map, and you immediately agree China sailed through the Northwest Passage nearly 400 years before anyone else without even a ounce of hesitation.



It's not as "prevailing" as you think, the mounds on the reality side are at least as high, there are no consistent "observable real world events", the "vast majority" is half-vast at best, and a lot of it is indeed made up.

The scary predictions of the warmistas - coastal regions under water, deadly heat waves, dramatically-increased rate and severity of tropical storms etcetera - still have yet to pass, many years after we should have almost all been wiped out.

None of these events have been observed in the real world.

What was the source of the carbon dioxide - a naturally-occurring constituent of our atmosphere that is essential to plant life, and therefore essential to animal and human life - that caused the Mediaeval Warm Period, during which human civilization flourished?


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2017)

It's hard to say.  I certainly don't subscribe to the celebrity warnings and what not but do see some alarming trends that are in fact man made that I believe are not helping the situation. 

1. Deforestation.  It's happening at a faster rate than ever since the mid-late 1800's.  This is an easy fix with carefully managed reforestation and cutting.  

This I believe is a, if not the, major factor on climate change.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2017)

Okay - who caused enough deforestation to drive the Mediaeval Warm Period?

Floki was building a lot of longships around then, but not that many.


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2017)

Well there are plenty of known factors during that period.  But temperatures were more in line with mid 20th century periods when solar activity was comparable.  For whatever reason it's hotter now than it was then globally and the reasons are not the same since those reasons are currently not present. 

Would you not agree that mass deforestation can have an adverse affect on climate?  I think it does to be honest and I think that science has a good grasp on that part.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> For whatever reason it's hotter now than it was then globally and the reasons are not the same since those reasons are currently not present.



There does not yet appear to be farming activity on Greenland.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Would you not agree that mass deforestation can have an adverse affect on climate?



There have been major environmental effects, but climate effects? I don't think so.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I think that science has a good grasp on that part.



Science doesn't have a good grasp on anything climate-related. Our climate is complex.

And science is never "settled", no matter how much the warmistas try and push that line to shut down opposing views.


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There does not yet appear to be farming activity on Greenland.
> 
> There have been major environmental effects, but climate effects? I don't think so.
> 
> ...



I'm not entirely sure what you mean by farming in Greenland.  

I'm curious why you would think why deforestation does not impact climate? Or specifically what other than the sun might affect climate? Or are you saying that only the sun has an effect?

Your last points I agree with.  It is in fact complex.


----------



## Loachman (4 Jul 2017)

There were Norse farming settlements on Greenland during the Mediaeval Warm Period. As temperatures cooled, crops and livestock became untenable, fish populations moved further from shore, and increasing sea ice prevented replenishment ships. The people became smaller in stature due to malnourishment. It is unclear if they moved elsewhere - Iceland or Scandinavia - or died out.

The Sun is our only source of heat and light. It is, therefore, the biggest influence. Shorter-term fluctuations are due to El Nino/La Nina effects, and possible similar ones elsewhere (I have not looked to see if this phenomenon occurs in other oceans), but that is not climate. Ocean currents also influence weather.

I don't recall any articles/papers claiming climate effects from deforestation. The only articles that I've seen discuss local environmental damage, and disruption/destruction of indigenous societies.

One of the unfortunate results of "climate change" obsession is the distraction from general, but less-scary, forms of pollution and recycling frauds (a lot of hazardous waste is simply shipped to third-world countries and dumped, to the detriment of local wildlife and human populations).

There is much that we could do better, but too many people are obsessed with carbon dioxide but none of the other poisons. There are far worse chemicals in automobile exhausts

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/02/06/511843443/are-we-eating-our-fleece-jackets-microfibers-are-migrating-into-field-and-food

https://qz.com/793760/synthetic-clothes-are-polluting-oceans/

There are recent posts discussing the hidden environmental costs of "clean" energy and electric cars.

Everything has a consequence, big or small, but few are aware of that.

PETA protests against the use of fur - a natural and renewable resource -  but synthetic replacements harm animals in other ways.

Silly PETA.

Far too many people have far too much excessive clothing as well, and most of it ends up in dumps. The synthetic fabrics will hang around forever.


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2017)

I appreciate the detailed response. 

The thing is that tropical forests do a lot more to absorb carbon than we previously thought.  They contribute to keeping the planet cool.  The problem is that those forests are the most at risk and have suffered the most in regards to deforestation by developing nations. So while you disagree I do think it has an impact on climate or at least temperatures.  NASA has a few good articles on that.  I'll try and dig them up. 

Now I agree with a lot of what you said after.  I don't subscribe to some sort of liberal conspiracy about global warming or climate change to advance an agenda.  I also don't think that the world is ending either.  The left is definitely misguided on how to tackle climate change.  Remember corn based ethanol was the great saviour back in the day? Except it created a bigger mess.  But I do believe we are having an impact and that action should be taken, but I don't necessarily agree with the knee jerk policies that make no sense economically or environmentally.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jul 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Remember corn based ethanol was the great saviour back in the day? Except it created a bigger mess.



One of those unintended consequences was that it increased the price of beer.

More corn = less wheat and barley = less malt = higher input costs = more expensive beer = Bastards!


----------



## Remius (4 Jul 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> One of those unintended consequences was that it increased the price of beer.
> 
> More corn = less wheat and barley = less malt = higher input costs = more expensive beer = Bastards!



More expensive beer=angry people=burning things=carbon=climate change.  Lower beer prices and save the world.


----------



## QV (4 Jul 2017)

I don't have time to look it up, but IIRC the earth is greener than ever as a result of increased co2.

Check it out


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (5 Jul 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> I don't have time to look it up, but IIRC the earth is greener than ever as a result of increased co2.
> 
> Check it out



At the time of the dinosaurs, the time of earth's greatest bio-density, it is estimated that CO2 was at 5 times current levels.  I have yet to see a debate if returning to that level of abundant life is necessarily a bad thing.  On the contrary, it could be argued that to sustain even our current population, additional CO2 would actually help the planet. 

It would seem to me that "scientists" should be hosting these kind of debates instead of rushing to attack those that disagree with their views.  The reality being is if you actually tried to host such a set of debates on a western university campus you'd likely get shouted down by the "settled science" crew who are much more focused on the importance of protecting their adopted "brand", than honestly seeking anything resembling truth.

The fathers of science would be appalled....


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> At the time of the dinosaurs, the time of earth's greatest bio-density, it is estimated that CO2 was at 5 times current levels.  I have yet to see a debate if returning to that level of abundant life is necessarily a bad thing.  On the contrary, it could be argued that to sustain even our current population, additional CO2 would actually help the planet.
> 
> It would seem to me that "scientists" should be hosting these kind of debates instead of rushing to attack those that disagree with their views.  The reality being is if you actually tried to host such a set of debates on a western university campus you'd likely get shouted down by the "settled science" crew who are much more focused on the importance of protecting their adopted "brand", than honestly seeking anything resembling truth.
> 
> The fathers of science would be appalled....




Yes, the whole debate by proponents of climate change is the rolling up of coastal cities, like human civilisation must be forever.  There are dozens of cities in Greece and Asia that were sea ports that are now miles inland.  The planet changes, continents pull apart, mountain erode and grow, forest burn and re-grow.  It's nature, man's mark on the world is not forever, Halifax, New York and elsewhere will just have to get used to it.  A warmer planet means more potential for food growth in more areas of the world as water locked in ice becomes part of the evaporation/rain cycle.  Warmer areas of the earth can be watered through technology as Saudi Arabia gets much of it's potable water now.  Adapt and overcome.


----------



## Lightguns (5 Jul 2017)

First I seen this one:

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2017)

2 for 2 Lightguns.  Thanks


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Jul 2017)

What makes this real interesting is that Andrew Weaver is now on the Government side of the Legislature in BC. If he is in court, fighting a defamation suit...how does that stay out of the press? How does he make it to vote when the house is at 43-43 ( minus the speaker)?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2017)

Tis the humans fault that the North American ice sheet is gone. Millions of tons of ice gone and no one cares.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2017)

It hasn't gone.

It just moved to Antarctica for a change of scenery.


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jul 2017)

Many of my clients are scientists of the 'earth' variety. 

Talking to them about this is amusing and results in a variety of comments indicating we're not smart enough, as a species, to really know what's going on yet, and don't spend much money trying to figure it out (compared with, for example, global botox expenditures).

If anyone claims they know exact causes and effects related to environmental changes is probably a liar, or a politician (Same thing, of course).

Meanwhile enjoy this balmy interglacial period, which we can't adequately explain, while you can: 

"No completely satisfactory theory has been proposed to account for Earth's history of glaciation. The cause of glaciation may be related to several simultaneous factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation


----------



## Lightguns (6 Jul 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 2 for 2 Lightguns.  Thanks



Yeah, I am on a non-angry roll today, must be the new meds.........


----------



## GR66 (6 Jul 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Many of my clients are scientists of the 'earth' variety.
> 
> Talking to them about this is amusing and results in a variety of comments indicating we're not smart enough, as a species, to really know what's going on yet, and don't spend much money trying to figure it out (compared with, for example, global botox expenditures).
> 
> ...



I think that environmentalists made a big mistake and missed a huge opportunity by insisting on the human CAUSED climate change narative.  The climate system is so complex and variable that a single factor cannot be proven to be the single cause.

If instead they had pointed out that we appear to be in a warming period and that there could be  serious environmental and economic effects as a result and that every indication is that our massive carbon emissions are speeding up this process and making the potential negative impacts worse, then I don't think there would have been as much opposition. 

I also think that the single minded focus on carbon emissions is a mistake.   The reason that warming is expected to have such a negative impact is because all our other human activities have left the ecosystem in such poor shape.  A balanced approach pushing for us to address our overall negative impact on the biosphere,  including land use, habitat loss, deforestation,  over fishing and toxic waste production (including carbon) would be much harder to argue against and would likely have a greater overall positive impact on the environment (including greenhouse gas emissions)

 :2c:


----------



## Lightguns (6 Jul 2017)

As the other gentleman stated, lived once thrived in a more infinite variety at a time when carbon output were something like 10 times higher and all naturally sourced.  The world was once rich in bio-diversity and infinite food sources far superior to our artificial sources of today.

Life is not ending, it's evolving, it's nature.  Humans have no control, even the eco-warriors are not important to the survival of the planet despite their belief they are superior.  Heck, even the Cornwallis statue will return to earth........


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jul 2017)

Not so eco-friendly after all:

EU destroys 700,000 hectares of rainforest for biofuels

The EU wants to save our climate with supposedly green biofuels and has deemed palm oil "sustainable". 

More at link.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jul 2017)

More of the same Mike



> Last year, 6m tonnes of “wood pellets” harvested from forests in Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Virginia were shipped across the Atlantic, to be burnt in renewable “biomass” power plants. This was almost double the 2013 figure – the US “wood pellet” industry is booming.
> 
> Demand is largely driven by European countries wanting to meet targets set out in the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. Half of the pellets exported from the US were used to generate electricity in Britain’s massive Drax power station, which is slowly converting from coal to biomass in order to reduce carbon emissions and claim valuable “Renewable Obligation certificates” for green electricity. So can it really be sustainable to transport wood halfway round the world to burn in a power station?



http://theconversation.com/british-power-stations-are-burning-wood-from-us-forests-to-meet-renewables-targets-54969

The Bishop of Durham started his coal cartel in the 1150s, just a hundred years after the Normans showed up in Britain.  He became exceedingly rich selling coal to London because Britain was burning wood faster than it could grow it.

The only people that could afford a Yule Log were the Barons.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jul 2017)

Just to add fuel to the fire*:

Air pollution in London passes levels in Beijing... and wood burners are making problem worse

Air pollution in London passed levels in Beijing this week, figures have shown, with popular wood burning stoves blamed for exacerbating the problem.

On Monday London mayor Sadiq Khan issued the highest air pollution alert in London for the first time, and said on Tuesday that the capital’s ‘filthy air’ is now a ‘health crisis.’

Readings at 3pm on Monday showed that air at locations in the capital were worse than in notoriously smoggy Beijing, hitting a peak 197 micrograms per cubic metre for particulate matter on the Air Quality Index. Pollution in the Chinese city only reached 190, which is still deemed ‘unhealthy.’

More at link

*pun intended


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2017)

Cor.  Woudn't it be marvellous if somebody could come up with something that was readily available, didn't require cutting down forests and produced less smoke?

Lessee now.  Wood.  Coal.  Brickettes. Coke.........and back to Wood again.






That makes me all homesick again.  London 1959 to 1963.   The smell of hydrocarbons in the air and double-decker buses creeping right up to your shoulder in the middle of the road before you saw them.

Glorious.....  [


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Jul 2017)

'Clean Coal' technological advances are likely our best hope to break the cycle of global dependence on cheap Middle Eastern based sources of fossil fuel energy, while reducing carbon emmissions. Go Science!

Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Clean Coal' technological advances are likely our best hope to break the cycle of global dependence on cheap Middle Eastern based sources of fossil fuel energy, while reducing carbon emmissions. Go Science!
> 
> Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020.
> 
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx



The biggest issue in London then, and now apparently, is the proliferation of individual exhaust stacks, residentially known as chimneys. It is impossible astonishingly hard and/or expensive to efficiently manage all of those fires so as to maximize burn efficiency, minimize waste and manage the resulting pollution.

Putting all of the energy of all of those fires into one location, with one fire to manage and one exhaust stack from which to harvest the pollutants while releasing that glorious fertilizer known as Carbon Dioxide is a vastly more sensible strategy.

I am a fan of electrical vehicles - IN THE CITY - for exactly the same reason.  Burn coal in one well managed location and export electricity for the local grid - including for powering designer golf carts for local running. I can accept reasonably priced hybrid diesel electric pickup trucks outside of major Urban centres if their costs are comparable to internal combustion vehicles.  But I digress.... again.

In the bad old days of British coal smog, rather than Lousiana wood smog, the coal was actually processed into two streams - coal gas (also known as water gas or city gas and largely clean burning methane) and coke which was used both in the Bessemer furnaces at Sheffield and in homes.  Both the coke and the coal gas burned cleanly.  An awful lot cleaner than any wood fire I have seen and cheaper.

And for the record:

Electric vehicles have been around a long while - circa 1959 to 1963











This is the way we used to get our milk delivered in smoggy London.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2017)

Never miss a chance to remind virtuous people that their "electric vehicle" is, in Canada, primarily powered by natural gas, coal, uranium, and large flooded areas


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Never miss a chance to remind virtuous people that their "electric vehicle" is, in Canada, primarily powered by natural gas, coal, uranium, and large flooded areas



 :goodpost:    :cheers:

I suppose you could add "dead birds and bats" to that list.


----------



## RangerRay (8 Jul 2017)

Not to mention the horrific mining practices to extract the toxic metals used to make the batteries for said cars…


----------



## Loachman (10 Jul 2017)

Many embedded links in the original article:

http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/leading-climate-scientist-science-debate-un-american/

Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be 'Un-American'

You'd think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers - but apparently not.

By Julie Kelly 
July 6, 2017

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the 'March for Science' as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was "science not silence": many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that "the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities - the paths of communication must go both ways."

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a "red-team, blue-team" exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other's evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how "consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the "settled," "hoax" and "don't know" memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change."

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and "very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated." (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that "the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it's something we hope to provide as part of our leadership."

Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Salter, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that "calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science."

In a July 1 post full of irony, leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira blasts the climate contest: "We don't want red team/blue team because science doesn't line up monolithically for or against scientific positions." What? Never mind the 97 percent consensus claim that's been shoved down our throats for the past decade. (Caldeira also wrote just a few months ago that "the evidence for human-induced global warming is now so strong that no sensible person can deny a human role in these temperature increases. We can argue about what we should or should not do ... but the argument is over.")

Caldeira then smugly questions why "politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business?" (Shall we then ask why scientists who have never engaged in any legislative or political endeavor in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell lawmakers how to conduct their business?)

Climate Scientists Fear Losing Power, Nothing Else

Then there is the interminably-petulant and prosaic Michael Mann, who routinely dishes out the "denier" name to anyone who crosses him, and recently compared himself to a Holocaust survivor. Mann told ThinkProgress that the red-team concept is "un-American" and a ruse to "run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization."

Aha! Right there is the key objection to the entire exercise: the risk to their political power. These activists know that climate change long ago stopped being about science. It is a liberal, big-government agenda wrapped up in a green cloak of superiority and virtue. For the past decade, the pro-climate crusaders have ruled policymaking, from international organizations to federal agencies down to your local park district. The Trump administration poses the first threat to their dominance, and instead of being up to the task of defending it — in public, with evidence and not platitudes, facing scientists they have smeared for not being part of the 'consensus' – they want to walk away.

That's why I hope Pruitt proceeds with it. Let the blue team have an empty bench that will show American exactly what they think of 'science' – and them.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2017)

More on Climate Change alarmism and how it is hurting science. As a side note, Michael Mann (the climatologist, not the movie director) is in contempt of court in BC in his SLAPP suit, for refusing to deliver the raw data or algorithms used in the "Hocky Stick" graph), so appeals to authority will have to be tempered, as the article says, to those wha are _actual_ authorities:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/dadaist-science/article/2008803



> *Dadaist Science*
> Look under the hood on climate change "science" and what you see isn't pretty.
> 6:45 AM, JUL 13, 2017 | By NATHAN COFNAS
> 
> ...


----------



## Loachman (13 Jul 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a side note, Michael Mann (the climatologist, not the movie director) is in contempt of court in BC in his SLAPP suit, for refusing to deliver the raw data or algorithms used in the "Hocky Stick" graph



So claimed in a recent article (that may have been posted here earlier). His lawyer has refuted that assertion, however, and no corroboration can be found.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jul 2017)

Mark Steyn’s Stand Against Climate Alarmism: In-Depth with the Climate Crybully Conniption-Inducer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wQp0Ir5Vc


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2017)

Couple of interesting articles:



> *Humans have been altering tropical forests for at least 45,000 years
> *
> 
> Tens of thousands of years of controlled burns, forest management and clear-cutting have implications for modern conservation efforts – and shatter the image of the “untouched” tropical forest.
> ...



http://www.shh.mpg.de/539730/tropical_forest_45000


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2017)

And this one on Green Arabia:



> *46 Prehistoric Sites with Paleolakes Discovered in 'Green Arabia'*
> 
> Forty-six sites containing artifacts, mainly stone tools, have been discovered beside the remains of ancient lakes in the western Nefud desert in Saudi Arabia.
> 
> ...



https://www.livescience.com/59998-46-prehistoric-sites-saudi-arabia.html







https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2015/09/15/out-of-africa-and-into-arabia.html


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2017)

Scott Adams draws a Dilbert cartoon and much hilarity ensues. It seems some Yale profs wanted to rebut Adams, but ended up reenacting the cartoon is slow motion instead (and without the funny graphics or sound effects of the Dilbert animated cartoon either):

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/dilbert-cartoon-climate-change-prompts-rebuttal-yale
http://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14



> *Dilbert Cartoon on Climate Change Prompts Rebuttal from Yale*
> A Dilbert cartoon on climate change appears to have irked climatologists and a communications group at Yale University.
> Ross McKitrick | May 31, 2017
> 
> ...


----------



## c_canuk (17 Aug 2017)

As much as I support the anti AGW position, I cringe everytime I hear you guys bash 2 things. Solar and Electric cars.

1) Modern solar panels are made out of sand essentially. the chemicals used to make them active is extracted from food dyes. Yes some panels are created in unsustainable ways, but those are becoming the less efficient and more expensive ways.

2) An electric car's propulsion system is ~90% efficient vs a traditional car's 10-25% at best. Yes I know, please hold off the crowing about "yeah but where do the electrons come from?" They come from a plethora of different power plants. About 30% are fossil fuel based.

Now think about that. If electric cars weren't 3 times more efficient than electric cars, they'd still pollute 70% less than a traditional car. Or if we don't ignore the efficiency savings, but power them with coal factories only, (which run at about 80-90% efficiency) they would still be twice as efficient. 

i.e. 

Traditional car - 100 Units Chemical energy = 20 units Kinetic + 80 Units heat.

That is, it burns 100 units of gasoline, produces ~20 units of kinetic energy and 80 units of heat. (we'll ignore the distribution system's inefficiencies and costs to highlight how wasteful traditional cars are)


Electric car

100 Units Chemical energy = 90 units electricity + 10 units heat
90 Units Electrical Energy = 80 Units of chemical battery energy + 7 units line losses + 3 units heat loss
80 units of chemical battery energy = 75 units electricity + 5 units heat energy
75 units of electrical energy = 70 units of kinetic energy + 5 units heat energy.

That is, 100 units of fossil fuel enters a power plant running at a constant speed, with no limits to efficiency since it's not designed to be mobile or quickly throttle able. it achieves about 90% efficiency, then it's transmitted to your charging station, where there is a 7% line loss and 3% heat loss in storing the power in your battery. Then when you press the accelerator, there is 5 units lost in heat energy where the chemical energy is converted back to electrical energy. Then when the electricity is converted to kinetic, another 5 units are lost.

70 units of kinetic energy vs 20 units.

It's not that electric cars are so good, it's that gasoline engine cars are so horribly inefficient. The only reason gasoline cars, which were invented after electric cars, won out; was that batteries at the time could not compete with the energy density and portability of liquid fuel.

These days, that problem is largely solved, and if the new glass based batteries work out, will surpass gasoline, while using mainly sand in their manufacture.

Oil will remain important as our unsurpassed advanced materials feedstock. It's barbaric imo, that we're squandering most of it simply to burn for heat. That is what I fear we'll be lampooned for in 100 years.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Aug 2017)

C_Canuk,

Re: Solar. I think you are wrong. Here is why:

https://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

TLR version- the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) to run a modern industrial society is at least 7 (that is, an input of 1 "unit" of energy to mine, make and use an energy source must yield at least 7 units of energy to make it worthwhile). Solar is nowhere close to 7. And it is intermittent. Try going solar in Edmonton, or Yellowknife in December (I stipulate that, in July you do much, much better in both those places). Solar, in my view, is best used in remote areas where transmission lines are too expensive to run.

Re: electric cars. A coastal BC (the best cased scenario for an electric car in all of Canada) based Nissan Leaf gets you, at best, a range of 150kms. Fine, if all you do is commute.

What happens when you want drive to Kamloops?

Our what happens if you try this in Edmonton, in Jan, at -30c? Not only is battery storage affected, but you have to heat the interior of the car. And I believe that you glossed over conversion losses inherent in any battery charging system.

The fact of the matter is that the energy density available per litre of gasoline still far out weighs the equivalent weight of any battery that I am aware of on the market today. Again, pure electric cars have niche applications and are just not practical in most of Canada, 6 months of the year, IMHO.

I agree, it is a neat technology.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2017)

C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?

Much of what I can find on the Internet says that internal combustion powered vehicles average about 25-40% (gasoline being on the lower end and diesels on the higher), not 10% to 25%. Sure it's Wikipedia, but at least it's a reference.  Heck, the Wartsila-Sulzer RTC-96 low-speed marine diesel as fitted to the Emma Maersk, is 53% efficient.

Perhaps you could point us to references providing the most recent internal combustion efficiency figures in the 10-25% range?

Next, please let us know what coal plants are getting 80-90% thermodynamic efficiency to charge the EVs, I want to buy shares. I can only find efficiencies of 29-45%. (Ref: Figure 13 in Page 15 of "International comparison of fossil power efficiency and CO2 intensity - Update 2014, Mitsubishi.")  That really doesn't make your coal/oil/gas-fired generating plant-powered EV two to three times more efficient....um, it kind of makes them the same.  

Oh, wait...I see you may have forgotten to add the electrical charge/discharge losses of the lithium-ion batteries as used in EVs. Don't forget to add that into your calculations too for EV efficiency.

Now, how about that travelling for distances longer than the EV's per charge range?  Canada's a big country you know...although that doesn't matter for folks who would use an EV  just to commute around the city.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (17 Aug 2017)

When a car's electricity tank can be refilled as quickly as another car's gasoline tank, I might become a little more interested - but still not enough.

On the other hand, if a large-enough move towards electric vehicles forces construction of natural gas generating stations in, say, Mississauga and Oakville, at least some E-value (Entertainment not Electric) will result.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?
> 
> Much of what I can find on the Internet says that internal combustion powered vehicles average about 25-40% (gasoline being on the lower end and diesels on the higher), not 10% to 25%. Sure it's Wikipedia, but at least it's a reference.  Heck, the Wartsila-Sulzer RTC-96 low-speed marine diesel as fitted to the Emma Maersk, is 53% efficient.
> 
> ...



I worked, albeit over a decade ago, as a coal handler in one of Canada's newest coal powerplants.  Efficiency was 33-34%.   8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if a large-enough move towards electric vehicles forces construction of natural gas generating stations in, say, Mississauga and Oakville, at least some E-value (Entertainment not Electric) will result.



Especially if they blow up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2017)

Has anyone seen the ecological and environmental damage they do digging out the components of these batteries. The oil sands look like my grandmother's garden compared to the huge open pit mines for lithium. The oil patch returns their property back to nature. These huge open pit mines are there forever.

Any possible carbon footprint reduction for your electric car is offset by the huge carbon footprint required to make your battery.

The whole thing is a farce. Everything used by green energy is manufactured using petroleum. They will never recover the cost of their complete inefficiency. We are actually increasing the amount of petroleum required for today's world due to manufacturing. If you wish to move back to the 1700's. Stop drilling and processing world wide. Everything will come to a total stop in a matter of weeks. I'm not saying to trash green energy, but turbines and panels have to drop exceedingly in price (I'll throw a figure of 75% less than now, in order to make people change over to make it worth it).


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2017)

> Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
> 
> 
> Combined heat and power (CHP) systems, also known as cogeneration, generate electricity and useful thermal energy in a single, integrated system. CHP is not a technology, but an approach to applying technologies. Heat that is normally wasted in conventional power generation is recovered as useful energy, which avoids the losses that would otherwise be incurred from separate generation of heat and power. *While the conventional method of producing usable heat and power separately has a typical combined efficiency of 45 percent, CHP systems can operate at levels as high as 80 percent*.



http://aceee.org/topics/combined-heat-and-power-chp

At the link there is a further link to a pdf that includes an energy distribution diagram.  It is worth a look.

IMHO the best solution is to install local natural gas fired power plants in residential and industrial areas and use the excess/waste/lost heat for local heating and cooling.  If cooling is added to the cogeneration system the process becomes known as trigeneration.

http://www.energ-group.com/combined-heat-and-power/trigeneration/


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://aceee.org/topics/combined-heat-and-power-chp
> 
> At the link there is a further link to a pdf that includes an energy distribution diagram.  It is worth a look.
> 
> ...



CP, I definitely saw CHP, but where CHP flourishes (Nordic countries), one does not see a plethora of EVs as battery performance and efficiency falls drastically as temperatures (and duration of sunlight) plummet.  So, not without consideration, I specifically exclude dual (or tri-) cycle power/heat generation systems. 



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I worked, albeit over a decade ago, as a coal handler in one of Canada's newest coal powerplants.  Efficiency was 33-34%.   8)



Yeah, North America is notoriously bad for (but in a few cases) running sub-critical non-LEHE coal plants. :not-again:  The technology on some ultracritical plants running 600C+ and 300+ bar pressures can get almost up to 50%, but they still don't match large-scale internal combustion engines (large low-speed diesels) or oil/gas-powered turbines.

Very few people consider an all-aspect, "cradle-to-grave" cost to the environment of particular means of transportation.  EV types it seems, however, have a particular ability to believe that they are far purer than others in the "my [poop] doesn't smell" category. :nod:

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Baz (18 Aug 2017)

I consider myself in the middle; although I probably am biased as I do have a closet desire to work either in "alternate" energy or building a space elevator, as I think both are transformative events.

Full disclaimer: I drive a 2009 Toyota Highlander.  I love the fact that it gets pretty much the same mileage in the city as it does on the highway, it's AWD, and it's really hard to make spin due to it's traction control.  But it's still big and heavy so it doesn't do great (around 10l/100km) and not only the battery but the front transaxle are expensive and resource hogs to build (I understand that the transaxle, due to all the power conversion electronics, is $13k if it lets out the magic smoke).  I'd love to actually figure out how to affordably get a solar high voltage DC (the batteries work at 280VDC) to AC to use it as a backup power source as well...

Simply driving an electric car does not solve anything, yet; maybe if some of the new battery tech can be made producible (what happened to carbon nanotubes sandwiched in cardboard???).  The energy still has to come from somewhere (and I find it amazing how many people don't understand the law of conversation of energy and mass, including supposedly educated ones; I've met engineers who think that can be "overcome").  If you want to have fun ask an enviro-warrior what's the big deal with a wall wart if the wasted energy is being turned into heat and you are heating your house anyway...

But some things we aren't doing as routine just baffle me:
- waste water heat recovery back into the water tank; why isn't every new house with tanked hot water not doing this
- venting refrigerator coils outside in summer but inside in winter
- local co-gen: if your heating or making hot water with gas then a co-gen does work

An interesting story I read, but I don't have a source: somebody was hired by a steel plant (a while ago now) to reduce costs for fuel (and steel plants use *a lot*).  He noticed the heating plant was next to the blast furnace, so he asked the blast furnace manager why they weren't recovering the heat.  The answer was he ran the blast furnace, not the heating plant, so he asked the heating plant manager the same question.  Similar answer, he ran the heating plant not the blast furnace.  The person made some money showing steel plants how to recover waste heat to heat themselves.

The point: the answers will come from efficiency making people money.  We can't go on the way we are, but we don't need to panic.  Because it is absolutely true that some of the hard core enviros have their own agendas as much as the absolute deniers do.

I actually think that algae fuels are also part of the solution; its where oil came from as algae scrubbed CO2, and it is becoming easier and easier to squeeze algae directly into diesel.  Plus you remove CO2 from the atmosphere doing it.

If anybody doesn't think that the oil companies don't have a transition plan away from oil, possibly as part of peak oil, that they will implement when they can make money then you are truly confused.  It was no coincidence that Exxon and BP quickly registered their disagreement with withdrawal from Paris.  Quote from the CEO of Shell: "We believe climate change is real," van Beurden says. "We believe that the world needs to go through an energy transition to prevent a very significant rise in global temperatures. And we need to be part of that solution in making it happen." http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement  He doesn't want to be "green," he wants to make money.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Aug 2017)

+1 Baz.

And you forgot to include one of my favourites: Why haven't the provincial governments in Canada  yet mandated that ALL new residential buildings be heated/cooled by geothermal?

A small (much much smaller than actual electrical heating) expenditure of electrical energy provides a highly efficient source of heat and cooling that generates little to no green house gas. 

I know that the systems currently cost about three times as much as standard systems, but if you mandated use, the numbers generated by the mandate would automatically bring down the cost.

Unfortunately, I think most provinces are not serious about that because it would also greatly reduce electrical power consumption in their province, and since the provinces own the electrical utilities and use them to generate revenues without taxing the population, they prefer it that way. It is certainly the case here in Quebec, where the government encourages the use of "cheap" electricity to heat houses - but then sort of favours constructors using the very power consuming and inefficient base board heaters instead of the much more efficient central electric heating/atmospheric heat pump combination.


----------



## Loachman (18 Aug 2017)

In Ontario, all of the other associated fees have gone up to match (and exceed) people's savings from reducing consumption. There is no win in Wynnesville.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2017)

Baz said:
			
		

> I consider myself in the middle; although I probably am biased as I do have a closet desire to work either in "alternate" energy or building a space elevator, as I think both are transformative events.
> ...
> I actually think that algae fuels are also part of the solution; its where oil came from as algae scrubbed CO2, and it is becoming easier and easier to squeeze algae directly into diesel.  Plus you remove CO2 from the atmosphere doing it.
> ...http://www.npr.org/2017/05/18/528998592/energy-companies-urge-trump-to-remain-in-paris-climate-agreement  He doesn't want to be "green," he wants to make money.



Baz, that's why I don't mind driving a (potentially) algae-burning 4x4 that also gets 10L/100 in the city, but only 7.5 on the highway, even though it weighs 2-1/2 tons and tows 7,500#.  My next house will have a vertical-well heatpump as well and some PV and wind somewhere to get close to/surpass net-zero energy consumption.  EV just to get bragging rights and run the HOV lane with one aboard is not in my line of thinking.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CP, I definitely saw CHP, but where CHP flourishes (Nordic countries), one does not see a plethora of EVs as battery performance and efficiency falls drastically as temperatures (and duration of sunlight) plummet.  So, not without consideration, I specifically exclude dual (or tri-) cycle power/heat generation systems.
> 
> Yeah, North America is notoriously bad for (but in a few cases) running sub-critical non-LEHE coal plants. :not-again:  The technology on some ultracritical plants running 600C+ and 300+ bar pressures can get almost up to 50%, but they still don't match large-scale internal combustion engines (large low-speed diesels) or oil/gas-powered turbines.
> 
> ...



I agree G2G.  The electrical vehicle solution is indeed "problematic".  As I have noted elsewhere figuring out how to get from Lethbridge to Saskatoon with 90 km ranges and multi-hour recharges - when the $5000 of batteries are new and the weather is warm is a challenge.  Hard to plan a long weekend visit to the family that way. 

Even moreso if you have to buy new batteries every couple of years or so.

I don't take issue with the efficiency estimates on generating electricity.  I am suggesting that the inefficiencies be recognized and the waste heat utilized.

The driving force would be how far steam/hot water/hot glycol could be pumped and still have useful heating value.  That would establish the size of the heating zone first and foremost and then the number and location of the power plants with electricity being a by-product.

I'm still not ready to give up on my gas powered Jeep.  Although I could be talked into a hybrid if the price came down and the reliability improved.

And as for the Nordics - the Swedes are getting green brownie points for incinerating German trash in their residential power plants because they don't produce enough of their own trash and are backing away from fossil fuels and nuclear.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/electric-cars-wont-get-us-very-far-because-they-cant/


----------



## Journeyman (18 Aug 2017)

There is another, less scientific, reason e-vehicles just don't cut it......









 (Yes, I know its not a Harley    )


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Aug 2017)

Surprise, Journeyman!

http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ca/

And made right here in Canada.  [


----------



## Journeyman (18 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Surprise, Journeyman!
> http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ca/


Please forgive me if I don't put my bikes up on Kajiji right away.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Aug 2017)

Journeyman, the sport model has hit over 310 Kph at the Mont-Tremblant race track in trials.

I too didn't think much of it until I saw some of the videos. They blew my mind.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Journeyman, the sport model has hit over 310 Kph at the Mont-Tremblant race track in trials.


I just keep an eye on the clock;  as long as I can get to the beer store before it closes, I'm not in that much of a rush.  

And if I wanted to go fast, I just stepped out of the plane.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Aug 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Surprise, Journeyman!
> 
> http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/ca/
> 
> And made right here in Canada.  [



Can't be any good. Where are all the objectifying pictures of scantily clad Gyno Canadians draped all over them? If these bikes can't even deliver on the oh so subtle implication that owning one automatically grants me the power to dissolve the elastic in a pair of panties, what's the point?


----------



## c_canuk (21 Aug 2017)

rebuttals to comments, for those that are inclined:

1)  Energy Return on Investment (EROI) to run a modern industrial society is at least 7 (that is, an input of 1 "unit" of energy to mine, make and use an energy source must yield at least 7 units of energy to make it worthwhile). Solar is nowhere close to 7.

They're made of glass, copper, aluminum and food dye. 100 dollars of cells will pump out 100 watts per hour. that's 1 KW hours a day averaged over the year's insolation of 10 hours (that's averaged over the whole year for north America including night and overcast) you'll have an ROI (@$0.10/KW) of 2.5 years.  

Are you seriously claiming that the EROI is worse than the customer ROI? Cause if you are, I have no idea what to tell you. Yes I know installers will soak you for 10s of thousands for a turnkey system, however, have you priced any other alternative turnkey system? DIYs are not paying those prices.  Life span of a Solar panel is 25 years for no less that 90% output and 50 years at 50% output iirc. This source seems a bit bullshitty for me.

It states quite clearly that an EROI of greater than 1 is required for a system to work (duh) then arbitrarily determines 7 is the magic number. Why is 700% return reasonable? on top of that, solar looks to me like it's vastly superior than the 3.5 in the article.

I can invest 2 years worth of power bills (avg $2136 for average use of 15KW/H per day, could buy and install this system  https://www.amazon.ca/RENOGY-Monocrystalline-Grid-Tied-Listed-Panels/dp/B00DJF8J4M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503342344&sr=8-1&keywords=2+kw+solar which will exceed my needs by 5KW/h per day. If I then spend a 3rd years power bills I can buy a 20KW power wall and go off the grid. that's a financial ROI of 3 years. There is no way the panels will be dead in 21 years. They should still be providing 90% their output by then, exceeding the EROI of 7 the article requires, and on top of that, they should go another 29, providing a EROI of at least 1-15. This is assuming the manufacture is making them at cost, which would be ludicrous. Therefore the EROI is more like 20.




2) What if I only buy a Nissan leaf and ignore the vastly superior custom made EVs or the Tesla that's just hit showroom floors that is cheaper than a Leaf, and want to drive to Kamloops?  

No one said you wouldn't have a gas car too, I just get sick of hearing how inefficient EVs are compared to ICE, I didn't say DOWN WITH ICE LONG LIVE EVs! Besides, if you did need to go to Kamloops, you'd plan your trip accordingly just as you would with an ICE. I've been stranded waiting for gas stations to open on the northern ON TransCanada route many times. The Tesla cars can be recharged in 30 minutes for about 5 bucks, and have hyper-miled for over 1000km before. this is a non issue shortly. Especially if the glass based batteries pan out. People will be like (well what if I want to drive across the continent non stop twice, I couldn't do that in an ICE!!)




3) Our what happens if you try this in Edmonton, in Jan, at -30c? Not only is battery storage affected, but you have to heat the interior of the car. And I believe that you glossed over conversion losses inherent in any battery charging system.

In under zero conditions, a heater draws 5 watt/hour from the 80 000 watt battery pack(about a year to draw the battery down to half), and keeps the insulated battery compartment warm. When you start the car, your heat comes from the computer and motors. There is no additional load to the system while engaged, anymore than a conventional car. Non of the Tesla drivers in Edmonton are having any problems. And no I didn't, it's in there as heat loss in the electrical to chemical battery conversion.




4) C_Canuk, do you have any references for your efficiency (or lack thereof) figures?
I've looked them up many times. they are rounded to easy to chew on numbers. 25% is a car running on the highway, city driving without an assist like hybrids drops to 10%. Diesels are more efficient due to their method of combustion and fuel being more stable. Again 40% is max efficiencies on the highway. Either way, when you have people crowing about how total energy costs of an EV are as bad or worse than ICE, I get irritated that the best numbers possible are still half the numbers of an EV when including the distribution network, before you count the distribution network for ICE. 

Quick throttle Nat Gas plants are about 75-80% efficient, high efficiency are 90+%. Nuclear is 90+, and Coleson Cove in NB was at 65% converted from coal to bunker crude, so I assumed most coal was around there and better since they've been cleaning up their act. Hydro is like 99% efficient. Etc. If you're going to take issue with them, you can look them up. I'm confident they're well within the ball park. they're all more efficient that ICE including line loss and charging, regardless.




5) Oh, wait...I see you may have forgotten to add the electrical charge/discharge losses of the lithium-ion batteries as used in EVs. Don't forget to add that into your calculations too for EV efficiency.

Nope they are there as heat loss in the conversion from electrical to chemical and back, and included in heat loss in electrical to kinetic.

If you want to get all nit picky, I can start looking up the losses in transporting crude to refineries, refining, and the distribution network. I'm sure my numbers will be vastly improved and you'll look really silly.




6) When a car's electricity tank can be refilled as quickly as another car's gasoline tank, I might become a little more interested - but still not enough.

Well, the majority of people's commute is well within most EV's range, so it actually saves you having to find a place to fill up. Tesla's can use the super chargers that will top you up in 30 minutes. which is pretty close to the 10-15 most stops would take. The next gen of glass batteries should, if they pan out, be extremely fast. This is assuming this would be the only car you'd own. I'm not arguing that, I'm just arguing that the numbers people keep regurgitating from biased sources are wrong, and the technical efficiency of EVs is way better than ICE. individual practicalities not withstanding.




7) Has anyone seen the ecological and environmental damage they do digging out the components of these batteries. The oil sands look like my grandmother's garden compared to the huge open pit mines for lithium. The oil patch returns their property back to nature. These huge open pit mines are there forever.

you do realize, most of the materials for EVs come from the same mines as everything else right? there aren't special mines for EV production. They will exist regardless of the existence of EV. Many of the materials are used in traditional cars as well. Mining is Mining. you can't compare it to Oil extraction.




8) Any possible carbon footprint reduction for your electric car is offset by the huge carbon footprint required to make your battery.

This argument again.... 

Ok, difference between and EV and ICEV is one has an electric motor, and a battery, the other has a gas tank, oil tank, radiator, engine, pumps, transmission, clutch or torque converter.

The batteries are belts of thin stainless, with an electrolyte, dielectric and another electrolyte smeared on it, rolled up, capped and insulated, the motor is a crude iron casting with light machining wound with copper. You're going to claim making those is a bigger carbon footprint than the other components for an ICE? It's no contest. 

You want to know why you're hearing all this BS about EVs? there isn't a spare parts supply chain for them like an ICE cause they're too simple. Simple = more efficient production chain.




9 ) The whole thing is a farce. Everything used by green energy is manufactured using petroleum. They will never recover the cost of their complete inefficiency. We are actually increasing the amount of petroleum required for today's world due to manufacturing. If you wish to move back to the 1700's. Stop drilling and processing world wide. Everything will come to a total stop in a matter of weeks. I'm not saying to trash green energy, but turbines and panels have to drop exceedingly in price (I'll throw a figure of 75% less than now, in order to make people change over to make it worth it).

in my original post, this is why I said it's barbaric that we're burning our best feedstock for advanced materials for crude heat. I never said I wanted to go back to the 1700s. You're making incorrect assumptions. I said EVs are the way of the future and we need to stop burning petroleum cause we need it for manufacturing. That said, turbines and panels in the mass consumer market are luxury items with about 10 000% markup right now. DIY people have been doing it themselves for quite some time with ROI of under 5 years. 




10) Very few people consider an all-aspect, "cradle-to-grave" cost to the environment of particular means of transportation.  EV types it seems, however, have a particular ability to believe that they are far purer than others in the "my [poop] doesn't smell" category

Oh please, did you not notice I included the entire chain for EVs but left out the distribution and refining for ICE and EVs still came out looking better, purely efficiency wise?

I never said EVs are the be all end all, I just said I cringe every time I hear you guys go on about how they're less efficient than ICE which is bullocks.


----------



## Loachman (21 Aug 2017)

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/19/electric-cars-why-you-cant-get-there-from-here

Electric cars: Why you can’t get there from here  

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun  

First posted:  Saturday, August 19, 2017 05:21 PM EDT  | Updated:  Saturday, August 19, 2017 05:39 PM EDT  

Excited for the coming electric car revolution?

Well then, get ready for a lot of “staycations”.

And I don’t mean the kind where you stay in Canada rather than driving to the States.

I mean vacations where you stay home. In your hometown. Your own home, even.

Not even the newest, fully electric cars have ranges of more than about 400 kms – and that’s the expensive models in ideal conditions.

Cheaper models will have shorter ranges, still, as will all models in winter.

Want to ski and drive electric? Get ready to take the bus.

Fat chance you’ll be able to drive your e-car to the hill and back in many cases.

In case you haven’t noticed, there are few recharging stations around.

The feds, and several provinces and municipalities, are pumping hundreds of millions of tax dollars into erecting charging stations, as are a few commercial landlords.

Frankly, I resent having my tax dollars pay to subsidize electricity stations over gas stations.

But think about this: If anyone truly believed electric cars were going to be viable soon, don’t you think entrepreneurs and private companies would be jumping into the charging market?

Yes, retailers such as IKEA and Canadian Tire have announced plans to build stations at some of their stores, but that’s mostly because one level of government is paying for them. By and large the retailers aren’t.

Let’s say Ottawa and Ontario come up with the $120 million or more needed to pay for a string of charging stations every 200 km from Winnipeg to Toronto. (They’re in the works.)

Chances are the chargers will be the cheaper ones that can accommodate only one or two cars at a time and take six to eight hours to fully top up a battery.

Even assuming you never have to wait in line for one of these plug-ins, stopping every 200 km over the entire 2,300-km route, a one-way trip would take a full work week, or longer.

And then consider the chances we can all have electric cars if we want them.

The cultish leader of the e-car hysteria, Tesla, has nearly 400,000 orders for its latest, cheapest Model 3.

But this month it will manufacture just 100 of them.

Maybe – maybe – by December it will be churning out 20,000 a month. Maybe.

_*Then there’s the fact e-cars still cost substantially more than comparable gas or diesel models and are only attractive to buyers where there are big, fat tax-funded subsidies for buying one.

This spring, Hong Kong stopped paying citizens subsidies to buy electrics and, suddenly, sales all but stopped.*_

There is growing recognition that most Western countries are near their electrical generating capacity, as well.

To produce the electricity needed to recharge millions of new electric cars might require some jurisdictions to reopen coal-fired power plants.

If that happens, the environmental benefits would disappear.

And it’s hard to imagine politicians or environmentalists getting enthusiastic about building more dams or nuclear plants.

There is also increasing evidence that mining the lithium and building the batteries needed to run all these electrics vehicles would produce just as much greenhouse gas as building and running gasoline cars.

Is it possible that over the next 10 to 15 years as much as 15% of the North American vehicle fleet will be electric? Sure, that’s possible.

However, unless there are huge (and as yet unforeseen) improvements in e-car technology and e-driving infrastructure, the predicted “revolution” will be a long time coming.

For the time being, it will be mostly confined to well-to-do couples and families that can afford a second car, one of the electric kinds, to use mainly in town for commuting and running errands.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2017)

My wife and I had talked about going electric. We decided that it might make sense to have one as a "town" car, but that we would still need a petrol driven vehicle for anything over two hours drive.


----------



## c_canuk (22 Aug 2017)

These right here are what get my goat... This is a perfect example of myths and ignorance masquerading as "debunking"



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> http://www.torontosun.com/2017/08/19/electric-cars-why-you-cant-get-there-from-here
> 
> Electric cars: Why you can’t get there from here
> 
> ...


only if you intend to not plug in anywhere or do even the simplest bit of trip planning, and ignore that most families own 2 vehicles. usually a small in town commuter and a larger travel vehicle/grocery getter.





> Cheaper models will have shorter ranges, still, as will all models in winter.


myth, the car will be plugged in at your house, drawing an extra 5 watts, or the power of a childs night light to keep the pack warm, and waste heat from operation will do when driving, instead of being vented to atmosphere. This is moronic idea. While parked on the street away from charging, even if you only have a 20 KW/h pack it would take 83 days to drain half your battery. This is a non issue that biased ninnies keep bringing up.





> Want to ski and drive electric? Get ready to take the bus.
> Fat chance you’ll be able to drive your e-car to the hill and back in many cases.
> In case you haven’t noticed, there are few recharging stations around.


 if you don't look, you won't find any. https://www.plugshare.com/ it is now possible to drive a tesla coast to cost on just tesla super chargers. it's only going to get better as more and more charging stations come online. This is the same argument for the horse when the model T came out. Hows that buggy whip business doing you?





> The feds, and several provinces and municipalities, are pumping hundreds of millions of tax dollars into erecting charging stations, as are a few commercial landlords.


 hundreds of millions eh? got a citation for that? 





> ...
> 
> But think about this: If anyone truly believed electric cars were going to be viable soon, don’t you think entrepreneurs and private companies would be jumping into the charging market?


 ... they are... as market penetration increases so will their participation... are you new to capitalism? Unlike communism where a central controller decides where it makes sense to build things, in a capitalist society, things are done when the demand is there. That the numbers of charging stations by private businesses are slowly increasing shows that market share is growing, therefore, despite your winging about how electric cars suck, people are expressing demand for them 





> Yes, retailers such as IKEA and Canadian Tire have announced plans to build stations at some of their stores, but that’s mostly because one level of government is paying for them. By and large the retailers aren’t.


 citation needed, and if there are paying the lion's share, why wouldn't there be a toll like the privately owned ones? If this takes off this could be a significant revenue generator for the government





> Let’s say Ottawa and Ontario come up with the $120 million or more needed to pay for a string of charging stations every 200 km from Winnipeg to Toronto. (They’re in the works.)
> Chances are the chargers will be the cheaper ones that can accommodate only one or two cars at a time and take six to eight hours to fully top up a battery.


 lets say my backside passes nothing but Hersey's kisses and assume they will be full of vitamins. 
1) tesla has already built superchargers
2) the cheapest charging station that takes 8 hours is a 120 power outlet that you plug the onboard 15 A charger into = =14.4 KW/H for the cheapest cars. a 240/40A volt standard stove or dryer plug, about 40 bucks at any home depot will charge 76KW/H in 8 hours. If they're spending millions on basic electrical connectors, someone is embezzling 90% of the funds.
3) the main cost of a charging station is the structure, not the electrical ports.



> Even assuming you never have to wait in line for one of these plug-ins, stopping every 200 km over the entire 2,300-km route, a one-way trip would take a full work week, or longer.


 or for that one trip a year, you could rent an ICE Car, take the train, fly or bus. IF you have one of the bigger capacity vehicles, you could sleep while your car is charging using a normal 120 volt outlet to charge your car while you'd be staying at your hotel/motel. (if the hotel wants to bill you for your charging, the could charge 40 cents KW/H so the biggest pack out (100KW) there would cost  40 dollars or about 2/3s the cost of a tank of gas.



> And then consider the chances we can all have electric cars if we want them.
> The cultish leader of the e-car hysteria, Tesla, has nearly 400,000 orders for its latest, cheapest Model 3.
> But this month it will manufacture just 100 of them.
> Maybe – maybe – by December it will be churning out 20,000 a month. Maybe.


 yeah... it's called production run up.... keep in mind this is the same guy who from concept to completion built the worlds largest factory to double the worlds supply of lithium ion batteries in 3 years. This is the same guy who built a space agency from the ground up that is able to launch satellites with a statistical success rate greater than any other agency ever, at 1/10th the cost. This is a guy who's already met and exceeded the numbers for every other wave of electric cars he built. He's built a factory capable of generating 20 000 a month, he has the pre orders for 400 000, what possible obstacle might he have? You could replace the model 3 in this with any other production car





> _*Then there’s the fact e-cars still cost substantially more than comparable gas or diesel models and are only attractive to buyers where there are big, fat tax-funded subsidies for buying one.
> 
> This spring, Hong Kong stopped paying citizens subsidies to buy electrics and, suddenly, sales all but stopped.*_


 lets see what happens when a normally priced electric car hits the streets. The big traditional manufactures have been selling 20K cars with electric drive trains for 60K as a luxury item. Claiming that the battery and the electric motor are what drives up the cost. They are priced like that because batteries and electric motors don't need the sort of parts infrastructure they rely on for their business model. Tesla isn't relying on that business model and will soon compete one on one with ICE, with the benefit of much lower cost of ownership. The reason you see more of these garbage articles as the model 3 gets closer to being mass produced. The traditional car manufactures are about to have their lunch ate because they can't compete.





> There is growing recognition that most Western countries are near their electrical generating capacity, as well.
> To produce the electricity needed to recharge millions of new electric cars might require some jurisdictions to reopen coal-fired power plants.
> If that happens, the environmental benefits would disappear.


 this is bullshit. the biggest problem with electricity producers right now, is they can't sell their surplus power because there is an extreme glut. Manitoba Hydro is about to go insolvent because it banked on demand in the US that isn't there, same with Ontario. This is causing rate hikes to stay solvent because they almost have to pay to give it to the grid during off peak, you know, at night, when your car would be plugged in recharging...





> There is also increasing evidence that mining the lithium and building the batteries needed to run all these electrics vehicles would produce just as much greenhouse gas as building and running gasoline cars.


 no there isn't, there's biased ass hats running around claiming this with no proof





> Is it possible that over the next 10 to 15 years as much as 15% of the North American vehicle fleet will be electric? Sure, that’s possible.
> 
> However, unless there are huge (and as yet unforeseen) improvements in e-car technology and e-driving infrastructure, the predicted “revolution” will be a long time coming.
> 
> For the time being, it will be mostly confined to well-to-do couples and families that can afford a second car, one of the electric kinds, to use mainly in town for commuting and running errands.



yeah, until next year when there are 400 000 cars that look like European luxury cars on the inside, priced at the ford focus price point, that have 50% the cost of ownership of regular cars.

Right now a Nissan leaf gets 172 KM per charge, and costs $33 000. Before any subsidies. That's the price of the average ICE car in it's class. If it's your second in town commuter car, it's cost of ownership will be less than half of an ICE.

Chevy Bolt gets 383 KM per charge, and costs $43 000. Before any Subsidies. While it's smaller and costs twice what a sub compact will cost, it's lifetime costs compared to any other sub compact will be lower. This is what I'm talking about, with them trying to make up for the lack of revenue from periodic maintenance.

Ford Focus Electric gets 160km per charge and costs $28 000, the ICE version costs about 15K. However it's lifetime Cost of Ownership will be lower again. 

the Model 3 gets 352 km and costs $42000, and can use the network of superchargers. it's equivalent ICE goes for at least $35000 and will have a much higher cost of ownership, and will be a much less refined vehicle.

The only thing IMO holding back Tesla at this point is total number of their products on the road. I'm looking forward to the shakeup in the industry over the next couple of years as they start to flood the market.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Aug 2017)

I need 7 minutes to pull into the gas pump, insert my card, select and dispense fuel, clean the windshield and leave.  So a single pump can service 8 cars per hour.  The On Route at Port Hope has 8 double pumps accommodating 128 cars per hour at maximum capacity.  To facilitate the same number of electric vehicles will require 64 outlets and since electrics have only half the range of a most gas guzzlers you will require twice the number of service centres on the highway since each car even at maximum re-charge rate is going to sit there for close on 30 minutes.  Every parking spot at every on route will need to be converted to handle a charger and it will not be your half amp trickle charger either. The power requirements will be equivalent to a small town.  And that is only on the major highways.  What about highway 8 or 37 or 7 (in Ontario).  How about the mountain roads in BC where loading will increase significantly and thus decrease the range?  Find another form of fuel, electricity doesn't cut it.  It requires another form of power to supply it, batteries are not environmentally friendly at all and much of the payload goes to cart those batteries around.


----------



## Baz (22 Aug 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Find another form of fuel, electricity doesn't cut it.  It requires another form of power to supply it, batteries are not environmentally friendly at all and much of the payload goes to cart those batteries around.



Everything you said is correct... now.

As I said I drive a hybrid and I understand the price I pay to cart those batteries around.  And I also understand that I have to drive differently in order to get the benefits: I'm amazed when I see people driving hybrids breaking and accelerating hard (although I have enough power to do it reasonably well, it just runs any mileage benefit.

But I hope you are not implying that we should stop working on new battery, control and motor technologies, or that there is no chance they can solve the problems you allude to?


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Aug 2017)

I'll go green when they get the hydrogen fuel cell technology sorted. Something about riding around on a bomb like Maj King Kong from Dr Strangelove appeals to me.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2017)

The average gasoline family auto gets approximately 600km to the tank, and requires about 10-15 minutes to fuel (not counting bathroom break). Until EVs can match those numbers, they will continue to struggle for acceptance. In addition, it appears that there is no standardized model for the car charging port. Some are 3 pin, 4 pin, even 5 pin. Until that issue is also sorted, folks just won't take the chance.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Aug 2017)

In reality, you can have an EV if you live in a city, and rent a car if you leave occasionally.  For some people, like me, it just wouldn't work, because I live too far from anywhere and travel too often.


----------



## cld617 (22 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The average gasoline family auto gets approximately 600km to the tank, and requires about 10-15 minutes to fuel (not counting bathroom break). Until EVs can match those numbers, they will continue to struggle for acceptance. In addition, it appears that there is no standardized model for the car charging port. Some are 3 pin, 4 pin, even 5 pin. Until that issue is also sorted, folks just won't take the chance.



In the last several years, I can count the numbers of trips I've done where I needed to refuel halfway just to carry on, on one hand. 99.9% of my driving, and likely a significant portion of almost everyone else's is done well within the range of a tank of fuel. Yes there are people who regularly travel at extended ranges, they are a minority. The stats from American surveys show 95% of trips occur within a 50 mile radius, that is a statistically significant enough portion of the population that it's reasonable to manufacture the majority of vehicles with them in mind. For the other 5%, adding 15 minutes to their infrequent halfway pit-stops is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of an EV.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2017)

cld617 said:
			
		

> In the last several years, I can count the numbers of trips I've done where I needed to refuel halfway just to carry on, on one hand. 99.9% of my driving, and likely a significant portion of almost everyone else's is done well within the range of a tank of fuel. Yes there are people who regularly travel at extended ranges, they are a minority. The stats from American surveys show 95% of trips occur within a 50 mile radius, that is a statistically significant enough portion of the population that it's reasonable to manufacture the majority of vehicles with them in mind. For the other 5%, adding 15 minutes to their infrequent halfway pit-stops is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of an EV.



You know what I really enjoy? It is when other people decide for me what "an acceptable price to pay is".

How about I decide?

I will adopt electric when it is as cheap and convenient in all respects as ICE.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2017)

>... you could rent an ICE Car, take the train, fly or bus. IF you have one of the bigger capacity vehicles, you could sleep while your car is charging using a normal 120 volt outlet to charge your car while you'd be staying at your hotel/motel.

You could, you could, you could.

What people could do is yours to imagine; what people want to do or will do is mostly beyond anyone's power to control.

Look here.  See the challenge with moving from oil-based transportation to electricity?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2017)

That is a seriously cool link, Brad. Thanks!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Aug 2017)

C Canuk, if you read the link I gave you, EROI is explained in the first two paragraphs along with why 7 is important.

Simplified, you cannot have a complex, industrial society on anything less than an EROI of 7. This has to do with both thermodynamics. Solar ain't going to get you to 7, ever. The sun has to set sometime, even if you have most kick ass PV system known to mankind.

Germany is apparently discovering that solar and nuclear are a bad mix, having recently damaged one of their power plants trying to load balance. Hydro and solar are probably a reasonble mix, but not everyone likes dams. In my mind, the worst possibly combo is wind and solar: both are intermittent; low density and expensive to install.


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Aug 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The average gasoline family auto gets approximately 600km to the tank, and requires about 10-15 minutes to fuel



I've seen this number thrown out there quite often lately.  My gas stops are always between 4-6 mins.
If you are using a Turkey baster to fill your car it might take 15 minutes.


----------



## cld617 (22 Aug 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know what I really enjoy? It is when other people decide for me what "an acceptable price to pay is".
> 
> How about I decide?
> 
> I will adopt electric when it is as cheap and convenient in all respects as ICE.



You already live a life where someone else decides what is acceptable. The cost of goods, safety standards, taxes, how companies do business is all decided by someone else. Getting frustrated that something else may be put into motion that could inconvenience you is futile, 5% of any demographic is irrelevant when it comes to deciding what is most appropriate to see put into place, if you're part of that 5% too bad.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Aug 2017)

An electric car is not the best solution.  They are more harmful to the environment than any 57 chevy ever was.  One of the principal reasons for our current energy surplus is the requirement to have sufficient reserve power to replace all of the output from our windmills (when the wind doesn't blow) and our solar panels (when the sun doesn't shine).  In addition, the cost of power has ensured that we now have a surplus because many of our power burning industries have left for cheaper climes.


----------



## jmt18325 (22 Aug 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> An electric car is not the best solution.  They are more harmful to the environment than any 57 chevy ever was.



Certainly not in terms of carbon pollution.  You also have to factor in modern recycling techniques when you're talking about total pollution:

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green


----------



## QV (22 Aug 2017)

"I just decided that if you want to leave town you must rent an ICE car."

Gee, thanks... what's next mandatory public transport every Mon Wed and Fri?

I'm sure the group that will come up with this have multiple mansions and private jets...


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2017)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Certainly not in terms of carbon pollution.  You also have to factor in modern recycling techniques when you're talking about total pollution:
> 
> http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green



What is the word on the manufacture of rechargeable batteries used in electric vehicles; which include lead–acid ("flooded", deep-cycle, and VRLA), NiCd, nickel–metal hydride, lithium-ion, Li-ion polymer, and, less commonly, zinc–air and molten-salt batteries?  Some of those actually fit nicely into the "Hazardous Materials" category.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Aug 2017)

cld617 said:
			
		

> You already live a life where someone else decides what is acceptable. The cost of goods, safety standards, taxes, how companies do business is all decided by someone else. Getting frustrated that something else may be put into motion that could inconvenience you is futile, 5% of any demographic is irrelevant when it comes to deciding what is most appropriate to see put into place, if you're part of that 5% too bad.



Not in the way you mean. ICE infrastructure has been developed over the past 100 years, largely by market forces- ie ordinary people risk their own money and buy products which further drive development.

Electric cars (and their supporting public charging infrastructure) are heavily publically subsidized. And there still at best, a 1-2% market penetration? In jurisdictions where that subsidy does not exist, electric cars are almost non existent. Ever wonder why?

I will stipulate that the technology is neat. It has a niche role (probably) in short distance, city driving- for now. But for widespead adoption to occur in a big  cold country like Canada, a few things need to happen:

Battery technology must get better. Current Li batteries are at least an order of magnitude worse in energy density than an equivalent weight in gasoline. That matters because it speaks to ranges. I know several electric car owners. They all like the relatively low daily ownership costs, but all have noted that the ranges they get are nothing like what is advertised and that only gets worse in the winter. They also note that battery packs degrade over time, losing about 3-5% storage per year- depending how careful you are with your charge/discharge cycles. Finally, when the battery pack has to be replaced, it is a $5-6000 hit. Assuming you do that every 5-8 years, you are edging back up towards ICE cars in terms of ownership costs.

Recharge times have to get down to around what a current gas tank fill takes.

Costs must come down. An average compact ICE car can be had for under $20k new. Not so for an electric car, unless it is highly subsidized.

 It should also be noted that currently, electric cars owners get a complete free pass on paying to maintain roads, as they do not pay tax on fuel (currently taxes on gasoline make up more than 50% of the price in Canada). This unfairly tilts that table in favour of electric cars. If Electric cars ever get a significant presence on the road, how long do you figure it will be before governments at all levels figure out how to tax electric car usage to regain the lost revenue?


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Aug 2017)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> ...hundreds of millions eh? got a citation for that?



That's rich.  You're the one who doesn't cite your references. ICE thermodynamic efficiency only 10% in city? 25% on highway? Completely inaccurate numbers for power generation plant efficiencies.

Until you yourself provide some citations and reasoned argumentation you will only be yet another of the "EVs  are mankind's transportation saviour" army.  Citations for your figures, please.

As an aside, when are they going to make an EV that can tow my 6,000lb boat to the cottage?  :waiting: :waiting: :waiting:

G2G


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2017)

6,000 lbs ??  Damn that's big! 😇


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2017)

We were promised hover cars by the 1990s back in the 1960s, and colonies on the moon and Mars. My car still runs on rubber tires.

Technology is nice 'n' all, but seldom lives up to promises and expectations.

We are not born sceptical. We learn to be sceptical over time, due to experience.


----------



## YZT580 (23 Aug 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> We were promised hover cars by the 1990s back in the 1960s, and colonies on the moon and Mars. My car still runs on rubber tires.
> 
> Technology is nice 'n' all, but seldom lives up to promises and expectations.
> 
> We are not born sceptical. We learn to be sceptical over time, due to experience.



Its part of the training we receive as civil servants


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2017)

>It should also be noted that currently, electric cars owners get a complete free pass on paying to maintain roads, as they do not pay tax on fuel (currently taxes on gasoline make up more than 50% of the price in Canada).

That touches on some of the "unseen" (unintended) consequences.  Governments have already noted the squeeze on their revenues caused by reduced fuel consumption per distance traveled.  So what happens when EVs dominate, and EVs can be charged from regular household outlets?  Increased taxes on all household electricity consumption?  Legislation mandating unique couplings, so that special metered home charging outlets can be forced on users?  Who pays for the meters?  Etc.

Note that I don't claim these are problems that can't be solved.  But the solutions might leave us "less free".


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2017)

Just to put this in a little historical perspective, EV's were once the most common cars on the market, far outnumbering ICE and steam powered vehicles. Steam cars had various issues, but what killed EV's at the turn of the last century was the incredible infrastructure cost of building up the grid and supplying enough energy to power these cars. Corner convenience stores could quickly build infrasructue to service ICE cars and trucks simply by getting a 55 gallon drum of petrol/white gas/benzine (or whatever the name used locally at the time) and a hand pump. You might see some in a museum some time, but can make a replica by getting a wheeled dolly, putting the barrel on it and adding the hand pump.....

Today we would have the same issue with trying to massively electrify the transportation net. Batteries are inefficient and low energy density energy storage mediums, but no one who promotes EV's ever talks about the huge upgrades needed for both power generation and distribution. Upgrades will be needed to the homes of every EV car owner, the neighbourhood distribution and all the way back up the chain. Oh and BTW, the same people who fanatically promote EV's are often the same people who fanatically oppose thermal and nuclear power generation, throttling that end of the chain.

I am intrigued by EV's, and can see them as great niche vehicles for carefully defined roles. I can also see the advantages of straight electric propulsion for vehicles like LAVs (mechanical simplicity, high power to wight ratios, the ability to mount multiple motors (one per wheel) to provide mobility even in combat conditions and with battle damage), but the only way to capitalize on that is to couple the huge energy density of hydrocarbon fuels to electric motors. Current ideas like Hybrids or using an engine to power a generator are partial solutions, but are actually more complex and expensive. Hydrocarbon fuel cells which extract the electrochemical energy from a fuel in one step are under development, and with current technology are the only way to give you and i vehicles with the range and convenience of ICE and the efficiency of EV.


----------



## Loachman (23 Aug 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Governments have already noted the squeeze on their revenues caused by reduced fuel consumption per distance traveled.  So what happens when EVs dominate, and EVs can be charged from regular household outlets?



A phenomenal opportunity for governments to learn to do what regular people do whenever their income goes down: prioritize spending and cut out the low-priority expenses.

"REBUTTAL: John Oliver’s Nuclear Stupidity! | Louder With Crowder" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2_eD6GxINw


----------



## c_canuk (28 Aug 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That's rich.  You're the one who doesn't cite your references. ICE thermodynamic efficiency only 10% in city? 25% on highway? Completely inaccurate numbers for power generation plant efficiencies.
> 
> Until you yourself provide some citations and reasoned argumentation you will only be yet another of the "EVs  are mankind's transportation saviour" army.  Citations for your figures, please.
> 
> ...



Basic fundamental knowledge generally doesn't require citation.

https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&q=thermodynamic+efficiency+of+an+internal+combustion+engine&oq=thermodynamic+efficiency%2Bof%2Ban%2Binternal%2Bcombustion%2Bengine&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0i30k1.1217.5812.0.7841.3.2.0.0.0.0.105.184.1j1.2.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.105.0.yeTN0zsViUY 

It's common knowledge that the theoretical maximum efficiency of a gas engine is around 37%, but cars usually get between 10-25% based on luxuries like seats and a cabin. The rest gets dumped as waste heat because it's not economical to reclaim it, as the equipment needed to reclaim it would take more energy to move than you'd save or it's prohibitively expensive. A power plant doesn't have that limitation as it's not expected to get up to highway merge speeds within 50 meters.

My numbers on power plants, I've admitted are flawed, however, they're still better than an internal combustion engine. If they weren't, then all of industry would not be using electric motors for anything stationary.

Regardless, my argument is not that EVs will replace all cars in all situations, my argument is that the majority of driving would be satisfied by EVs such that it would make sense for almost all multiple car families to have at least one EV. I already find fueling within the NCR to be a pain in the ass, due to congestion. Being able to let my car charge overnight rather than have to schedule time to get to a gas station seems like a luxury to me. That said, having to stop for 30-45 minutes during a road trip would be a pain in an EV, since I'm usually in go mode on long trips.

Most commuters' daily round trip is within most EVs' range, and recharging at home would be cheaper and easier than filling up with gas. The grid wouldn't need much beefing up since most vehicles would be charging during off peak hours, and homes have already reduced their consumption yearly since 2010.

My original comment was about ignorant positions that somehow manufacturing huge chunks of metal out of molten alloys, machining and assembling thousands of parts is believed to be more energy intensive than slathering some salts and acids between sheets of stainless and fiberglass, then rolled into cells, or how EVs are no more efficient than ICE because a minority of power plants use fossil fuels. 

I'm also sick of hearing about how lithium mines are EV battery mines, like lithium isn't one of the most common elements in the universe and used in thousands of other applications.

I'm not anti oil, I'm anti burning oil for low grade crude heat energy when it's the best raw material feedstocks for almost everything we make, and it's a finite resource.

As for an EV to tow your sail(?) boat... well, that depends. Right now most pickup truck drivers are of the opinion that it can't be done. 1/4 ton pickups have been done for years, they work out well since the truck can already handle the weight of the batteries without extensive suspension and frame upgrades, but due to battery expenses they tend to be lead acid based and thus short ranged. However, once these hit the roads, perhaps that will change. 

https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-semi/

In my mind, if the price of batteries come down, EV Trucks would very practical since trucks already have large payload capacities built in. 

If I could get LION batteries at a low enough price point, a 250-300 KW/H base model half ton truck looks pretty attractive since you could do real time AWD without a transfer case by mounting a motor to each pumpkin, with the battery pack built into the engine and transmission bay. Max torque throughout the RPM range would be nice for pulling and cruising up and down hills.

That said, something like that might not be practical depending on how far out your cottage is.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Aug 2017)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> ...As for an EV to tow your sail(?) boat... well, that depends. Right now most pickup truck drivers are of the opinion that it can't be done. *1/4 ton pickups *have been done for years, they work out well since the truck can already handle the weight of the batteries without extensive suspension and frame upgrades, but due to battery expenses they tend to be lead acid based and thus short ranged. However, once these hit the roads, perhaps that will change...



 :rofl:

I guess I should get a 500lb boat then...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2017)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Regardless, my argument is not that EVs will replace all cars in all situations, my argument is that the majority of driving would be satisfied by EVs such that it would make sense for almost all multiple car families to have at least one EV.



Many families cannot afford more than one car, and having one "short range" car and one "long range" car makes very little sense. Indeed, the most common version of two car families that I see have two vehicles for two _different_ needs like one car and one van or one truck as the secondary vehicle. In this case the owners have the flexibility of being able to move between dealing with different situations without also having to factor in range, availability of charging infrastructure and so on. 

The vast majority of people buy vehicles to meet day to day needs, not to virtue signal. When EV's become practical either because they are energized by SOFC fuel cells or because the heavy work of upgrading the entire electrical grid has been done then people will choose their EV's based on their day to day needs. You can always stop and ask yourself why there are huge government subsidies for EV's, and as an experiment, track the sales of EV's over the next year as the US Federal tax subsidy for EV's end. You may be surprised at what you find.


----------



## Loachman (29 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You can always stop and ask yourself why there are huge government subsidies for EV's, and as an experiment, track the sales of EV's over the next year as the US Federal tax subsidy for EV's end. You may be surprised at what you find.



Why be surprised?



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> This spring, Hong Kong stopped paying citizens subsidies to buy electrics and, suddenly, sales all but stopped.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2017)

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/chinese-ship-making-first-voyage-through-canadas-northwest-passage/article36142513/

A Chinese research icebreaker is making its first ever voyage through the Northwest Passage in what one expert believes to be a move to lay the foundations for China to sail cargo ships over the top of Canada.

The Xue Long, or Snow Dragon, is currently in the Davis Strait and should be entering Canadian waters in Lancaster Sound on Friday or Saturday as part of a mission to circumnavigate the Arctic, according to University of Calgary professor Rob Huebert, who has been tracking the Chinese government icebreaker via satellite imagery.. rest on link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Sep 2017)

:rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2017)

That's weather, not climate.  Weather is short-term, hence highly unpredictable.  Climate is long-term, and therefore can be forecast with high precision using only a few simple assumptions and models.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2017)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> That's weather, not climate.  Weather is short-term, hence highly unpredictable.  Climate is long-term, and therefore can be forecast with high precision using only a few simple assumptions and models.



Same rules apply in the Arctic and the Sahara:  Dress in layers.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Sep 2017)

If climate can be predicted so accurately why have absolutely 0% of their predictions in the last 30 years come to pass?  They are no different than the folks who have been predicting the end of the world so confidently for the last several millennia.  Neither are believable.


----------



## Loachman (23 Sep 2017)

http://www.nationalpost.com/lawrence+solomon+paris+dead+global+warming+deniers+have/14800783/story.html

Lawrence Solomon: Paris is dead. The global warming deniers have won

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post · Sept. 22, 2017 | Last Updated: Sept. 22, 2017 9:27 AM ET

Paris came to New York this week, with leaders of countries signing the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement coming to the United Nations to chide, nudge or beseech Donald Trump in hopes he would reverse his decision to scrap the agreement.

The U.K.’s Theresa May, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau, among others, could have saved their breath. Since his pullout in June, Trump has repeatedly reaffirmed the wisdom of pulling out of the “bad deal” for the U.S. that was Paris. All the evidence that has since come down only bolsters his case.

Shortly after Trump announced the pullout, stats from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal confirmed that coal is on a tear, with 1600 plants planned or under construction in 62 countries. The champion of this coal-building binge is China, which boasts 11 of the world’s 20 largest coal-plant developers, and which is building 700 of the 1600 new plants, many in foreign countries, including high-population countries such as Egypt and Pakistan that until now have burned little or no coal.

All told, the plants underway represent a phenomenal 43 per cent increase in coal-fired power capacity, making Trump’s case that China and other Third World countries are eating the West’s lunch, using climate change as a club to kneecap us with expensive power while enriching themselves.

At the same time that growth in coal is soaring, that of renewables is sagging. As reported by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, renewables investment fell in 2016 by 18 per cent over the peak year of 2015, and nine per cent over 2014. In the first two quarters of 2017, the trend continued downward, with double-digit year-over-year declines in each of the first two quarters. Even that paints a falsely rosy picture, since the numbers were propped up by vanity projects, such as the showy solar plants built in Abu Dhabi and Dubai. In the U.K., renewable investment declined by 90 per cent.

None of the Bloomberg data represents hard economic data, however, since virtually all renewables facilities are built with funny money — government subsidies of various kinds. As those subsidies come off, a process that has begun, new investment will approach zero per cent, and the renewables industry will collapse. Even with Obama-sized subsidies, the clean-energy industry has seen massive bankruptcies, the largest among them in recent months being Europe’s largest solar panel producer, SolarWorld, in May, and America’s Suniva, in April.

If new data on the economics of renewables wasn’t enough to bolster Trump’s confidence in having made the right decision on Paris, new environmental data would. As reported in July in one of Trump’s favourite conservative news sources, Daily Caller, solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per kilowatt-hour than nuclear reactors — they are laden with lead, chromium, cadmium and other heavy metals damned by environmentalists; employ hazardous materials such as sulfuric acid and phosphine gas in their manufacture; and emit nitrogen trifluoride, a powerful greenhouse gas that is 17,200 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year time period.

A slew of failures by climate scientists also points to the unreliability of doom and gloom predictions. One recent admission comes from Oxford’s Myles Allen, an author of a recent study in Nature Geoscience: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models,” he stated, saying that erroneous models produced results that “were on the hot side,” leading to forecasts of warming and inundations of Pacific islands that aren’t happening. Other eye-openers came in the discovery that the Pacific Ocean is cooling, the Arctic ice is expanding, the polar bears are thriving and temperatures did indeed stop climbing over 15 years.

None of these revelations, which came out after Trump’s decision to withdraw from Paris, would have surprised him - Trump knew from the get-go that the global warming scare is all hype. As the Daily Caller and the Wall Street Journal both reported in April, Obama administration officials are admitting they faked scientific evidence to manipulate public opinion. “What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told the Journal, in explaining how spin was used, for example, to mislead the public into thinking hurricanes have become more frequent. “Everyone’s got an agenda,” conceded NASA’s Gavin Schmidt when asked how the wild comments of his predecessor could be believed.

The evidence against Paris continues to mount. Paris remains dead.

Lawrence Solomon manages Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group, and Grounds for Thought, a salon-style discussion series, where he’ll be addressing the Paris climate agreement Tuesday.


----------



## Loachman (23 Sep 2017)

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2017/09/20/gunter-coal-burning-responsible-for-hurricanes

GUNTER: Coal burning responsible for hurricanes? Not likely 

By Lorne Gunter , Edmonton Sun

First posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 07:52 PM MDT | Updated: Thursday, September 21, 2017 10:47 AM MDT

During the past month, as major hurricanes have menaced the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, we have been told there is a connection between burning coal in Alberta and the monster storms.

We have also been informed that our NDP government’s rush to shut our province’s coal plants is part of a global movement away from burning coal.

Really? Because there are as many as 1,600 new coal-fired power plants under construction or in planning in 62 countries worldwide, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the German environmental group Urgewald.

Many of these plants are in countries such as Egypt and Pakistan that have few if any coal-fired plants now. That means the coal sphere is expanding, not contracting.

And together these plants will add at least 40 per cent to the world’s coal-fired power capacity over the next 15 years or so.

That doesn’t sound like a global movement away from burning coal.

Now let’s put the Notley government’s $4-billion rush to close Alberta coal-fired power plants into this international perspective.

According to the IEA, the worldwide capacity of coal-fired plants is nearly 9,700 terawatts.

Alberta’s 18 coal plants produce about 5,800 megawatts of power each year and one terawatt is equal to one million megawatts.

That means, Alberta is responsible for a tiny sliver of a glimpse of a fraction of a hint of global emissions from coal power.

Maybe you believe every little bit counts. But Alberta’s bit is so tiny – so infinitesimally small – it’s hard to see how closing our plants is worth the cost to taxpayers and to our economy. It’s equally hard to see how it added more than a breath of wind or drop of rain to hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria.

The NDP are saddling taxpayers and electricity customers with a bill of at least $3.4 billion (and likely closer to $4 billion) to shutter 18 plants generating 5,800 megawatts of power while last year alone, China brought 52,000 megawatts of new coal power online and has another 150,000 megawatts under construction, on top of more than 1 million megawatts of coal power already.
China is also responsible for about 700 – nearly half – of the 1,600 new plants worldwide.

Since the United States withdrew from the Paris climate accord earlier this summer, much has been made by environmentalists and journalists about China closing or cancelling 100 coal-fired power plants. It has been repeated again and again that China is the new global leader on combating climate change.

Not likely.

To the extent China has slowed (not reversed, but slowed) its coal-building program at home, it has been because its economy has slowed.
Internationally, though, the Chinese government has been backing a huge effort to have its companies build $1 trillion in infrastructure worldwide, including hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

Chinese government companies that were once throwing up domestic coal-fired plants at a frantic rate, are now being subsidized to build new ones internationally.

And China’s two largest state-owned development banks have also stepped in to finance coal plants in the developing world after institutions such as the World Bank backed out thanks to policies against global warming-related investments.

To prove just how easily environmentalists and journalists are bought off by cheap rhetoric (rather than substantive action), consider that Chinese state-owned companies are currently working on plants in other countries that will generate as much as 380,000 megawatts of new coal power. Yet just because China says the right things about fighting climate change, it has become the new eco-hero.

Finally, our symbolism-over-substance NDP government also exempts from its coal ban any coal mined in Alberta that is destined for export. I guess if our coal is burned in India or Indonesia it doesn’t pollute.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Sep 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I guess I should get a 500lb boat then...



 : you know damned well that's the bed weight, not the tow weight, and a 1/4 ton can usually haul 2000+ trailers, just like my half ton was rated to pull 7200 factory, and pulled a 35 foot sailboat on a tri axle trailer over the rockies. The point was that EV trucks are nothing new or special, and they have as much if not more grunt than a diesel if set up right, except for the extremely short range.


----------



## Loachman (26 Sep 2017)

And an excessively-long time to refill the electricity tank.


----------



## YZT580 (26 Sep 2017)

If you run out of gas with a conventional vehicle you can walk to the nearest gas station and fill a jerry can.  but what do you do if you run out of battery?  Extension cords don't seem practical and a boost would get you no where.  In all honesty, that would be my fear if I owned one:  getting stuck in traffic and watching my ammeter trickling slowly to zero while on my way home from work or on a planned trip that reached towards the battery range limits.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Sep 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Many families cannot afford more than one car, and having one "short range" car and one "long range" car makes very little sense. Indeed, the most common version of two car families that I see have two vehicles for two _different_ needs like one car and one van or one truck as the secondary vehicle. In this case the owners have the flexibility of being able to move between dealing with different situations without also having to factor in range, availability of charging infrastructure and so on.



Yeah, which is why I qualified it with MULTI car family. If you're already going to own 2 vehicles, I disagree, it would make a lot of sense to cut back on ~90% the cost of ownership of the vehicle you use for short range commuting exclusively... and even if you were a single car family, if you're in the city, an EV for daily driving, and renting a gas car for trips could also make a lot of sense due to that savings.



> The vast majority of people buy vehicles to meet day to day needs, not to virtue signal. When EV's become practical either because they are energized by SOFC fuel cells or because the heavy work of upgrading the entire electrical grid has been done then people will choose their EV's based on their day to day needs. You can always stop and ask yourself why there are huge government subsidies for EV's, and as an experiment, track the sales of EV's over the next year as the US Federal tax subsidy for EV's end. You may be surprised at what you find.



It's not about virtue signalling. EVs are already cheaper and practical for most people, the electrical grid does not need upgrading since the time cars would be recharging is currently the lowest utilization. even the 100 KW packs wouldn't add more to the grid when charging at home over 8 hours, than running electric baseboard heaters. 

(100 KW/8 hours = 12.5 KW or 5-6 baseboard heaters, that's assuming you completely killed the 300 mile range, which most people wouldn't be.) 

Most houses have at least 100 Amp entry, and that's plenty. All that's going to happen is the base load plants will throttle up 10% ish at night. The grid can handle much more demand than that, especially since our overall consumption has been dropping for years. 

This would be win-win for the Greenies... we'd put out less CO2, while keeping the electric producers viable. ON and MB electric producers are on the edge of viability at the moment due to expectations in vast demand increases that they built infrastructure for, that never materialized.

There are huge subsidies for Gas cars as well... has GMC and Chrysler paid back their loans after their collapse? Is the government still handing out grants to manufactures? yes? my my. What would happen to their sales if those subsidies were terminated?

Also, if you actually know what goes into an electric car you'd know that a 40K electric Focus vs a 19K gas Focus is a scam. Car companies don't want to sell electric cars because they aren't giant Rube Goldberg machines that need parts every year for the life of the vehicle. So they overcharge for something that costs the same or less than a gasoline car. A new engine and transmission costs more than a battery pack, and electric motors are dirt cheap. To be fair, I suppose they may be underpricing gas cars expecting to make it up on parts, however I find that unlikely.

Once Tesla Model 3s come out, and you're going to see a shakeup, because they will be direct competitors that outclass anything the other car manufactures offer at a price point that loss of subsidies won't change. Yeah, range/recharge time will be a problem but the cost of ownership will offset a lot of that for most people.

I commute 40 KM per day, and might put another 100 on per week outside of work. Not many EV's wouldn't work well for me. Even in ON, before counting maintenance, operating costs would be about 50 bucks a week cheaper. That's 200 a month in savings. That's before I count the oil changes, emissions controls parts, belts, fuel pumps, lines, tanks, filters, etc I'll be expected to replace over the life of the vehicle. 

The one time a year I need a range more than 300 miles, I'd rent a car just like I use a hotel instead of owning an RV. Nothing wrong with RVs but the one trip a year doesn't justify the expense. If I were into RVing that would be different.


----------



## c_canuk (26 Sep 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If you run out of gas with a conventional vehicle you can walk to the nearest gas station and fill a jerry can.  but what do you do if you run out of battery?  Extension cords don't seem practical and a boost would get you no where.  In all honesty, that would be my fear if I owned one:  getting stuck in traffic and watching my ammeter trickling slowly to zero while on my way home from work or on a planned trip that reached towards the battery range limits.



Running out of juice would be a bigger problem than running out of gas, sure, because you'd have to hire a tow truck. Though on the other hand, every morning when you jump into your car, it's got a full tank automatically. No realizing as you head to work, you need to fill up. Assuming you don't forget to plug in, which is something I am sure to forget myself at least once...

As for getting stuck in traffic and killing the battery that way, you don't use power of any serious amount sitting in traffic, because the motor doesn't idle. Yes the electronics will use a few amps, but you're sitting on enough battery that it's essentially nothing comparatively. A battery bank of 30KW has about 2500 Amp hours at 12 volts. Your electronics might draw 5-10 an hour, and if you're that low, you're probably not making it home anyway.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2017)

Alarmists not happy with ice growth.

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/arctic-ice-1m-km2-added-in-10-days/


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Nov 2017)

Cnut's name gets bandied around a lot - usually as a dimwitted barbarian.

Interesting article here on who the actual barbarian might have been 

But of interest to this thread is the included map of England in 878 (ie the Viking era - in which Cnut triumphed in 1016).

Much is made of "rising waters" and sinking England these days.  Shouldn't we just let the waters rise and let Mother Nature return us to the Status Quo Ante?


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Nov 2017)

15000 "scientists" you say...

http://blog.friendsofscience.org/2017/11/20/the-petition-of-more-than-15000-scientists-more-fakenews/


----------



## NavyShooter (21 Nov 2017)

Irony....?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2017)

The irony should burn even more when you consider that @ 70% of US energy generation is via coal fired thermal plants.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Feb 2019)

Just going to leave this here. 

From CNN - “The Most Trusted Name in News” (Their motto, not my choice)



> CNN)When Europeans arrived in the Americas, they caused so much death and disease that it changed the global climate, a new study finds.
> European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years in South, Central and North America, causing large swaths of farmland to be abandoned and reforested, researchers at University College London, or UCL, estimate. The increase in trees and vegetation across an area the size of France resulted in a massive decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, according to the study.
> Carbon levels changed enough to cool the Earth by 1610, researchers found. Columbus arrived in 1492,
> "CO2 and climate had been relatively stable until this point," said UCL Geography Professor Mark Maslin, one of the study's co-authors. "So, this is the first major change we see in the Earth's greenhouse gases."



More at link - https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/world/european-colonization-climate-change-trnd/index.html


----------



## mariomike (20 Feb 2019)

From BBC 


> Colonisation of the Americas at the end of the 15th Century killed so many people, it disturbed Earth's climate.
> 
> That's the conclusion of scientists from University College London, UK.



Complete article here,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

etc...
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mark+maslin%22+%22Great+Dying%22&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-7oDz-MzgAhUoWN8KHZNTA78QpwUIJQ&biw=1280&bih=641


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2019)

An environmentalist with whom I can agree:



> *The best way to save nature? Do nothing.*
> Peter Wohlleben argues no matter how much humans think they’re ruining the planet, the natural world will ultimately prevail
> 
> <snip>
> ...



https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-moral-catastrophe-of-justin-trudeau/

An incurable optimist.....

When commissioning a plant and training operators the hardest thing to do is to convince them to leave all those buttons alone and just watch the gauges.


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jun 2019)

This is pretty interesting. Haven't seen this theory before....


Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming

It is now abundantly clear that even respected mainstream NASA geologists and glaciologists are advocating that formerly underappreciated geological forces working in concert with atmospheric forces are responsible for polar ice cap melting. Here we note that in many cases these geological forces are dominant and, in some cases, the complete cause of modern-day and ancient polar ice cap melting

Knowing this brings into question other aspects of supposedly 100 percent settled climate dogma. Specifically, that man-made global warming is the root cause of other supposedly unnatural polar ice cap events such as alteration of marine and land animal migration patterns, anomalous plankton blooms, chemical alteration of adjacent ocean waters, alteration of polar area ocean currents, and changes in meteorological patterns. Many of these events are more likely the result of, or strongly influenced by, geologically induced heat and chemically charged heated fluid flow at the base of polar ice sheets or in adjacent oceans. Lastly, there is a quiet revolution occurring within NASA that will play out within the next year or two ending in the complete reconstruction of global warming theory.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/nasa-natural-causes-behind-polar-melt/?fbclid=IwAR0duTIVyvFZNDQffTLmyNyTKC0NOkW62gqjHpr2BOqC-IH_WqKpAp1SAWQ

All indications are that Earth is currently experiencing another period of strong volcanic activity which is acting to infuse CO2 into our atmosphere thereby challenging the validity of the global warming theory. Clearly, its time to put on hold all environmental action plans based on the cornerstone AGW principle of the global warming theory until additional geological CO2 emission research is conducted.

https://principia-scientific.org/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-discredits-global-warming-theory/


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jul 2020)

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as expert reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

   - Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

   - The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

   - Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

   - Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003

   - The amount of land we use for meat—humankind’s biggest use of land—has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

   - The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

   - Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

    -The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level

   - We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

   - Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change



https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/


----------



## CBH99 (2 Jul 2020)

Regardless of whatever primary causes there are behind our climate changing, I think we can all agree that we need to treat our planet substantially better.

Not cutting down rainforests, not filling our oceans with garbage and plastic, not filling our air with pollution and smog, etc etc - I think are all things we can unanimously get behind.



One thing listed in that article that stood among a few others...25% less fires now than 17 years ago?  Really?   rly:


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2020)

Environmental degradation tends to follow a U-shaped curve as a society develops.  In the early stages, things get worse as people are more focused on heating their homes and cooking their food and having a job than worrying about air or water quality.  In later stages as (if) a society prospers, attention turns to pollution mitigation as other problems recede or are adequately managed.  The evidence is seen in all the problems that are overcome (recovered bodies of water once deemed irretrievably polluted, abatement of acid rain, reduction of ozone depletion, improvements in urban air quality, etc).

Prosperity and technological advancement are fundamental to environmental improvement.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Jul 2020)

at last a spokesperson from the green side has revealed the flaws in the whole renewable philosophy.  But after 50 years of hearing that nuclear is bad, how are you going to convince people to switch away from those hideous aviary abattoirs?  We can take the first step by ordering nuclear powered subs to replace our current fleet, reverse the carbon tax to encourage our industry to stay in Canada rather than looking for cheap power elsewhere.  COVID19 has proven that that is a short-sighted concept, encourage the provinces to invest in mini-nuc. power plants.  But what politician is going to admit that they might have been wrong?


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> One thing listed in that article that stood among a few others...25% less fires now than 17 years ago?  Really?   rly:



Yup.... apparently:

Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world

Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth's surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. _*Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.*_ Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades. Trends in indirect impacts, such as health problems from smoke or disruption to social functioning, remain insufficiently quantified to be examined. Global predictions for increased fire under a warming climate highlight the already urgent need for a more sustainable coexistence with fire. The data evaluation presented here aims to contribute to this by reducing misconceptions and facilitating a more informed understanding of the realities of global fire.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/


----------



## Furniture (3 Jul 2020)

Based on my experience, every summer is the hottest or coldest ever, and every winter is either the warmest or coldest ever. 

People have a very bad weather memory, and the media turning every storm into an "event" has only made things worse. 

Bonus points if you actually think your part of the country is the only place where the weather changes every 15 min....


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jul 2020)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Based on my experience, every summer is the hottest or coldest ever, and every winter is either the warmest or coldest ever.
> 
> People have a very bad weather memory, and the media turning every storm into an "event" has only made things worse.
> 
> Bonus points if you actually think your part of the country is the only place where the weather changes every 15 min....



And don't forget abut the terrible, world ending earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that will decimate every city around the Pacific Rim of Fire.

Oh, wait....

Average house price tops $1M amid sales surge for luxury homes in busy June

An unusually high number of luxury home sales in a busy June pushed the average selling price for a single-family home in Greater Victoria to more than $1 million for the first time. The record of $1,014,746 beats out the previous high of $986,602 set this year in March.

https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/average-house-price-tops-1m-amid-sales-surge-for-luxury-homes-in-busy-june-1.24164266


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2020)

So we've all heard about the beef industry and global warming. How about the dairy industry:



> Can dairy adapt to climate change?
> By Emily Kasriel 8th December 2020
> 
> Amid polarised debate, Emily Kasriel asks how dairy farmers see the role of their industry in climate change – and finds a mixture of doubt, denial and commitment to change.
> ...



See rest of article here.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2020)

Meanwhile, down beside the seaside.... NTS: don't buy waterfront in Florida 

Climate Change Indicators: Oceans

Land Loss Along the Atlantic Coast

Covering about 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, the world’s oceans have a two-way relationship with weather and climate. The oceans influence the weather on local to global scales, while changes in climate can fundamentally alter many properties of the oceans. This chapter examines how some of these important characteristics of the oceans have changed over time.

Why does it matter?

As greenhouse gases trap more energy from the sun, the oceans are absorbing more heat, resulting in an increase in sea surface temperatures and rising sea level. Changes in ocean temperatures and currents brought about by climate change will lead to alterations in climate patterns around the world. For example, warmer waters may promote the development of stronger storms in the tropics, which can cause property damage and loss of life. The impacts associated with sea level rise and stronger storms are especially relevant to coastal communities.

Although the oceans help reduce climate change by storing large amounts of carbon dioxide, increasing levels of dissolved carbon are changing the chemistry of seawater and making it more acidic. Increased ocean acidity makes it more difficult for certain organisms, such as corals and shellfish, to build their skeletons and shells. These effects, in turn, could substantially alter the biodiversity and productivity of ocean ecosystems.

Changes in ocean systems generally occur over much longer time periods than in the atmosphere, where storms can form and dissipate in a single day. Interactions between the oceans and atmosphere occur slowly over many months to years, and so does the movement of water within the oceans, including the mixing of deep and shallow waters. Thus, trends can persist for decades, centuries, or longer. For this reason, even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilized tomorrow, it would take many more years—decades to centuries—for the oceans to adjust to changes in the atmosphere and the climate that have already occurred.

Summary of Key Points

Ocean Heat. Three independent analyses show that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but also affects sea level and currents. 

Sea Surface Temperature. Ocean surface temperatures increased around the world during the 20th century. Even with some year-to-year variation, the overall increase is clear, and sea surface temperatures have been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began in the late 1800s.

Sea Level. When averaged over all of the world’s oceans, sea level has risen at a rate of roughly six-tenths of an inch per decade since 1880. The rate of increase has accelerated in recent years to more than an inch per decade. Changes in sea level relative to the land vary by region. Along the U.S. coastline, sea level has risen the most along the Mid-Atlantic coast and parts of the Gulf coast, where some stations registered increases of more than 8 inches between 1960 and 2015. Sea level has decreased relative to the land in parts of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

A Closer Look: Land Loss Along the Atlantic Coast. As sea level rises, dry land and wetlands can turn into open water. Along many parts of the Atlantic coast, this problem is made worse by low elevations and land that is already sinking. Between 1996 and 2011, the coastline from Florida to New York lost more land than it gained.

Coastal Flooding. Flooding is becoming more frequent along the U.S. coastline as sea level rises. Nearly every site measured has experienced an increase in coastal flooding since the 1950s. The rate is accelerating in many locations along the East and Gulf coasts. The Mid-Atlantic region suffers the highest number of coastal flood days and has also experienced the largest increases in flooding.

Ocean Acidity. The ocean has become more acidic over the past few decades because of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which dissolves in the water. Higher acidity affects the balance of minerals in the water, which can make it more difficult for certain marine animals to build their protective skeletons or shells.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/oceans


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Dec 2020)

I wonder what Obama's thoughts on this were when he bought his mansion on Martha's Vineyard?


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2020)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> I wonder what Obama's thoughts on this were when he bought his mansion on Martha's Vineyard?



My guess is: "Nice view and I'll be able to sell it for a tidy profit before things get too bad."

 ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Aug 2021)

Shot, over 

*Why The Science Behind the UN/IPCC Climate Reports is “Unsettled” – David Yager*


When it comes to climate change, the frequently repeated mantra is “The science is settled.” Those who dare raise questions are labelled climate change deniers. Everybody else just agrees with everything and keeps their views to themselves.

Except scientist and author Steven E. Koonin, who begs to differ. The title of his book is _Unsettled – What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters. _

Climate science was again headline news on August 9 after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its latest report. Starting with the first report in 1990, the IPCC has concluded climate change is a growing problem with serious consequences. Subsequent reports in 1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013 were accompanied by increasingly stronger language to highlight the enormity of this growing threat.

In the 2021 version, the IPCC chose language that can be fairly described as histrionics. The IPCC’s AR 6 (Assessment Report) media release used descriptive wording you’d normally expect from radical environmental lobby groups pitching certain doom to terrify people into donating money and buying memberships.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called AR 6 a “code red for humanity” adding, “The alarm bells are deafening. This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet.”

Does this sound like science? This is pure alarmist political hyperbole. Taken literally, even the rocks are not safe from the ravages of fossil fuels.

But the IPCC’s public communications are no longer about true climate science, nor have they been for some time. This is one of the key points in _Unsettled, _written by physicist/scientist Steven E. Koonin who was the former Undersecretary for Science under President Barack Obama in the US Department of Energy.

Koonin is a serious guy with serious reservations about the IPCC. While never suggesting that carbon dioxide does not trap heat in the atmosphere or that human activity is not a contributor to global warming and climate change, his issues are with the inner workings of the IPCC and the alarmist news coverage of everything related to the weather.

Because to Koonin, there is pure science – the academic process meant to underpin the IPCC’s research – and “The Science,” words used to justify lazy and misleading journalism, preach impending disaster, advocate for unworkable fossil fuel alternatives, and demand that the entire global energy complex be replaced immediately regardless of cost.

Since the IPCC was created in 1988, its ARs have been commonly considered the holy grail of climate modelling. After all, 97% of the scientists involved agree that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are essentially a thermostat. The higher the CO2, the higher the temperature and more volatile the weather.

Except this isn’t true. The 97% agreement figure has been debunked multiple times in multiple places. But like any skepticism associated with the subject, it was drowned out by the crescendo of voices claiming that the world faces a climate emergency and that anyone who doesn’t agree is an enemy of the future of humanity.

But as a physicist and scientist, Koonin is concerned that many of the fundamental drivers behind public concerns and climate change policy do not have an unquestionable foundation in classic academic science.

So he wrote a book about it. Using the simplest words possible for such a complex subject and numerous graphs and charts that are quite understandable with a little study, Koonin explains where he believes The Science departs from established and accepted scientific methods.

Koonin states that the public communications about the IPCC’s work and the actual state of the world’s climate are “profoundly misleading.” He writes on the inside cover, “…core questions – about the way the climate is responding to our (human) influence and what the impacts will be – remain largely unanswered.”

He began his career building computer models to study atoms and nuclei using the same basic tools as the IPCC uses for its climate models. Before joining the Obama administration, he was a professor at Caltech and later the chief scientist at BP where he focused much of his work on renewable energy. In DC he writes, “I helped guide the government’s investments in energy technologies and climate science.”

But everything changed in 2013 and 2014 when Koonin was asked by the American Physical Society – the professional organization of America physicists – “to ‘stress test’ the state of climate science.” This included examining in detail the different climate modelling methodologies.

Koonin writes that he finished this process “not only surprised but shaken.” The models used insufficient input data to separate natural from human causes. Various climate models contradicted each other and therefore required non-scientific “expert judgement” to achieve the desired outcome. Government and UN pronouncements were so different from the contents of the reports that some climate experts were embarrassed. Koonin added, “the science is insufficient to make useful projections about how the climate will change over the coming decades.”

Wow. You don’t read that every day.

He starts by explaining the difference between climate and the weather, repeating an old saw dating back to 1901 which states, “Climate is what you expect; weather is what you get.” The most important part of the early pages of the book is that weather is not climate, and the highly publicized severe weather events experienced today are not the worst ever, nor are they occurring more frequently.

But thanks to the internet and profound changes in how news is created and distributed, today’s non-stop reporting of all global forest fires, floods and storms leads many to conclude that things are indeed getting worse. And thanks to the IPCC and thirty years of increasingly unquestioned repetition, fossil fuels and growing CO2 emissions are the primary causes.

Koonin indicates that severe weather events have been around for centuries and will be with us for centuries, no matter how successful the world’s attempt to quit using fossil fuels prove to be.

He also illustrates that while the world has indeed warmed 1oC since the start of the industrial revolution, it has not been a straight line. The world warmed steadily from 1910 to 1940, then levelled off until 1970. Warming then resumed. Koonin emphasizes that most of the current focus is on the past fifty years, not the 60 years before that.

The rate of rise of the oceans has been roughly the same for centuries, about a foot every hundred years. Ocean levels have undergone massive fluctuations in the past, increases and declines completely unrelated to the planet’s growing population and fossil fuel consumption.

Koonin then dives into the how climate models work, making this complex subject understandable. There are wide variations among the different computer programs and methodologies but what bothers the author most is that the models don’t accurately duplicate historical events, even from the 20th century.

Which means something is wrong with the methodology. Koonin’s point is if climate models can’t replicate the past, how can they predict the future? Of the 1910 to 1940 warming period Koonin writes, “…they’re saying that we’ve no idea what causes this failure of the models. They cannot tell us why the climate changed during those decades. And that’s deeply unsettling…”

Another major factor is the impact of clouds and aerosols (airborne particles and chemicals) which reduce warming by the sun. Koonin quoted one researcher who said, “Cloud-aerosol interactions are on the bleeding edge of our comprehension of how the climate system works, and it’s a challenge to model what we don’t understand.”

Another phenomenon of modern climate research is looking backwards; an unpleasant weather event occurs then The Science determines if this was a recurring natural phenomenon or caused by human induced climate change. These are called “attribution studies.”

The IPCC’s 2012 Special Report on Extreme Events concludes, “Even if there were no anthropogenic (man-made) changes in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur.”

The World Meteorological Organization adds, “…any single event, such as a severe tropical cyclone (hurricane or typhoon), cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the current status of scientific understanding.”

Koonin matches modern with historical data. Tornadoes are a good example. Because of modern communications and satellites, even the smallest tornadoes are now recorded. This shows an upward trend since 1950. However, when Koonin sorts them out by size (big enough to be noticed and documented from 1954 to 2014), there is no average increase in higher strength tornadoes and a decline in the most powerful twisters.

On to droughts. Koonin reconstructs severe drops in the flow of the Colorado River dating back to AD 750 using tree rings. Another chart titled “California Drought Severity Index” dating back to 1900 shows multiple droughts in the past 120 years before the recent most recent dry period.

Forest fires? Koonin’s chart shows a steady average decline in the global burned areas since 2003. Human factors like clearing the land for agriculture are a far greater cause of forest fires than climate change.

He even takes the time to brand former Bank of Canada chief and UN climate envoy Mark Carney as a climate alarmist. While still head of the Bank of England in 2014, Carney said the previous winter was the “wettest since the time of King George.” Koonin’s rainfall chart from 2020 back to 1770 indicate that 2014 was hardly an anomaly.

On Carney Koonin wrote, “…it’s surprising that someone with a PhD in economics and experience with the unpredictability of financial markets and economics as a whole doesn’t show a greater respect for the perils of predictions…and more caution in depending upon models.”

Weather related deaths have continued to decline for the past 110 years. “Deaths from wildfires in any decade are too small to be visible on this chart.” Despite warnings about how climate change will cause food shortages, as the population grew by billions in the past 110 years, Koonin graphs how the inflation-corrected price of grain in 2000 was 90% lower than in 1910.

The media regularly repeats the predictions of dire economic consequences from a warming world, but all the climate models – even those with much higher temperatures – show steady economic growth for the rest of the 21st century.

Koonin is highly critical of modern media coverage writing, “…as the age of the internet advances, headlines become more provocative to encourage clicks – even when the article itself didn’t support the provocation…Whatever its noble intentions, news is ultimately a business, one that in this digital era increasingly depends upon eyeballs in the form of clicks and shares. Reporting on the scientific reality that there’s hardly been any long-term change in extreme weather events doesn’t fit the ethos of ‘_If it bleeds it leads’_.”

So nowadays almost every reported bad weather event quote somebody who claims that it was either caused or made worse by climate change. No research, no historical context.

After 205 pages of detailed explanation, Koonin switches to commentary. He concluded years ago that the CO2 emission reductions required to meet the agreed-upon temperature ceilings by 2030 and the increasingly repeated chant of _Net Zero by 2050_ were impossible.

Besides the enormity of replacing the existing energy infrastructure on a global scale, once people fully understand what the “energy transition” really means to their lifestyle and incomes, voter support tumbles. People don’t understand the degree to which fossil fuels have helped create and support the wealth and comforts of modern society.

Plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers and the powerful energy sources required for heavy transportation and manufacturing of basic construction materials cannot be replaced with interruptible electricity.

Koonin highlights the recent phenomenon of OECD countries shutting down their carbon intensive industries to appear to be tackling the emissions problem. But voters continue to buy the same products from other countries like China which use low-cost coal as the primary energy source. This is politics and virtue signaling that does not change the chemical composition of the planet’s atmosphere.

While the wealthy west may be able to afford converting to low carbon energy, the developing world cannot and, unless forced, will not.

Therefore, Koonin also puts forward Plan B. If CO2 emissions are proven to be primary cause of warming but the people of the world choose not to replace fossil fuels because of excessive costs and disruption, the author sees two solutions, both expensive and unproven.

The first is Solar Radiation Management – blocking the sun’s radiant heat with materials placed in the upper atmosphere. The other is Carbon Dioxide Removal, which is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere in huge quantities.

As a scientist, Koonin feels the need to explain there are more scientific methods of altering the climate besides fear, sacrifice, taxes, politics and promoting fossil fuel substitutes that don’t work.

When it released AR6, the IPCC knew that declaring fossil fuels will destroy the planet would make headlines and grab eyeballs. But those who actually read the 4,000-page report discovered that the likelihood of very high temperature extremes have been downgraded.

A _Wall Street Journal_ article on August 11 read, “…the IPCC has dialed back the probability of (without ruling out) more extreme changes in temperature. Such scenarios have been used to justify faster and costlier action to ban or limit fossil fuels.”

Which underpins Koonin’s points. There’s true climate science – complex and under continuous development – and there’s The Science, which spreads fear measured in decibels, not degrees Celsius.

Is Koonin right? He admits he could be wrong. Which is why he wants to fund research into blocking the sun’s heat with a giant chemical umbrella.

Is what you read about climate change in the news right? Absolutely not.



Why The Science Behind the UN/IPCC Climate Reports is “Unsettled” - David Yager - Energy News for the Canadian Oil & Gas Industry | EnergyNow.ca


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Aug 2021)

Be careful D&B the EV crowd will be after you  with pitchforks and kale based drinks.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Be careful D&B the EV crowd will be after you  with pitchforks and kale based drinks.


I’m hedging my bets, CP…I’ll get an EV to sit beside my diesel SUV! 👍🏼


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Aug 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Be careful D&B the EV crowd will be after you  with pitchforks and kale based drinks.



I know, but the Nuclear Power Industry are big fans


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I know, but the Nuclear Power Industry are big fans
> 
> View attachment 66081


We’ve kinda always known that…notwithstanding the demonization from pacifists who don’t mind getting solar power from the Mother of All H-Bombs…


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Shot, over
> 
> *Why The Science Behind the UN/IPCC Climate Reports is “Unsettled” – David Yager*
> 
> ...


The language in the IPCC reports has changed through time as a representation of the increasing statistical probability or certainty as it applies to the collective science on global warming and the purpose of the various reports in communicating that to it's audience. Most people are reading or quoting from one of the many reports issued by the IPCC and don't go much deeper usually the Summary to Policymakers or if you are lucky one on the science or the synthesis. It's dense reading either way and it's been a while since I've attempted it.





__





						Reports — IPCC
					






					www.ipcc.ch
				




It doesn't look like Koonin is offering anything new under the sun as far as criticisms go and like many on this issue appears to mix up his criticism of science and policy.


----------



## Weinie (17 Aug 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I’m hedging my bets, CP…*I’ll get an EV* to sit beside my diesel SUV! 👍🏼


So G2G, you are sitting on the (electric) fence on this issue.


----------



## YZT580 (17 Aug 2021)

Know  watch how they try to bury that one.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, down beside the seaside.... NTS: don't buy waterfront in Florida
> 
> Climate Change Indicators: Oceans
> 
> ...



A handy app for those interested in beachfront property









						Flood Maps
					

Dynamic maps of sea level rise. Will global warming affect you?



					flood.firetree.net
				




Here's what The North Sea looks like with the water rising 5m



Half of Jylland is under water.  Frisia is under water.  The Nederlands are under water.  The Somerset Levels, Porstmouth Marshes, Romney Marsh, the Thames estuary, the Broads, the Fens and Holderness is under water.

Which is to say it looks much like the same area when the Romans left Britain and the Anglo-Saxons moved in.



According to the archaeologists the Romans, who settled Britain when the sun shone during the Roman Climatic Optimum, lived in the valleys.  The Frisians, Angles, Saxons, Danes and Jutes who followed them when the weather turned cold and wet, opted to live on the tops of hills.

The Tudor Navy was built on the shoreline in Romney Marsh - an area that is high and dry 15 miles from the shore now.

One other thing.  The Nederlands are still under water.


----------



## YZT580 (17 Aug 2021)

Yet it seems to be the warmists who are buying up the waterfront.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2021)

At 3.5 mm  a year, the locals have some time to react.


----------



## FJAG (17 Aug 2021)

You can tell how worried Americans and Canadians are about fossil fuel emissions by virtue of the fact that the F150 series of trucks continues to top the list of most units sold (nearly 900,000 in the US and 128,649 in Canada) - Silverado and RAM are right up there as well.

🍻


----------



## YZT580 (20 Feb 2022)

Sure hope none of you earthhuggers are wailing for an electric vehicle from VW.  There are literally hundreds of them going up in smoke in the Atlantic right now.  Those darn lithium batteries are making it impossible to gain control although to be totally open they may not have been the cause of the fire in the first place (no one knows or if they do they are not saying)


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Mar 2022)

Well done Greta et al...


In B.C., ER doctor says patients are attempting suicide over climate anxiety​ 
As researchers set out to surveil the growing toll climate change is having on the mental health of Canadians, some in B.C. are warning climate distress is already leading to suicide attempts. 

Salmon Arm had been blanketed in wildfire smoke for days. A record heat dome had killed nearly 600 people across the province only weeks earlier. 

When the town of Lytton, B.C., set a Canadian temperature record of 49.6 C — a day later burning to the ground — the evacuees added to the steady stream of patients at the Shuswap Lake General Hospital.

Emergency room doctor Lori Adamson remembers stretchers lined up in the hallway. The number of patients suffering heat illness and smoke inhalation meant her unit was running out of available beds and nurses. 

Then came the suicides. 

“A lot of the youth that I was seeing were attempting to commit suicide because of climate distress,” she told Glacier Media.

“They're fearing that they'll never outlive the climate disasters and global warming… they overtly expressed that.”

Adamson says at least three young patients she saw tried to end their life through a drug overdose because they feared climate change. Some were transferred to hospitals that could provide higher levels of care. 

The doctor does not know how or if all the patients survived. 

There is emerging evidence that government inaction on climate change is impacting young people's health in severe ways. Last September, a global survey of 10,000 young people across 10 countries found nearly half of those between 16 and 25 reported psychological distress over climate change.

In some of the most telling signs, 58 per cent of respondents said governments were betraying future generations; 75 per cent said “the future was frightening.”








						In B.C., ER doctor says patients are attempting suicide over climate anxiety
					

As researchers set out to surveil the growing toll climate change is having on the mental health of Canadians, some in B.C. are warning climate distress is already leading to suicide attempts.




					www.timescolonist.com


----------



## Lumber (28 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Well done Greta et al...
> 
> 
> In B.C., ER doctor says patients are attempting suicide over climate anxiety​
> ...


No No No: they're just doing the most they canto save the environment!

But seriously, I was really hoping that a pandemic and WWIII would have culled a lot more of the population.

#thanoswasright


----------



## YZT580 (28 Mar 2022)

Lumber said:


> No No No: they're just doing the most they canto save the environment!
> 
> But seriously, I was really hoping that a pandemic and WWIII would have culled a lot more of the population.
> 
> #thanoswasright


Darwin's theory proven once again


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Mar 2022)

Note that the culprit is government inaction on climate change, not relentless predictions of apocalyptic outcomes.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2022)

I have seen that lack of optimism in my own family.  May the alarmists rot.


----------



## YZT580 (28 Mar 2022)

If waiting for government were truly a cause, the national suicide rate would be 10X higher.  We have been waiting for 10 years for them to fill the potholes on our road.  Pilots who started training with the promise of a shiny new fighter to fly are starting to retire.  Still waiting for boots and a new revolver and the rangers are just now receiving the replacement for their WW1 rifles.


----------



## OceanBonfire (29 Mar 2022)

> Misinformation about solar power and wind farms is leading local governments across the country to restrict — or even reject — renewable energy projects. It's a threat to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, researchers warn.











						Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States
					

The spread of misinformation about solar and wind energy is leading some states and counties to restrict or even reject projects. Researchers say it's a threat to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.




					www.npr.org


----------



## kev994 (29 Mar 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States
> 
> 
> The spread of misinformation about solar and wind energy is leading some states and counties to restrict or even reject projects. Researchers say it's a threat to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
> ...


They should look into the effects of what’s coming out of some of the existing power plants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Mar 2022)

Delightfully ironic.  They can fight it out with the proponents of nuclear power over who is subject to the most misinformation.


----------



## QV (11 Jul 2022)

Let's face it, we're in trouble if Trudeau's policies continue much longer.









						EDITORIAL: The great reset is back to fossil fuels
					

Claims by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland that the global energy crisis is a reason to move to so-called “green” energy…




					torontosun.com
				




_Much of Europe — led by Germany — abandoned domestic energy security in the mad rush to go green, leaving the continent vulnerable to the whims of dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Because their leaders foolishly ignored domestic energy security, Europeans are now vulnerable to the twin dangers of skyrocketing energy prices and severe energy shortages this winter, if Putin decides to turn the screws on Europe’s energy supply,

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ ostensible goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 — less than eight years from now — and to net zero by 2050, is a fantasy.

Global emissions last year were the highest in history, surpassing the drop in emissions during the first year of the pandemic in 2020.

When it comes to Canada’s energy supply, things are not that desperate, yet.

But it’s alarming that Trudeau and Freeland are doubling down on green propaganda and the foolish argument that renewable energy sources, given their current level of technology, are anywhere near ready to replace fossil fuels, especially in a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated country like Canada.

Canada could be a global leader in sensible energy policies because we have huge domestic reserves of natural gas and safe nuclear technology.

Because nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases and natural gas burns at half the carbon intensity of coal, using them to replace coal-fired electricity globally is the single most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions._


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2022)

Can’t disagree with a single bit of that, QV.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jul 2022)

_"But it’s alarming that Trudeau and Freeland are doubling down on green propaganda and the foolish argument that renewable energy sources, given their current level of technology, are anywhere near ready to replace fossil fuels, especially in a big, cold, northern, sparsely-populated country like Canada."_

It's not alarming. Anyone that's been paying attention since 2019 could see what wasn't coming down the pipe. Crude oil. Trudeau and freeland haven't been shy about exposing us to the wishes of WEF and a full on push to destroy the oil industry. This is no surprise. They see turmoil approaching and want to get as much done for their agenda as they can before getting handed their asses.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2022)

In view of the clamouring of the government/expert community over one major outage in part of the telecommunications playground, I look forward to the intensity of the denunciations and scapegoating when shortages arise in the energy playground.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> In view of the clamouring of the government/expert community over one major outage in part of the telecommunications playground, I look forward to the intensity of the denunciations and scapegoating when shortages arise in the energy playground.


Pure misdirection by the grits. Nothing to do with emergency services. The government is doing nothing about it except telling the telecoms to sort it out amongst themselves, then report to the Minister for permission to launch. For a government to dictate how a private business must operate and with who, is wrong. We can tell them to operate safely. We can tell them how to pay taxes and licenses. What we shouldn't be doing is telling them how to run their business or who to partner with.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Pure misdirection by the grits. Nothing to do with emergency services. The government is doing nothing about it except telling the telecoms to sort it out amongst themselves, then report to the Minister for permission to launch. For a government to dictate how a private business must operate and with who, is wrong. We can tell them to operate safely. We can tell them how to pay taxes and licenses. What we shouldn't be doing is telling them how to run their business or who to partner with.


To an extent I agree with you but when two major players become one basically giving us two poor choices maybe then the government needs to step in. AT&T was broken up because it had a virtual monopoly on telecom stuff in the US.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

The US basically has 4 major companies dominant (subscriber base) in wireless, with the fifth very far behind.  A much larger customer base is supporting their infrastructure.  I'm not really convinced we need 4 (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw), let alone a fifth or more.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The US basically has 4 major companies dominant (subscriber base) in wireless, with the fifth very far behind.  A much larger customer base is supporting their infrastructure.  I'm not really convinced we need 4 (Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw), let alone a fifth or more.


In country the size of Canada with our small population,   I am not sure how one gets “European priced” celphone coverage with 4 (plus) national carriers duplicating towers and infrastructure from coast to coast to coast…

Not sure what this has to do with global warming….


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

It doesn't have anything to do directly with climate issues.  I'm looking ahead to when the first major screwups over energy policy happen, and the finger-pointing starts.  (I suppose the first major screwups are already happening, in some countries.  The question is whether we act on the horrible warnings or become one.)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It doesn't have anything to do directly with climate issues.  I'm looking ahead to when the first major screwups over energy policy happen, and the finger-pointing starts.  (I suppose the first major screwups are already happening, in some countries.  The question is whether we act on the horrible warnings or become one.)


Usually, the policy makers find an energy company scapegoat for failing to deliver energy (in whatever form) that their rules prevented the company from delivering in the first place. Then, they double down on more stupid rules, so…


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

Yep.  Now, to find a woodburning stove and refurbish it and set it aside in the garage...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Yep.  Now, to find a woodburning stove and refurbish it and set it aside in the garage...


They are nice, but you get what you pay for.  Get an air tight model with really heavy steel construction- it saves you wood.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

> saves you wood



But if it's cold I want to burn as much as possible to increase the CO2 content and warm things up...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> But if it's cold I want to burn as much as possible to increase the CO2 content and warm things up...


Clever. Verrrrry.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2022)

It's a joke.  But if policies crimp home energy use, it's what I expect to happen: people will burn wood.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's a joke.  But if policies crimp home energy use, it's what I expect to happen: people will burn wood.


I know. I get your humour, Brad. No need to explain…


----------



## YZT580 (14 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's a joke.  But if policies crimp home energy use, it's what I expect to happen: people will burn wood.


that is what happened in GB.  People are burning anything they can find


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's a joke.  But if policies crimp home energy use, it's what I expect to happen: people will burn wood.


I’ll use my lessons learned from AFG: tires…after all, they’re just repackaged dinosaurs…circle of life and all that… 👍🏼


----------



## QV (5 Aug 2022)

Great news!









						Great Barrier Reef is bursting back to life with record coral cover: study
					

Experts caution that the regrowth was made up largely of a fast-growing but weak variety known as Acropora that often grows in 'boom and bust' cycles




					nationalpost.com
				




_Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is bursting back to life in a remarkable comeback after being damaged by warming waters, an investigation has revealed...

Yet scientists revealed yesterday that the northern and central parts of the reef now have the highest amount of coral cover since monitoring began 36 years ago. The reason for the reef’s sudden recovery is not known, but it suggests the ecosystem has much greater resilience and ability to recover than previously understood..._


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2022)

Meanwhile, in California....

Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban​
Californians Told Not To Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban


Californians may need to take measures to conserve energy, including by avoiding charging electric vehicles, to prevent strain to the state's power grid over the Labor Day weekend, officials said—a week after state regulators voted on a plan to ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars.
The new policy, approved by the California Air Resources Board, will require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035 as part of an effort to fight climate change.

But with a heat wave forecast for the coming days, California's grid operator on Tuesday warned that the excessive heat would stress the energy grid and conservation may be needed over the holiday weekend to avert power outages.









						Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
					

The California Air Resources Board recently approved a rule to require all new cars sold in California to be free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## kev994 (1 Sep 2022)

Pakistan floods create massive 100km-wide inland lake, satellite images show
					

Striking new satellite images that reveal the extent of Pakistan's record flooding show how an overflowing Indus River has turned part of Sindh Province into a 100 kilometer-wide inland lake.




					amp.cnn.com


----------



## YZT580 (1 Sep 2022)

QV said:


> Great news!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gee, do you think that maybe there is enough resiliency built into our climate that it can tolerate warm periods and maybe even ice ages without killing off all life?  Maybe we can even adapt to a 2 degree increase in average temperature and still thrive?  The coral did, the ice is still in the Arctic, and the polar bears have never been healthier.  From what I see, all we have succeeded in doing is make more people poor, force Africans to continue to use charcoal as a prime cooking fuel, slaughtered countless birds with are twirling abattoirs and caused more severe forest fires by not controlling the undergrowth.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2022)

> Californians Told Not To Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban



Top.  Men.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2022)

The reason for the population explosion is simple.  Fewer infants die horrible deaths from famine, filthy water, malaria and other wasting sicknesses and diseases.

Let's bring back the good old days.  5 year olds with cataracts, rickets and distended bellies dealing with tapeworms and dysentery.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, in California....
> 
> Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban​
> Californians Told Not To Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
> ...


On the bright side, California will not be able to dictate the ICE car industry for the rest of North America.


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, in California....
> 
> Californians Told Not to Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban​
> Californians Told Not To Charge Electric Cars Days After Gas Car Sales Ban
> ...


They're asking people not to charge during peak hours, 4-9 p.m. Which most sane people wouldn't be doing anyway since they have time-of-use billing there and it costs way more then. EVs have timers that are easily set to account for this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2022)

Bottom line is they're asking people not to charge to avoid blackouts, which means the supply is too limited.


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Bottom line is they're asking people not to charge to avoid blackouts, which means the supply is too limited.


If only there were a way to generate power when it’s sunny and demand is high…
On an unrelated note, check out this problem solver, he’s using the power from his EV, that he charged during off-peak hours, to do surgery. 

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1565437347403022343


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2022)

Meanwhile, at Tesla:


----------



## kev994 (2 Sep 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Meanwhile, at Tesla:
> 
> View attachment 72901


They don’t make a van, this is a poor argument, I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Sep 2022)

> If only there were a way to generate power when it’s sunny and demand is high…



There is.  If only some of the aspirational hand-waving people do resulted in completed projects capable of meeting future demand before the future is the present.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Sep 2022)

> Human life expectancy has doubled over the past century, from 36 years in 1920 to more than 72 years today.












						Climate gains are ‘inconvenient truth’ — it’s not all bad news about the environment
					

Climate change fear is causing life-changing anxiety. You might be hearing nothing but bad news, but that doesn’t mean that you’re hearing the full story.




					nypost.com
				







So life expectancy has doubled since 1928.

If only the old continued to die off at that same rate they used to then the population would be at least half of what it is now and be more sustainable. 

We would only have 4 billion people competing for resources.  Not 8.

But not only are there more older people, because they survived they had more kids, If the old didn't survive and they hadn't had kids then would could be living in the sustainable paradise of the 1920s.

A curse on Sir Alexander Fleming, a pox on him. Fie, I say.



> *Sir Alexander Fleming* FRS FRSE FRCS[1] (6 August 1881 – 11 March 1955) was a Scottish physician and microbiologist, best known for discovering the world's first broadly effective antibiotic substance, which he named penicillin. His discovery in 1928 of what was later named benzylpenicillin (or penicillin G) from the mould _Penicillium rubens_ is described as the "single greatest victory ever achieved over disease."[3][4]


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2022)

Substantial gains in life expectancy are almost always due to substantial decreases in infant and child mortality.

As people become prosperous, and provided they have access to means of birth control, they tend to have fewer children.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Sep 2022)

If you want to save the planet, make sure you educate young women. There are enough studies that show education reduces the birth rate, reduces, infant mortality, and improves the economic situation.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If you want to save the planet, make sure you educate young women. There are enough studies that show education reduces the birth rate, reduces, infant mortality, and improves the economic situation.



It's all about the magic washing machine...









						The magic washing machine
					

What was the greatest invention of the industrial revolution? Hans Rosling makes the case for the washing machine. With newly designed graphics from Gapminder, Rosling shows us the magic that pops up when economic growth and electricity turn a boring wash day into an intellectual day of reading.




					www.ted.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2022)

Doesn't quite fit the theory that you can't use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house.  Which is OK, because the theory is asinine.


----------



## OceanBonfire (29 Sep 2022)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-institute-taxes-report-1.6598437
		










						Faster adaptation to climate change will save Canada billions: analysis  | Globalnews.ca
					

Beyond higher reconstruction costs, Canada is also facing massive economic disruptions as factories are closed during storms or extreme heat and supply chains are disrupted.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## FSTO (29 Sep 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/climate-institute-taxes-report-1.6598437
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well duh, its amazing how things go if you don't build on flood plains, vulnerable coastlines, difficult to access forested areas. It also helps if you leave wetlands and coastal marsh areas alone and don't allow deadfall in forests to build up.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Sep 2022)

FSTO said:


> don't allow deadfall in forests to build up.


Years ago - ln the late 80s IIRC and forest guy said with all the build up of deadfall there would be issues. They used to do controlled burns of older dieing parts of the forest....but.....Green Peace and politicians eager to suck up stopped that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2022)

Could ditch the word "change" and headline would still make sense, and be closer to the root of the issue.  Going head-to-head with natural forces is rarely prudent.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Could ditch the word "change" and headline would still make sense, and be closer to the root of the issue.  Going head-to-head with natural forces is rarely prudent.



Or emphasise the word "change" and teach kids that change happens.  And we're still here.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Sep 2022)

Or stop cheaping-out and ‘de-adapting’ and blaming it on climate change, when it’s really about being less adaptive than you used to be…


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Oct 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Years ago - ln the late 80s IIRC and forest guy said with all the build up of deadfall there would be issues. They used to do controlled burns of older dieing parts of the forest....but.....Green Peace and politicians eager to suck up stopped that.



Prescribed burns were stopped because citizens complained about smoky summers, and the occasional burn 'gets away' from the crew and burns houses and other infrastructure, which is also unpleasant. The solution is _not _to the let the First Nations do their traditional thing...

BC's Forest Practises Borad is doing a few audits on the subject, FYI:

*2. Barriers to Prescribed Fire*​*




*​Prescribed burning is a well-known and cost effective way to reduce forest fuels, but it has not been widely practiced in BC for over 30 years. This is despite the fact that prescribed fire is known to mitigate wildfire risk, help restore and enhance forest and range, and is a culturally significant practice for many Indigenous communities across BC.  Several factors, including policies, limited prescribed burning knowledge and practice, and public opinion are believed to have contributed to the drastic decline in use of prescribed fire. This special investigation will focus on Section 23 of the _Wildfire Regulation_ (resource management, open fires) and examine barriers in policy, practice and public opinion to using fire for resource management purposes, offering solutions for government and practitioners to overcome them.









						Issue #26 - Winter 2022 - Forest Practices Board
					

Here in BC we didn’t want another reminder of our changing climate and its effects but we got it anyway… The floods of November 2021 will rank as one of the most costly natural disasters in Canadian history and the impacts will be with us for years to come. Water is a critical resource to […]




					www.bcfpb.ca


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2022)

After decades of fuel build-up, I can guess that prescribed burns won't behave the way people "remember" from long ago.

"Yeah, we used to do this all the time."

"Wow, look at it go!"


----------



## OceanBonfire (2 Oct 2022)

> ...
> 
> Babcock Ranch calls itself "America's first solar-powered town." Its nearby solar array — made up of 700,000 individual panels — generates more electricity than the 2,000-home neighbourhood uses, in a state where most electricity is generated by burning natural gas, a planet-warming fossil fuel.
> 
> ...











						This 100% solar community endured Hurricane Ian with no loss of power and minimal damage
					

Babcock Ranch calls itself 'America's first solar-powered town.' The streets in this meticulously planned neighbourhood are designed to flood so houses don't, and power and internet lines are buried to avoid wind damage. While Hurricane Ian obliterated the nearby Fort Myers and Naples areas...




					www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## kev994 (2 Oct 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> This 100% solar community endured Hurricane Ian with no loss of power and minimal damage
> 
> 
> Babcock Ranch calls itself 'America's first solar-powered town.' The streets in this meticulously planned neighbourhood are designed to flood so houses don't, and power and internet lines are buried to avoid wind damage. While Hurricane Ian obliterated the nearby Fort Myers and Naples areas...
> ...


I came here to post this! I thought it was interesting how they’ve kept power on with solar. It says that they produce more than they need, so presumably they’re normally tied to the rest of the grid and selling the excess.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Oct 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> After decades of fuel build-up, I can guess that prescribed burns won't behave the way people "remember" from long ago.
> 
> "Yeah, we used to do this all the time."
> 
> "Wow, look at it go!"



It's not looking great right now... and there's no rain expected in the foreseeable future:








						Fire Danger
					

Information on the current fire danger ratings in B.C.



					www2.gov.bc.ca


----------



## FSTO (4 Oct 2022)

kev994 said:


> I came here to post this! I thought it was interesting how they’ve kept power on with solar. It says that they produce more than they need, so presumably they’re normally tied to the rest of the grid and selling the excess.


Florida is still going underwater.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2022)

Is there hope for Alberta?​
Freeland's speech in Washington may not have been a one off.

The Liberal Organ signs off on hydrocarbons.
​What if Canada could have a bigger oil and gas industry, and lower emissions? It’s possible​THE EDITORIAL BOARD
PUBLISHED 13 HOURS AGOUPDATED 50 MINUTES AGO




The Suncor tar sands processing plant near the Athabasca River at their mining operations near Fort McMurray, Alta.TODD KOROL/REUTERS
50 COMMENTS
SHARE
BOOKMARK
LISTEN TO ARTICLE

There’s a big difference between promise and action.
Last Friday, Canada’s oil sands companies started to bridge that chasm, moving from a vague pledge to reach net-zero emissions to a $24.1-billion plan to get a third of the way to the goal by 2030.
A brief history: The oil sands of northeastern Alberta had long held a visible bounty of crude. But it wasn’t until the 1960s and 1970s that the riddle of turning bitumen into usable oil was solved, in part with significant support from governments. The region remained a fringe part of the oil business until the 2000s, when a boom took off, again in part propelled by government support. It made Canada into the world’s fourth-largest oil producer.
Transforming bitumen into oil, however, takes energy. Using fossil fuels to make fossil fuels, along with everything else involved in the process, produces lots of greenhouse gas emissions.
Last year, the oil sands companies said they could achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and drew up a conceptual road map, starting with cutting emissions by a third by 2030. But as the months passed, with no details or spending plans, this page and others wondered about what was happening – or rather not happening. In February, we urged industry to invest some of its windfall profits and get more ambitious.
Friday marked a big step – $24.1-billion, two-thirds of it going to carbon capture and storage, and the rest to other projects. Of the $16.5-billion budgeted for carbon capture, taxpayers will foot almost half the bill, with subsidies of $7.1-billion through to 2030 outlined in Ottawa’s April budget.
The long history of the oil sands is important because it illustrates the shared role of industry and governments in unlocking a massive resource. On emissions, it had so far been Ottawa out in front. Now, industry has shown up.
Also important is a shift in rhetoric, from both industry and Ottawa. “Our perspective is, ‘Watch us now,’” said Kendall Dilling, head of Pathways Alliance, the coalition of oil sands companies. “We have made that fundamental mindset shift that our future is a carbon-free production of our product.”
This is key. There is a global demand for Canadian oil and natural gas, and this country will be producing both for years to come. Canadians receive enormous economic benefits from the fact this country is a major producer, and so do our allies. Canada needs to cut emissions across the economy, and the oil and gas industry has to lead, significantly and steadily reducing its emissions. But forcing an artificial cut in production of Canadian oil and gas, when global demand exists, is not the way to get there. The void would be filled by OPEC, Moscow and others. It would leave us poorer and weaker, and would benefit neither us nor our allies.
The future of oil and gas has polarized Canadian politics. The left demonizes crude, the right lionizes it, and both sides miss the point. Conservatives don’t much like talking about climate change or emissions reductions. And t*he Liberal government – despite investing $26-billion in buying and expanding the Trans Mountain oil pipeline – doesn’t much like talking about how vital oil and gas are to Canada, or how important the resource is for the democratic world.*


*But some Liberal tongues have suddenly loosened.*

*Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, in a speech last week in Washington, said Canada needs to focus on “fast-tracking” energy and mining projects that “our allies need to heat their homes and to manufacture electric vehicles.” Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, in South Korea and Japan last week, celebrated the fact that Canada is set to become a major supplier of natural gas to those countries, once the big LNG Canada export facility opens in 2025, on British Columbia’s northwest coast. Ms. Joly went on to say: “There is a lot of interest for all of us to go even further.” As in possibly more projects, exporting more Canadian gas. *The first phase of LNG Canada would see more than 10 per cent of this country’s natural gas shipped to Asia, where it could help ease reliance on coal power. A second phase would double that volume – and that second phase, with new technology, could be the world’s lowest-emissions LNG.
All of which is, just maybe, a sign of industry and Ottawa starting to sing in harmony – with Ottawa less reluctant to talk about the importance of oil and gas to our prosperity and security, and industry acknowledging how much work it has to do to cut, cut and further cut emissions.









						Globe editorial: What if Canada could have a bigger oil and gas industry, and lower emissions? It’s possible
					

Ottawa and oil sands companies are starting to sing in harmony, in recognizing how much work industry has to do to cut emissions and Ottawa becoming more open to the importance of oil and gas to our prosperity and security




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## QV (17 Oct 2022)

This government is a disaster.

Hope for AB comes from PP and DS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2022)

It takes roughly 10 years from proposal to shipment for a big LNG plant. There is a lot and I mean a lot of ground work to be done. You need access to the gas and a long term customer first. Then you need to figure out a pipeline route, taking into account existing, environmental, geophysical,  cultural, industrial and infrastructure along the route. Plus archaeological. Then you need to find a plant site, negotiate ownership. Plus you need a port and terminal. Once you have reach FID, then you need to order the modules, which you have been negotiating and selecting a contractor for. You need to build a MOF to unload those modules, a Camp to house the workers, electrical supply, road access. You need an combined environmental assessment, NEB export permit, likley a Fisheries Act authorization(s), CNWA approvals, EC Ocean disposal for dredging is possible and likley 300 or so Provincial permits for road use, roading building, stream crossings, cutting permits, fish salvage, quarries, water extraction, etc, etc. Not to mention foreshore lease, pipeline ROW. And then there is aboriginal consultation at the environmental assessment stage and for every approval, permit and authorization. You likley want to negotiate soon revenue sharing agreements first.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> It takes roughly 10 years from proposal to shipment for a big LNG plant. There is a lot and I mean a lot of ground work to be done. You need access to the gas and a long term customer first. Then you need to figure out a pipeline route, taking into account existing, environmental, geophysical,  cultural, industrial and infrastructure along the route. Plus archaeological. Then you need to find a plant site, negotiate ownership. Plus you need a port and terminal. Once you have reach FID, then you need to order the modules, which you have been negotiating and selecting a contractor for. You need to build a MOF to unload those modules, a Camp to house the workers, electrical supply, road access. You need an combined environmental assessment, NEB export permit, likley a Fisheries Act authorization(s), CNWA approvals, EC Ocean disposal for dredging is possible and likley 300 or so Provincial permits for road use, roading building, stream crossings, cutting permits, fish salvage, quarries, water extraction, etc, etc. Not to mention foreshore lease, pipeline ROW. And then there is aboriginal consultation at the environmental assessment stage and for every approval, permit and authorization. You likley want to negotiate soon revenue sharing agreements first.



My lord man!  What a lot of Koolaid you have drunk.  

Where is your sense of Urgency?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> My lord man!  What a lot of Koolaid you have drunk.
> 
> Where is your sense of Urgency?


I sold it when I retired......

There is only so much you can shave off a project to speed things up, otherwise you end up hitting snags that delay the project or drive the costs way up. Finding the right medium of planning and prep to make sure you don't have to big of an issue is the key along with accepting some risk. The FN thing is not going away and it's better to negotiate up front and early (I told proponents to do it before they even submitted their project.). 
Even under the Harper era of environmental regs, I was told by numerous people that have done projects around the world that ours was the most vigorous they had dealt with.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2022)

The first step was just getting someone in government to start talking openly about the advantages of helping others move from higher-emission fuels (eg. coal) to lower-emission fuels (eg. naturals gas).  

The next step would be to ask them whether there is truly a "climate crisis", and if they so believe, to act as if they mean it: burn all red tape preventing expedient construction of means for exporting LNG.  There's no reconciling "climate crisis" with "allow the litigation to take the usual amount of time to unfold".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2022)

Shaping operations underway Who We Are | Pathways Alliance


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Oct 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Shaping operations underway Who We Are | Pathways Alliance



170 billion barrels can't be wrong 


Canada has the third-largest proven oil reserve in the world, most of which is in the oil sands​Proven oil reserves are reserves that are known to exist and that are recoverable under current technological and economic conditions.

Total Canadian proven oil reserves are estimated at 171.0 billion barrels, of which 166.3 billion barrels are found in Alberta's oil sands and an additional 4.7 billion barrels in conventional, offshore, and tight oil formations.  Canada accounts for 10% of the world’s proven oil reserves.






						Oil Resources
					






					www.nrcan.gc.ca


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Oct 2022)

Canada commits C$970 million to new nuclear power technology
		









						Canada will fast-track energy and mining projects important to allies: Freeland
					

'The curse of oil is real,' said Canada's Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland. Read on.




					financialpost.com
				




It seems the Liberals are finally turning around, both for O&G and Nuclear.

Messaging changed rather suddenly last week with Freeland talking about the need to sustain our transition to renewables while also investing in O&G to supply our European allies.


----------



## Spencer100 (25 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Canada commits C$970 million to new nuclear power technology
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When I saw that I thought two things. Freeland making space between her and Trudeau. And second did she get the go ahead from her real bosses?


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> When I saw that I thought two things. Freeland making space between her and Trudeau. And second did she get the go ahead from her real bosses?


There are 970 million reasons why she said this. AND probably more.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Oct 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> When I saw that I thought two things. Freeland making space between her and Trudeau.



Yup.  She’s on orders…and not from inside Canada (not China, just to be clear).  Trudeau et Cie. know better than to anger the elephant…they’ve likely been left alone to dabble in their milquetoast sunny ways echo chamber. 

Freeland is probably the US’s ‘trusted agent’ at this point.



Spencer100 said:


> And second did she get the go ahead from her real bosses?


The US?   Not so much ‘go ahead’ as ‘sort your self out and get on board!’

*edit for spelling


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Oct 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Canada commits C$970 million to new nuclear power technology
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And the oil will _*totes*_ be pouring through trans mountain, as promised by Altair and several others.


----------



## TacticalTea (25 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  She’s on order…and not from inside Canada (not China, just to be clear).  Trudeau et Cie. know better than to anger the elephant…they’ve likely been left alone to dabble in their milquetoast sunny ways echo chamber.
> 
> Free land is probably the US’s ‘trusted agent’ at this point.
> 
> ...


Freeland's O&G coming out does appear to coincide with Biden's recent statement, dated 19 October 22, in which he says: _''Secondly, we need to responsibly increase American oil production without delaying or deferring our transition to clean energy. ''_

The Financial Post article, dated 14 October 22, cites Freeland's comments made within the week in Washington, DC.

It's probable Canada was let on to the American plan and allowed to make its announcement first.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Yup.  She’s on order…and not from inside Canada (not China, just to be clear).  Trudeau et Cie. know better than to anger the elephant…they’ve likely been left alone to dabble in their milquetoast sunny ways echo chamber.
> 
> Free land is probably the US’s ‘trusted agent’ at this point.
> 
> ...



It wouldn't surprise me if Klaus Schwab and the WEF have also had a change of heart - It's likely to get cold in Geneva too this winter.


----------



## Spencer100 (26 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if Klaus Schwab and the WEF have also had a change of heart - It's likely to get cold in Geneva too this winter.


I did want to say the name of the boss but I doubt he had a change of heart....just regrouping.  

They are still not opening new lands or permits....it all talk at this point

Again I tell myself Hanlon razor everyday.....its getting very hard by the day.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2022)

Spencer100 said:


> I did want to say the name of the boss but I doubt he had a change of heart....just regrouping.
> 
> They are still not opening new lands or permits....it all talk at this point
> 
> Again I tell myself Hanlon razor everyday.....its getting very hard by the day.




I don't know that Klaus is anybody's boss.   I just put him in the "known associates" column and he seems to have a lot of friends in influential positions that appear to have similarities in their outlooks.

The institution seems to be turning.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Oct 2022)

Kirkhill said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if Klaus Schwab and the WEF have also had a change of heart - It's likely to get cold in Geneva too this winter.


I'm pretty sure he has quite a nice little boat parked and idling somewhere warmer than Geneva in January.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2022)

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣


BALKANGREENENERGYNEWS.COM
Wind farm in Germany is being dismantled to expand coal mine
A wind farm in Germany is being taken down to expand the Garzweiler lignite mine and maintain the security of electricity supply.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Nov 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
> View attachment 74727
> 
> BALKANGREENENERGYNEWS.COM
> ...


----------



## YZT580 (9 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


>


not really, more a case of realism rearing its ugly head


----------



## TacticalTea (9 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> not really, more a case of realism rearing its ugly head


The inevitable consequences of the actions of faux-ecologists in Germany (anti-nuclear) and Canada (anti-LNG).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Freeland's O&G coming out does appear to coincide with Biden's recent statement, dated 19 October 22, in which he says: _''Secondly, we need to responsibly increase American oil production without delaying or deferring our transition to clean energy. ''_
> 
> The Financial Post article, dated 14 October 22, cites Freeland's comments made within the week in Washington, DC.
> 
> It's probable Canada was let on to the American plan and allowed to make its announcement first.


Careful. If you try make a point, of the massive amount of parallels between the libs and the dems, you might get labelled a heretic.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Nov 2022)

Is Greta still relevant?


----------



## Spencer100 (9 Nov 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> Is Greta still relevant?


More so than yesterday.  Not Greta herself but the movement is.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2022)

Well, so much for the wishful thinking of the earnest young fellow I once heard to utter "Germany can get all its power from wind and solar now!"


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2022)

More good stuff from Rex



> Earlier this month, Premier Moe introduced the Saskatchewan first act, which declares that the province has “exclusive legislative jurisdiction under the Constitution of Canada in relation to” a number of areas, such as the “exploration for non-renewable natural resources.” Premier Smith has promised to introduce similar legislation.





> Both premiers have uttered a very interesting truth: that the federal government is a partner, not a ruler, in Confederation.











						Rex Murphy: Western premiers finally push back against Trudeau's devastating agenda
					

It is so good, finally, to see a real resistance to the green agenda




					nationalpost.com


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Nov 2022)

Whoa...
















						Mapped: Carbon Dioxide Emissions Around the World
					

This graphic maps out carbon emissions around the world and where they come from, using data from the European Commission.




					www.visualcapitalist.com


----------



## YZT580 (30 Nov 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Whoa...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


notice how dull Canada is.  So why are we bankrupting ourselves for a trace gas that even if we eliminated it totally would have exactly zero effect on the global balance.  Just so we can say "we're back?


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Nov 2022)

I see Hwy 2 (Calgary - Red Deer - Edmonton).  I see the Lower Mainland.  I see the St Lawrence Valley.

Strangely I have difficulty discerning the Oil Sands.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

YZT580 said:


> notice how dull Canada is.  So why are we bankrupting ourselves for a trace gas that even if we eliminated it totally would have exactly zero effect on the global balance.  Just so we can say "we're back?


Governments need to keep people afraid of something, so the climate emergency was created because only the Liberals are capable of solving it through a transfer of wealth scheme known as the carbon tax. Stupid people will keep voting Liberal because they believe Canada needs to dO tHeIR PaRt, even if it means freezing to death in the winter by higher energy costs. 

I don’t believe for a second that increasing gas or energy prices through taxes will make any significant impact on carbon emissions, but stupid people do. While I agree that transition to greener energy needs to happen, it shouldn’t be at the cost of people struggling to pay the bills. We can virtue signal to the rest of the world that we have an aggressive emissions control policy and they just all laugh at us, while we self inflict a lower quality of life. Meanwhile the worlds biggest emitters fire up new coal plants and just generally DGAF.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> We can virtue signal *lie* to the rest of the world that we have an aggressive emissions control policy and they just all laugh at us, while we self inflict a lower quality of life. Meanwhile the worlds biggest emitters fire up new coal plants *in part powered by coal torn out of the Rockies in BC and exported quietly for great profit while Canada pretends that doesn’t result in any CO2 release *and just generally DGAF.


FTFY Quirky 😉


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Governments need to keep people afraid of something, so the climate emergency was created because only the Liberals are capable of solving it through a transfer of wealth scheme known as the carbon tax. Stupid people will keep voting Liberal because they believe Canada needs to dO tHeIR PaRt, even if it means freezing to death in the winter by higher energy costs.
> 
> I don’t believe for a second that increasing gas or energy prices through taxes will make any significant impact on carbon emissions, but stupid people do. While I agree that transition to greener energy needs to happen, it shouldn’t be at the cost of people struggling to pay the bills. We can virtue signal to the rest of the world that we have an aggressive emissions control policy and they just all laugh at us, while we self inflict a lower quality of life. Meanwhile the worlds biggest emitters fire up new coal plants and just generally DGAF.


There’s so much logic here that my little brain doesn’t know where to begin. Have you considered that perhaps you’ve been manipulated into believing this by people with ulterior motives?


----------



## Lumber (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Governments need to keep people afraid of something, so the climate emergency was created because only the Liberals are capable of solving it through a transfer of wealth scheme known as the carbon tax. Stupid people will keep voting Liberal because they believe Canada needs to dO tHeIR PaRt, even if it means freezing to death in the winter by higher energy costs.
> 
> I don’t believe for a second that increasing gas or energy prices through taxes will make any significant impact on carbon emissions, but stupid people do. While I agree that transition to greener energy needs to happen, it shouldn’t be at the cost of people struggling to pay the bills. We can virtue signal to the rest of the world that we have an aggressive emissions control policy and they just all laugh at us, while we self inflict a lower quality of life. Meanwhile the worlds biggest emitters fire up new coal plants and just generally DGAF.


Wait, if the climate emergency was created by the Liberals, why do we need to transition to greener energy?

If the Liberals created the climate emergency, and the climate emergency has been talked about for decades, does that mean the Liberals have been running an decades long conspiracy, building the framework slowly in order to ensure "a transfer of wealth"? I think you give the Liberal Part of Canada FAR too much credit; they are not that smart or organized to conduct such a long term operation, and keep it quiet throughout.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2022)

It’s -15 here with a biting wind. It’s not warm here.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2022)

Think of all the tax money that is flowing into the Trudeau gov't coffers so it can be blown out the with abandon. In 2019 Canada was 1.5% of the global emissions. We get to net zero in 2030 (after destroying the economy, etc, etc), so what?  We share the border with the world's second highest emitter (who has 10 times our population) , let alone China, India.






						Global greenhouse gas emissions - Canada.ca
					

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions




					www.canada.ca
				




In 2019, Canada ranked as the 10th GHG emitting country/region. Canada's share of global emissions decreased from 1.8% in 2005 to 1.5% in 2019. Like that of other economically developed countries, Canada’s share is anticipated to continue to decline due to the expected rapid increase in emissions from economically developing and emerging countries, particularly China (+71.7% from 2005 to 2019), India (+71.3%), Brazil (+16.2%), and Indonesia (+37.9%).


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

Lumber said:


> If the Liberals created the climate emergency, and the climate emergency has been talked about for decades, does that mean the Liberals have been running an decades long conspiracy, building the framework slowly in order to ensure "a transfer of wealth"? I think you give the Liberal Part of Canada FAR too much credit; they are not that smart or organized to conduct such a long term operation, and keep it quiet throughout.



Liberals love taxing people to death in any way they can. This tax to reduce emissions is no different.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Nov 2022)

Trudeau giving Quebec a special deal on carbon tax
					

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is highlighting a fundamental unfairness about the federal carbon tax: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is requiring taxpayers in other provinces to pay a higher carbon tax than in Quebec.




					www.taxpayer.com
				


Trudeau giving Quebec a special deal on carbon tax​Author: Franco Terrazzano 2022/11/29
Federal News Release
*OTTAWA, ON:* The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is highlighting a fundamental unfairness about the federal carbon tax: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is requiring taxpayers in other provinces to pay a higher carbon tax than in Quebec.

“Trudeau is giving Quebec a special deal on carbon taxes and giving other Canadians higher gas prices and heating bills,” said Franco Terrazzano, Federal Director of the CTF. “The solution is simple: Trudeau should scrap his carbon tax and lower gas prices and home heating bills across Canada.”

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador are all required to raise the carbon tax to 14 cents per litre of gas next year and 37 cents per litre of gas by 2030.

“The federal government is committed to ensuring that carbon pricing is in place across Canada at a similar level of stringency,” according to the government’s backgrounder.

Quebec’s provincial cap and trade carbon tax currently costs about nine cents per litre of gas and must stay above 4.8 cents per litre next year. Quebec’s provincial carbon tax is set to rise to 23 cents per litre of gas by 2030, according to LaPresse.

“Trudeau’s special deal for Quebec shows the carbon tax was always about politics, not the environment,” said Terrazzano.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Rifleman62 said:


> Trudeau giving Quebec a special deal on carbon tax
> 
> 
> The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is highlighting a fundamental unfairness about the federal carbon tax: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is requiring taxpayers in other provinces to pay a higher carbon tax than in Quebec.
> ...


so Quebec is getting some extra credit for the cap and trade program, maybe as we dont know what the cap and trade will be at in 2030 but it only needs to be 14 cents a litre when it is 9 cents now


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Rifleman62 said:


> Think of all the tax money that is flowing into the Trudeau gov't coffers so it can be blown out the with abandon. In 2019 Canada was 1.5% of the global emissions. We get to net zero in 2030 (after destroying the economy, etc, etc), so what?  We share the border with the world's second highest emitter (who has 10 times our population) , let alone China, India.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From the same source:

In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Realistically I think we should be aiming for net zero by 2100, maybe thats too late maybe market forces dictate we get there earlier. Nothing is getting done by 2030


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> From the same source:
> 
> In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq
> View attachment 75199


Because freezing to death probably really sucks....


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Rifleman62 said:


> Trudeau giving Quebec a special deal on carbon tax
> 
> 
> The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is highlighting a fundamental unfairness about the federal carbon tax: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is requiring taxpayers in other provinces to pay a higher carbon tax than in Quebec.
> ...


Would apply to Ontario too if Doug Ford hadn't scrapped it. 

Nothing to do with Quebec or any "special treatment", this is just more lowly hate-based populist politics.

"Implement your own or follow the federal model" has always been the deal for the carbon tax.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

I suppose it's mainly about revenue, not emission control.  Finding new revenues seems to preoccupy most governments these days.  Energy taxes.  Real estate taxes.  New regional sales taxes.  Deprecating cash in order to ensure transactions do not go unreported (sales taxes, income taxes).  At least with some carbon taxes a notional attempt has been made at making them revenue-neutral overall, but in effect that amounts to a particular tax in order to fund individual transfers.


----------



## Dana381 (30 Nov 2022)

High gas and heating prices will cause people and companies to be financially strapped and not afford expensive new technology to emit less emissions. When trucking companies don't make money they hang on to trucks for longer, older less clean burning trucks. When factories struggle they don't invest in scrubbing tech and research in ways to operate cleaner. People will not replace older furnaces and air conditioners when they don't know where their gas bill money will come from. 

Laws demanding better emission technology will get ignored and cheated because life will be unaffordable otherwise. People will start burning wood, coal, garbage and whatever they can get to keep warm. This is especially true in poorer countries. How does this help the environment at all. 

The liberal mindset is always toward more government to solve every problem. A lot of problems need less government and less taxes. This is one of those problems. Make environmentally friendly choices the cheapest option and People will choose it. Lots of people have updated their home hvac/insulation through the various incentive programs that have been offered.


----------



## RangerRay (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> From the same source:
> 
> In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq
> View attachment 75199


Well, we do live in a large, sparsely populated, and cold country…it’s only natural we would emit more carbon emissions than many other countries.


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> It’s -15 here with a biting wind. It’s not warm here.


But it would be -17 and a killing wind had the Liberals not intervened with their carbon tax.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> But it would be -17 and a killing wind had the Liberals not intervened with their carbon tax.



I think it would be -13, because the world is too hot now from all our carboning. I'm already seeing climate change hysteria from the BC snowfall, somehow this is human caused? "Extreme" weather events can now be blamed on humans, because climate emergency. Instead of adapting to the rising sea levels for example, we keep building or rebuilding closer to the shoreline. When the infrastructure is destroyed, again, we can keep up the hysteria. 

After Sumas lake re-appeared last year, were there any plans put in place for prevention other than thoughts and prayers?


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Dana381 said:


> High gas and heating prices will cause people and companies to be financially strapped and not afford expensive new technology to emit less emissions. When trucking companies don't make money they hang on to trucks for longer, older less clean burning trucks. When factories struggle they don't invest in scrubbing tech and research in ways to operate cleaner. People will not replace older furnaces and air conditioners when they don't know where their gas bill money will come from.
> 
> Laws demanding better emission technology will get ignored and cheated because life will be unaffordable otherwise. People will start burning wood, coal, garbage and whatever they can get to keep warm. This is especially true in poorer countries. How does this help the environment at all.
> 
> The liberal mindset is always toward more government to solve every problem. A lot of problems need less government and less taxes. This is one of those problems. Make environmentally friendly choices the cheapest option and People will choose it. Lots of people have updated their home hvac/insulation through the various incentive programs that have been offered.


It sound logical but I disagree. Companies DO invest to reduce their emissions because their emissions cost money. You’re suggesting that if there wasn’t a carbon tax then companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would just invest their ‘spare capital’ into greener technologies just to feel good about themselves, rather than paying out a dividend. Are you kidding me? That’s insane, they’re going to do what’s more profitable, and with a carbon tax, it becomes increasingly more profitable to invest in more efficient machinery, especially when it’s due for replacement anyway.
There are currently incentives to improve your home insulation, especially for low income homes, it becomes more attractive to take advantage of these when the opportunity cost is higher. It’s free and people done bother, so maybe they will when it costs more to not do it.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> It sound logical but I disagree. Companies DO invest to reduce their emissions because their emissions cost money. You’re suggesting that if there wasn’t a carbon tax then companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would just invest their ‘spare capital’ into greener technologies just to feel good about themselves, rather than paying out a dividend. Are you kidding me? That’s insane, they’re going to do what’s more profitable, and with a carbon tax, it becomes increasingly more profitable to invest in more efficient machinery, especially when it’s due for replacement anyway.
> There are currently incentives to improve your home insulation, especially for low income homes, it becomes more attractive to take advantage of these when the opportunity cost is higher. It’s free and people done bother, so maybe they will when it costs more to not do it.


If cost isnt a mover than what is? Years ago when we bought a new piece of heavy equipment the fuel savings was 50000 a year over our least fuel efficient equipment. It was an quite a shock. Fuel was expensive that year but still


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

How does a gasoline tax of 37c per liter by 2030 help the environment? You want to reduce vehicle use, tax it by $2 a liter to see real changes.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> How does a gasoline tax of 37c per liter by 2030 help the environment? You want to reduce vehicle use, tax it by $2 a liter to see real changes.


I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind boggling.


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. *The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind boggling.*


But that is their choice. Free choice shouldn't be predicated by a government mandated tax scheme that will enable the ruling government to spout "we are green" and mandating that everyone else should be green (or else). Thar be fascism.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> I think it would be -13, because the world is too hot now from all our carboning. I'm already seeing climate change hysteria from the BC snowfall, somehow this is human caused? "Extreme" weather events can now be blamed on humans, because climate emergency. Instead of adapting to the rising sea levels for example, we keep building or rebuilding closer to the shoreline. When the infrastructure is destroyed, again, we can keep up the hysteria.
> 
> After Sumas lake re-appeared last year, were there any plans put in place for prevention other than thoughts and prayers?


Much lauding about the "heroic efforts to protect the critical pumping station" Of course our media after the fact does not ask "Why did there need to be heroic efforts to protect something that should have been protected?" 

In my job we were always forcing people to build their bridges to build to the Q100 (100 year flood event) Much wailing and gnashing of teeth. After the Rutherford Creek highway and rail bridge blew out thanks to a 200 year event, with a number of deaths. Suddenly BC Highways saw the light and now builds to the Q200. Nothing like a mini-disaster to say "I told you so".


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> But that is their choice. Free choice shouldn't be predicated by a government mandated tax scheme that will enable the ruling government to spout "we are green" and mandating that everyone else should be green (or else). Thar be fascism.


government influences behaviour through taxes all the time and adjusts it accordingly


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind boggling.


And those of us who are rural use those trucks every day for hauling everything from lumber to feed to god knows what else should take it in the ass because of those urban cowboys, right? Mmmm, pillows taste good.


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> government influences behaviour through taxes all the time and adjusts it accordingly


Meh. See above.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> But that is their choice. Free choice shouldn't be predicated by a government mandated tax scheme that will enable the ruling government to spout "we are green" and mandating that everyone else should be green (or else). Thar be fascism.


But there are costs to society that aren’t being paid by the individuals making these choices (externalities), this is just the monitization of these costs. You may disagree, and that’s your choice.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2022)

I drive a Dodge Ram because I want to. I own guns cause I want to. 

Governments don't like either of those - we do live in a free society, right?


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> But there are costs to society that aren’t being paid by the individuals making these choices (externalities), this is just the monitization of these costs. You may disagree, and that’s your choice.


First world problems/considerations. And I would rather live in the first world.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> And those of us who are rural use those trucks every day for hauling everything from lumber to feed to god knows what else should take it in the ass because of those urban cowboys, right? Mmmm, pillows taste good.


And in Manitoba and Ontario (I haven’t lived in the other provinces) your larger carbon tax rebate accounts for that.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

OldSolduer said:


> I drive a Dodge Ram because I want to. I own guns cause I want to.
> 
> Governments don't like either of those - we do live in a free society, right?


You can do that, you just need to pay for it


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> From the same source:
> 
> In 2019, Canada was the highest GHG emitting country per capita among the top 10 emitting countries with 19.6 t CO2 eq
> View attachment 75199


Interestingly Canada would drop to 3rd per capita behind US and RUS if we stopped shipping all the BC coal ripped out of the Rockiness and sold to China and Asia for their steel production. 

Math: 27 megatonnes of coal exported by Canada in 2021, which at 2.68 tonnes CO2 per tonne of coal burned = 72 megatonnes CO2/yr or approx 2mt/capita, so 19 - 2 = 17mt per capita. 






						Coal, monthly production and exports
					

Data presented at the national and provincial levels, by coal types and uses (bituminous, sub-bituminous, etc.) and by volume of production and exports. Not all combinations are available.




					www150.statcan.gc.ca


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> You can do that, you just need to pay for it


I don`t mind that - as long as the taxes are reasonable.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> Meh. See above.


you find solutions or you dont and others do. I doubt theres too many people on this site that have bought and used as much fuel as I have. I never tried to waste it though


----------



## Weinie (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> And in Manitoba and Ontario (I haven’t lived in the other provinces) your larger carbon tax rebate accounts for that.


I don't get a carbon rebate tax, because apparently I make too much money.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Interestingly Canada would drop to 3rd per capita behind US and RUS if we stopped shipping all the BC coal ripped out of the Rockiness and sold to China and Asia for their steel production.
> 
> Math: 27 megatonnes of coal exported by Canada in 2021, which at 2.68 tonnes CO2 per tonne of coal burned = 72 megatonnes CO2/yr or approx 2mt/capita, so 19 - 2 = 17mt per capita.
> 
> ...


interesting does the carbon exported to china not get captured there? To me it should count where it is used


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> And in Manitoba and Ontario (I haven’t lived in the other provinces) your larger carbon tax rebate accounts for that.


So I’m giving the gov a no interest loan every time I fill up that they will spend to fix the weather, and they give it back at the end of the year? Pass, I’ll just keep my money, thanks.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Weinie said:


> I don't get a carbon rebate tax, because apparently I make too much money.


I didn’t realize some of them are income based, surprisingly, the first one on the list, BC, is income base AND the LEAST controversial. I think it also existed long before the federal version. 






						Carbon Tax Rebates & Climate Action Incentive Explained (by Province)
					

What is the Climate Action Incentive rebate? What is carbon tax & how do rebates work in 2022? Province by province, here's a closer look at who's eligible & how much.




					www.canadadrives.ca


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> interesting does the carbon exported to china not get captured there? To me it should count where it is used


Just guessing, but I would think that the costs involved with pulling it out of the ground (eg running the equipment and transporting it to Port) get allocated here while the costs of burning it would get allocated to China.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Kat Stevens said:


> So I’m giving the gov a no interest loan every time I fill up that they will spend to fix the weather, and they give it back at the end of the year? Pass, I’ll just keep my money, thanks.


They give it ahead of time actually, or at least Manitoba did, Ontario pays quarterly but we got the first and second quarter at the end of the 1st, I think that was a setup issue.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> They give it ahead of time actually, or at least Manitoba did, Ontario pays quarterly but we got the first and second quarter at the end of the 1st, I think that was a setup issue.


I’ve never seen a dime back. That’ll teach me for having a decent dirty hands job, I guess.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind boggling.



Never mind for a second the freedom to choose, but not everyone can practically drive an EV that doesn't have a method of charging it at home (live in a condo or apartment). I agree that practically, you don't need a giant pick-up to drive on pavement to downtown office jobs, but that giant used pick-up was $6000, while EVs are out of reach, cost wise, for a large portion of the population, this is assuming they can afford to purchase it in the first place. These carbon taxes to avoid the giant pick-ups lumbering into DT Toronto won't achieve the desired effect. 

I remember reading that the City of Kelowna or Vernon, can't remember now, was looking at updating their city pick-up with a new F-150. The EV Lightning was considered but they estimated it would take at least 10 years to offset the cost of fuel for the difference in MSRP, that's IF the dealer doesn't include mark-ups on the EV. Also not considered was the cost of any battery replacements, which is a environmental disaster in itself, into the cost difference. People buying Tesla's over equivalent sized sedans are clueless if they purchase them to avoid high fuel prices. They will never see any savings considering the large cost differentials. EVs are a garbage gasoline alternative that is pushed onto us by governments instead of letting the free market dictate the demand.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Just guessing, but I would think that the costs involved with pulling it out of the ground (eg running the equipment and transporting it to Port) get allocated here while the costs of burning it would get allocated to China.


Thats how I thought it worked but??


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> interesting does the carbon exported to china not get captured there? To me it should count where it is used


I’m not sure TBH.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the Govt made sure it wasn’t counted. 

Morally, one can’t help look at the mountains of coal at Roberts Point waiting to sail to China without thinking that is eventually going to make its way into the environment at CO2.


Now…fairs fair, so if Canadians are getting raked over the coals for per capita CO2 production, I also want to get a credit for my share of 315,000,000,000 trees in Canada turning CO2 into oxygen!



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/16/the-countries-of-the-world-ranked-by-their-tree-wealth/
		


By math, I personally have about 9,000 trees to my credit scrubbing CO2.  Where my credit for 9000 trees X 48lbs CO2 removal/year/tree / 2000 lbs/ton = 215 tons/year of CO2 turned into oxygen.









						Could Global CO2 Levels be Reduced by Planting Trees?
					

Could planting trees make enough difference to impact increased CO2 levels on a global level? The idea seems simple enough, but probably not. Here's why.




					www.co2meter.com


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Never mind for a second the freedom to choose, but not everyone can practically drive an EV that doesn't have a method of charging it at home (live in a condo or apartment). I agree that practically, you don't need a giant pick-up to drive on pavement to downtown office jobs, but that giant used pick-up was $6000, while EVs are out of reach, cost wise, for a large portion of the population, this is assuming they can afford to purchase it in the first place. These carbon taxes to avoid the giant pick-ups lumbering into DT Toronto won't achieve the desired effect.
> 
> I remember reading that the City of Kelowna or Vernon, can't remember now, was looking at updating their city pick-up with a new F-150. The EV Lightning was considered but they estimated it would take at least 10 years to offset the cost of fuel for the difference in MSRP, that's IF the dealer doesn't include mark-ups on the EV. Also not considered was the cost of any battery replacements, which is an environmental disaster in itself, into the cost difference. People buying Tesla's over equivalent sized sedans are clueless if they purchase them to avoid high fuel prices. They will never see any savings considering the large cost differentials. EVs are a garbage gasoline alternative that is pushed onto us by governments instead of letting the free market dictate the demand.


The battery replacement myth is nonsense, it’s hyped up BS. They’re not wearing out. Nissan Leaf is perhaps an exception because there’s no thermal management but even those batteries are lasting for the useful life of a normal car. Total cost of ownership of a Tesla Model 3 is comparable to a Camry, there are numerous articles about this, I’ll link the first one I found. The trouble with comparing prices of a Lighting, for example, is that the demand is so high that they’ve only produced them in the top trim levels. A comparably equipped gas version is not that far off, but nobody expects their town to equip its fleet with luxury pickups, that should resolve itself as supply of batteries increases. 
I’m not sure about other provinces, but in Ontario the condo boards are obligated to let you install a charger, there’s some exceptions if it’s not technically feasible. Not for everyone but a suitable alternative for the vast majority of the population.
Bicycles are still suitable for everyone.
Ack, there are very few EVs on the used market but that will resolve eventually. 









						Tesla Model 3 vs. Toyota Camry: Ultimate Ownership Cost Analysis
					

Usually, the Tesla Model 3 and the Toyota Camry aren't really cars you'd compare. One is an EV, the other a gas-powered econobox. However, when you put things in terms of cost to own, the picture becomes a little clearer. In fact, you may just be surprised at the results. They'll certainly...




					www.motorbiscuit.com


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> The battery replacement myth is nonsense, it’s hyped up BS. They’re not wearing out. Nissan Leaf is perhaps an exception because there’s no thermal management but even those batteries are lasting for the useful life of a normal car. Total cost of ownership of a Tesla Model 3 is comparable to a Camry, there are numerous articles about this, I’ll link the first one I found. The trouble with comparing prices of a Lighting, for example, is that the demand is so high that they’ve only produced them in the top trim levels. A comparably equipped gas version is not that far off, but nobody expects their town to equip its fleet with luxury pickups, that should resolve itself as supply of batteries increases.
> I’m not sure about other provinces, but in Ontario the condo boards are obligated to let you install a charger, there’s some exceptions if it’s not technically feasible. Not for everyone but a suitable alternative for the vast majority of the population.
> Bicycles are still suitable for everyone.
> Ack, there are very few EVs on the used market but that will resolve eventually.
> ...



That article is from Sept 2021. Tesla.com lists a base model 3 at $60k USD. Toyota.com lists a Camry starting at $25,000 USD. I’d only imagine in Canada the costs are even more divided.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> That article is from Sept 2021. Tesla.com lists a base model 3 at $60k USD. Toyota.com lists a Camry starting at $25,000 USD. I’d only imagine in Canada the costs are even more divided.


Here you go, up to date and even compares the Kona EV with the Kona gas. Gas was $2 a litre at the time. 








						The True Cost - Clean Energy Canada
					

If one were to pick two top issues on the minds of Canadians in 2022, climate change and the cost of living would surely be obvious contenders. Indeed, “climate change” was ranked the most pressing issue facing Canada over the next decade by every age group in the country in a late 2021 public...




					cleanenergycanada.org


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Trucks aren't a human right. People do just fine in Europe and Japan with public transportation.

We're also not asking everyone to get an electric vehicle right away.

Now of course we're a massive country, so we can't expect our transportation infrastructure to mirror Europe's, but we can make progress towards it.

There are externalities to pollution, and it's high time we addressed those externalities. Actions and consequences, I harp on that all the time. Additionally, those issues would be better addressed at the local level: anti truck measures that make sense in Toronto are obviously nonsensical in rural Alberta.

So. A carbon tax isn't tyrannical or outrageous. It's an efficient solution that truthfully, barely hurts people, especially when rebates or similar programs are applied.

What's dumb is hiking the carbon tax during a period of hyperinflation and artificially creating an energy crisis by irresponsibly hamstringing our world-leading (in terms of cleanliness) energy sector.

Open the valves, let energy flow to replace dirty coal with NG, and help people get through the economic crisis instead of hiking taxes.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Here you go, up to date and even compares the Kona EV with the Kona gas. Gas was $2 a litre at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don’t doubt that a website called “cleanenergycanada” would favour an EV. The carbon emissions required to mine the EVs battery factor into that calculation, along with the $20k replacement cost? Unlikely.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

"We'll just make [X] more expensive so people do less of it."

That's not how it works.  People decide what they'll do less of, generally choosing from the bottom of a long list which might have [X] close to the top.  Raise the cost of something and then wonder why a bunch of apparently unrelated businesses fail.  I expect belt-tightening to generally happen on the basis of last in, first out.

The useful life of a normal car ... 300,000 km, for me.  No battery changes?


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Open the valves, let energy flow to replace dirty coal with NG, and help people get through the economic crisis instead of hiking taxes.


Not feasible in Canada. Let the Middle East get all the cash.






						Germany agrees 15-year liquid gas supply deal with Qatar | Germany | The Guardian
					

Racing to wean itself off Russian gas supplies, Germany is set to buy 2m tonnes of liquid gas from Gulf state




					amp.theguardian.com


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> I don’t doubt that a website called “cleanenergycanada” would favour an EV. The carbon emissions required to mine the EVs battery factor into that calculation, along with the $20k replacement cost? Unlikely.


You want to include the emissions from mining for batteries (lithium is generally removed from salt brine by the way), but the gas emissions from the cars don’t account for the emissions produced pulling oil out of the ground. Find another straw to grasp at.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> The useful life of a normal car ... 300,000 km, for me.  No battery changes?


So then 400,000 kms on the first battery (replaced under warranty) is enough for you? The electric motors are not terribly expensive and they’ve made some improvements in lubrication since those originals were produced. 









						This 2015 Tesla Model S Has Over 400,000 Miles (700,000 KM)! - Motor Illustrated
					

This 2015 Tesla Model S has accumulated over 400,000 miles in the last six years. It was used as an Uber car which explains the high mileage




					motorillustrated.com


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> , along with the $20k replacement cost? Unlikely.


it also costs $20k to get the engine in your Hyundai replaced if you take it to the dealer and want a new one. But nobody does that, you get a used one or get it rebuilt. Similarly, there are companies that will rebuild your battery in the unlikely event that it fails outside of warranty. Most likely it’s an issue with a single cell at a reasonable cost. The problem with social media is that people can say what’re crap they want and people believe them. Dude from TikTok is misleading people for clicks, that car is under warranty, among many other issues with his story. 






						Ontario man who missed oil changes responsible for $19,000 engine replacement
					

An Ontario man who missed his oil change is now on the hook for a $19,000 engine replacement despite the vehicle being under warranty.




					beta.ctvnews.ca


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Not feasible in Canada. Let the Middle East get all the cash.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah. This debacle is our equivalent to Germany's shutting down nuclear.


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> "We'll just make [X] more expensive so people do less of it."
> 
> That's not how it works.  People decide what they'll do less of, generally choosing from the bottom of a long list which might have [X] close to the top.  Raise the cost of something and then wonder why a bunch of apparently unrelated businesses fail.  I expect belt-tightening to generally happen on the basis of last in, first out.
> 
> The useful life of a normal car ... 300,000 km, for me.  No battery changes?


If we let our energy sector do its work, that would reduce the impact of the carbon tax anyway.

The latter's aim, as @kev994 explained, is to push companies to become cleaner, not particularly to change consumer behaviour.

Paying another 100$ in fuel a year won't make me sell my car, but when it translates to millions of dollars for a firm, it will push it to modernize. Especially if combined with credits and subsidies that finance innovation.


----------



## Dana381 (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> It sound logical but I disagree. Companies DO invest to reduce their emissions because their emissions cost money. You’re suggesting that if there wasn’t a carbon tax then companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would just invest their ‘spare capital’ into greener technologies just to feel good about themselves, rather than paying out a dividend. Are you kidding me? That’s insane, they’re going to do what’s more profitable, and with a carbon tax, it becomes increasingly more profitable to invest in more efficient machinery, especially when it’s due for replacement anyway.
> There are currently incentives to improve your home insulation, especially for low income homes, it becomes more attractive to take advantage of these when the opportunity cost is higher. It’s free and people done bother, so maybe they will when it costs more to not do it.


Companies don't invest in green tech out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to virtue signal. They like the optics of being green and are afraid of the optics of being a polluter. That is until they are hanging on by a thread, then they will do whatever they can to survive. I've seen this with repairs, a normally good company will start operating unsafe trucks when they are broke.

Many trucking companies are hanging on to older trucks and even selling newer trucks to buy more older ones. I'm talking class 8 semi trucks.
I replaced the entire frame on a 99 pete dump truck last summer, something unheard of 10 years ago. 

The price of a pre-dpf 2006 Kenworth T-800 is more than a 2013 def equipped similar one. Other makes and models are similar. The reason is companies are avoiding emissions gear because it's unreliable and expensive to repair.

 Three years ago this was happening a little but in the last year, since diesel has spiked it has been happening much more. 

When companies are healthy financially they tend to buy new trucks and replace them often. With fuel prices cutting into budgets so much that becomes less often. I don't work in factories but I'm sure the same happens there with industrial equipment. Energy costs can't always be passed on to consumers.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> You want to include the emissions from mining for batteries (lithium is generally removed from salt brine by the way), but the gas emissions from the cars don’t account for the emissions produced pulling oil out of the ground. Find another straw to grasp at.



Modern vehicles with their endless BS emission control systems are cleaner than ever. This is never about emissions, it’s about making gasoline vehicles too expensive to operate and to force people into EV. Gas comes from our super dirty oil sands while the open pit lithium mines are extra clean and not at all harmful to the environment. Not ours anyway so not our problem right?

When comes down to it, the practicality of EV is not there, especially here in the prairies outside city limits. You’ll either freeze to death in the winter waiting for your appliance to charge in the McDonald’s parking lot, or die from old age plugging it into a standard outlet because charging infrastructure isn’t available.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Modern vehicles with their endless BS emission control systems are cleaner than ever. This is never about emissions, it’s about making gasoline vehicles too expensive to operate and to force people into EV. Gas comes from our super dirty oil sands while the open pit lithium mines are extra clean and not at all harmful to the environment. Not ours anyway so not our problem right?


Again, lithium comes from salt brine, the open pit mine popular on social media that purports to be an “open pit lithium mine” is actually a copper mine. I don’t know what you’re smoking but nobody is trying to get rid of internal combustion engines just to ‘stick it to the little guy’.








						Lithium mining: What you should know about the contentious issue
					

Electric cars are significant contributors to climate protection – but the mining of lithium for the batteries is often criticized. The discussion focuses on the extraction of raw materials in salt deserts. Questions and answers. ...




					www.volkswagenag.com
				




Edit: here’s what “strip mining” looks like








						Oil sands surface mining - Energy Education
					






					energyeducation.ca


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Again, lithium comes from salt brine, the open pit mine popular on social media that purports to be an “open pit lithium mine” is actually a copper mine. I don’t know what you’re smoking but nobody is trying to get rid of internal combustion engines just to ‘stick it to the little guy’.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seems very environmentally friendly…



			https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6594008


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Companies don't invest in green tech out of the goodness of their heart, they do it to virtue signal. They like the optics of being green and are afraid of the optics of being a polluter. That is until they are hanging on by a thread, then they will do whatever they can to survive. I've seen this with repairs, a normally good company will start operating unsafe trucks when they are broke.
> 
> Many trucking companies are hanging on to older trucks and even selling newer trucks to buy more older ones. I'm talking class 8 semi trucks.
> I replaced the entire frame on a 99 pete dump truck last summer, something unheard of 10 years ago.
> ...


just a slight diversion. Are Peterbuilts and Kenworths considered good trucks now.  Like 10 yrs ago I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Seems very environmentally friendly…
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6594008


I don’t understand your argument. You’re concerned about “strip mining” in other countries, that isn’t actually taking place, but you’re OK with strip mining in Alberta because… here’s where I’m lost, it seems inconsistent.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> just a slight diversion. Are Peterbuilts and Kenworths considered good trucks now.  Like 10 yrs ago I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole.


Everyone who owns a Kenworth thinks that Peterbuilt is Junk, I assume the opposite is also true.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Nov 2022)

Quirky said:


> Seems very environmentally friendly…
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6594008



Especially with all those EV Bulldozers, Excavators, and Dump Trucks they use at those mines.....


Oh wait.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> Everyone who owns a Kenworth thinks that Peterbuilt is Junk, I assume the opposite is also true.


yeah and when I said 10 I guess its 15 yrs but still. I mean trucks are pretty simple and the components are all interchangeable


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Nov 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Especially with all those EV Bulldozers, Excavators, and Dump Trucks they use at those mines.....
> 
> 
> Oh wait.


some are hybrid and or have regenerative breaking not really a new thing. Letourneaus have been that way for ever. But there are no free rides theres a cost to pay somewhere. Hydroelectric dams flood huge areas often with resultant mercury poisoning issues plus the massive amounts of concrete etc.. doesnt mean we shouldnt try to find better solutions


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> some are hybrid and or have regenerative breaking not really a new thing. Letourneaus have been that way for ever. But there are no free rides theres a cost to pay somewhere. Hydroelectric dams flood huge areas often with resultant mercury poisoning issues plus the massive amounts of concrete etc.. doesnt mean we shouldnt try to find better solutions


This one’s neat, they say it never needs to be charged… it’s taking the payload downhill and going uphill when it’s empty. Otherwise physics and stuff… law of conservation of energy








						Say Watt: This massive EV never needs to plug in
					

Did we mention it's a 45-ton dump truck?




					driving.ca


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Nov 2022)

suffolkowner said:


> some are hybrid and or have regenerative breaking not really a new thing. Letourneaus have been that way for ever. But there are no free rides theres a cost to pay somewhere. Hydroelectric dams flood huge areas often with resultant mercury poisoning issues plus the massive amounts of concrete etc.. doesnt mean we shouldnt try to find better solutions



Not arguing with you that we need to find better solutions. I am just pointing out that where we are now is just the initial start of moving towards a life outside fossil fuels. 

The first Model T rolled off the line in 1908, but folks in North America were still using horse drawn carriages until the 1950s in some cases because the demand/affordability wasn't there for most people. Sound familiar?

As ambitious as it is to see ICB engines die out  and EV become the norm in the next 15-20 years, it's not attainable for the masses and therefore will be like spitting on a forest fire in the grand scheme of things. 

Personally, I would rather see an expansion of mass transit initiatives to replace our bigger polluters (jet aircraft) with more sustainable options, but that would put the onus on industry and government, rather than Joe Q Public "doing more to save the earth."


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> So then 400,000 kms on the first battery (replaced under warranty) is enough for you? The electric motors are not terribly expensive and they’ve made some improvements in lubrication since those originals were produced.


Sure, if I could afford and wanted a Tesla.  But I assume that if you're throwing up outliers as evidence, there isn't anything better to be had.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> Paying another 100$ in fuel a year won't make me sell my car, but when it translates to millions of dollars for a firm, it will push it to modernize. Especially if combined with credits and subsidies that finance innovation.


Costs are generally passed along to customers.  The push to change depends on whether the companies think they can do something that will give them a competitive advantage.  But that's offset by the need not to do anything if the commodity is in high demand.  Policies that result in high oil prices are in a tug-of-war with policies intended to promote innovation.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> This one’s neat, they say it never needs to be charged… it’s taking the payload downhill and going uphill when it’s empty. Otherwise physics and stuff… law of conservation of energy


If only work was downhill from home and home was downhill from work.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Sure, if I could afford and wanted a Tesla.  But I assume that if you're throwing up outliers as evidence, there isn't anything better to be had.


🙄 here’s the degradation history of every Tesla ever built, sorry it’s 18 months old and stops at 200,000 miles, luckily that’s as far as you want. 








						Tesla data shows battery degradation is limited but not all packs are created equal
					

Tesla has released new data showing that battery degradation over high mileage is limited, which is good news, but we...




					electrek.co


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Nov 2022)

kev994 said:


> 🙄 here’s the degradation history of every Tesla ever built, sorry it’s 18 months old and stops at 200,000 miles, luckily that’s as far as you want.


It's irrelevant.  I prefer older vehicles on which I can save money by doing work myself.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If only work was downhill from home and home was downhill from work.


I guess that would be useful if you wanted to take your mining dump truck home at night. Alternatively, if you live at the bottom of the hill you could take some rocks home and dump them on the lawn, decorative rocks are a thing.


----------



## kev994 (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's irrelevant.  I prefer older vehicles on which I can save money by doing work myself.


I see. Well maybe I can interest you in one of these EVs. 








						Fortress 1700 DT/TA 4-Wheel Mobility Scooter
					

Choice of 2 drive system packages, 1700 TA “TransAxle” or 1700 DT with tried and true “Duro-Torque” drive system. Ensures optimum performance and reliability for a wide range of needs. For over 25 years, Fortress scooters have carried with them, a legacy of superior durability, reliability and...



					scootersdirect.ca


----------



## TacticalTea (30 Nov 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> Costs are generally passed along to customers.  The push to change depends on whether the companies think they can do something that will give them a competitive advantage.  But that's offset by the need not to do anything if the commodity is in high demand.  Policies that result in high oil prices are in a *tug-of-war* with policies intended to promote innovation.


A tug of war is a good way to describe just about any healthy (viable) act or policy, even on a personal level. Checks and balances, diminishing returns, complementarity. All concepts that help define a proper framework of action.

I've already outlined the importance of facilitating the production of energy and counter-balancing the carbon tax with incentivizing innovation. The best economic policies have always been the ones that consist in ''two-pronged attacks'', providing both a carrot and a stick to carry forward positive change.


----------



## Quirky (30 Nov 2022)

rmc_wannabe said:


> Personally, I would rather see an expansion of mass transit initiatives to replace our bigger polluters (jet aircraft)



Baby steps, but in the right direction.









						Rolls-Royce successfully tests hydrogen-powered jet engine
					

Britain's Rolls-Royce said it has successfully run an aircraft engine on hydrogen, a world aviation first that marks a major step towards proving the gas could be key to decarbonising air travel.




					www.reuters.com
				




Maybe taxing airlines their fair share will help them move things along faster? They won’t pass on the tax to ticket sales..


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> I think the idea is to gradually increase the cost so that people can make decisions on whether to buy a more efficient vehicle as it’s due for normal replacement. The amount of people in this country who drive a giant pickup to their jobs downtown and never take them off the pavement is mind boggling.



So you don't want to take freedom of choice away, you just want to financially punish those who want to choose another type of vehicle because it goes against your beliefs ? 



TacticalTea said:


> Trucks aren't a human right. People do just fine in Europe and Japan with public transportation.



Its not about trucks.  Its about the freedom of choice.  And financially penalizing people because the choose vehicle A over vehicle B is not going to work.  

Also WRT trucks.  They have all but supplanted the mini van as the family vehicle now.  They are the most practical, safe and utilitarian vehicles on the road.  They are also wildly more efficient than ever and are measurable better than some cars and SUVs and just about every minivan.  I drive an F150 with a 3L Diesel.  I get 7-8L/100Km on the highway and around 9-10 in the city.  And I have a massive tank that ranges over 1000km on the hwy and around 850 +/- in the city.

As far as I am concerned if you don't own a modern pick up, I think you should.  They are so very capable and efficient now.  And the idea that a person who owns a truck should be traveling goat paths is stupid.  Most trucks haul campers, hockey bags, ATVs and loads of material from Home Depot. 

You don't win people over to the climate change movement by financially attacking them.  But then again I don't think this is actually about climate change.  I think its an aimed attack on people and their choices that others don't agree with.  Just like the current firearms legislation.  It has nothing to with public safety and everything to do with punishing "the others".


----------



## Dana381 (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Again, lithium comes from salt brine, the open pit mine popular on social media that purports to be an “open pit lithium mine” is actually a copper mine. I don’t know what you’re smoking but nobody is trying to get rid of internal combustion engines just to ‘stick it to the little guy’.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How about the cobalt, it's mined by child slaves in the congo. EV proponents typically push it to virtue signal that they are better than us because they care more about the environment. Many have the same woke mentality that push CRT down our throats but don't seem to care about how those EVs get built.


suffolkowner said:


> just a slight diversion. Are Peterbuilts and Kenworths considered good trucks now.  Like 10 yrs ago I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole.



Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks are nearly identical the way a Chev and GMC pickup are. They are both owned by Paccar. 10 years age they were probably the best built trucks on the road but parts are very expensive. The new wide cab models aren't as well built as legacy ones.

25 years ago almost all trucks used either a Cat Cummins or Detroit engine Mack being the exception. They all used Eaton transmissions. Mack being the only one to build their own but not many buyers ordered it, maybe 10%. Eaton and Meritor (formerly Rockwell) and Mack were the axle manufacturers. So most trucks on the road then the cab is the only real difference. Interesting fact in order to get a gold bulldog on a Mack it has to be 'all Mack' engine, trans and axles.

 2002/3 Freightliner bought out detroit diesel and since then have developed transmissions and axles. International licensed the Cat C15 block and bolted shitty parts to it and called it Maxxforce, terrible engine. Paccar brought their European engine over from their Daf trucks and I think they have a transmission now also and Volvo/Mack dropped all third party engines until the new MD Mack with the ISB Cummins. Trucks are gradually becoming more like cars in that each brand is completely different from each other. With the one exception they all use Cummins emissions systems.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Also WRT trucks. They have all but supplanted the mini van as the family vehicle now. They are the most practical, safe and utilitarian vehicles on the road. They are also wildly more efficient than ever and are measurable better than some cars and SUVs and just about every minivan. I drive an F150 with a 3L Diesel. I get 7-8L/100Km on the highway and around 9-10 in the city. And I have a massive tank that ranges over 1000km on the hwy and around 850 +/- in the city.


Diesel for the win!


----------



## QV (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So you don't want to take freedom of choice away, you just want to financially punish those who want to choose another type of vehicle because it goes against your beliefs ? Its not about trucks. Its about the freedom of choice. And financially penalizing people because the choose vehicle A over vehicle B is not going to work. Also WRT trucks. They have all but supplanted the mini van as the family vehicle now. They are the most practical, safe and utilitarian vehicles on the road. They are also wildly more efficient than ever and are measurable better than some cars and SUVs and just about every minivan. I drive an F150 with a 3L Diesel. I get 7-8L/100Km on the highway and around 9-10 in the city. And I have a massive tank that ranges over 1000km on the hwy and around 850 +/- in the city. As far as I am concerned if you don't own a modern pick up, I think you should. They are so very capable and efficient now. And the idea that a person who owns a truck should be traveling goat paths is stupid. Most trucks haul campers, hockey bags, ATVs and loads of material from Home Depot. You don't win people over to the climate change movement by financially attacking them. But then again I don't think this is actually about climate change. I think its an aimed attack on people and their choices that others don't agree with. Just like the current firearms legislation. It has nothing to with public safety and everything to do with punishing "the others".



This is exactly right.


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> How about the cobalt, it's mined by child slaves in the congo. EV proponents typically push it to virtue signal that they are better than us because they care more about the environment. Many have the same woke mentality that push CRT down our throats but don't seem to care about how those EVs get built.











						Tesla is already using cobalt-free LFP batteries in half of its new cars produced
					

Tesla confirmed that nearly half of all its vehicles produced last quarter are already using cobalt-free iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries. The...




					electrek.co
				



I still don’t see why you’re OK with strip-mining in Alberta but not some other place that you’ve never heard of.


----------



## lenaitch (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> So you don't want to take freedom of choice away, you just want to financially punish those who want to choose another type of vehicle because it goes against your beliefs ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm a truck fan myself, but if you're an urban dweller who's only need is to drive to work and pick-up groceries, they are wildly impractical.  You woulld struggle to get them into a condo parking spot, townhouse garage or even a lot of retail parking spots the way they are painting them now.  Unless you go AWD, an empty truck has fairly usless winter traction.  Manufacturers love them - their profit margin is about 4x that of a passenger car.


Dana381 said:


> How about the cobalt, it's mined by child slaves in the congo. EV proponents typically push it to virtue signal that they are better than us because they care more about the environment. Many have the same woke mentality that push CRT down our throats but don't seem to care about how those EVs get built.
> 
> 
> Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks are nearly identical the way a Chev and GMC pickup are. They are both owned by Paccar. 10 years age they were probably the best built trucks on the road but parts are very expensive. The new wide cab models aren't as well built as legacy ones.
> ...


Lithium is also found in 'hardrock' formations and there are a number of sites at the exploratory stage in northern Ontario.  an added bonus is it is often found with some other rar earth minerals.

Cobalt has been known in Ontario for over a hundred years but until recently it was considered waste as there was little to no market for it.  There are mountains of it in tailing piles all around, you guessed it -  Cobalt Ontario when it was mined as a major silver camp.  Companies are setting up to both process the tailings and explore old silver mines for their cobalt potential.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

To no one in particular. I have a pickup. Always have, always will. I'm not buying into the EV stuff. I'm not stopping to recharge every 150Km, when pulling my trailer. I burn gas. I might look at diesel next time. 
Either way, what I drive is my business. Not the governments and not some tree hugging climate disciples. Don't try inconvenience or restrict me because you worship at the altar of Al Gore. That's just the plain and simple of it. Quit trying to bend other people to accept your restrictions, in your response, to the biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the world. They just don't believe you.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> A tug of war is a good way to describe just about any healthy (viable) act or policy, even on a personal level. Checks and balances, diminishing returns, complementarity. All concepts that help define a proper framework of action.
> 
> I've already outlined the importance of facilitating the production of energy and counter-balancing the carbon tax with incentivizing innovation. The best economic policies have always been the ones that consist in ''two-pronged attacks'', providing both a carrot and a stick to carry forward positive change.


"Carrot-and-stick" means positive and negative incentives to move in the same direction.  I'm writing about policies that tend to cancel each other out, but in addition create market distortions.  Better to leave energy companies and their "windfall" profits alone, and stop threatening to make their investments unprofitable, and let them decide how to invest.


----------



## Quirky (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Diesel for the win!



I'm glad you are there to offset my 17L/100km 3-row V8 full sized SUV that's only used to drive to work and pick-up groceries for my wife and I.

EVs are great and all, but at least we don't have to plan our long-distance driving around EV charging stations, never mind the extra time you waste sitting at a supercharger station in -20c where battery range and performance is already reduced.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Tesla is already using cobalt-free LFP batteries in half of its new cars produced
> 
> 
> Tesla confirmed that nearly half of all its vehicles produced last quarter are already using cobalt-free iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries. The...
> ...


Maybe because Alberta uses machinery to dig and transport. Maybe because Alberta has a reclamation and rejuvenation plan for old sites. Maybe because Alberta follows Health and Safety legislation for workers that doesn't allow for 10 year old children to dig with their hands, so Red China can take advantage of them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Dec 2022)

One reason people commute in pickups is because they own only two vehicles and they live in areas where you can own and store a lot of stuff.  Typically the wife prefers something other than a pickup, which leaves the husband driving the pickup.  Why is one a pickup?  Where I live: because a pickup is the most convenient vehicle for transporting recreational gear (motorcycles, snowmobiles, ATVs), bulky/hefty home and yard improvement materials, and towing trailers - and all those things are reasons to live in areas where you can own and store a lot of stuff.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> It's irrelevant.  I prefer older vehicles on which I can save money by doing work myself.


What is irrelevant, is somebody else's opinion on what I should own.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I'm a truck fan myself, but if you're an urban dweller who's only need is to drive to work and pick-up groceries, they are wildly impractical.  You woulld struggle to get them into a condo parking spot, townhouse garage or even a lot of retail parking spots the way they are painting them now.  Unless you go AWD, an empty truck has fairly usless winter traction.  Manufacturers love them - their profit margin is about 4x that of a passenger car.



Yup, so that's an opinion.  Who are you to decide what's practical or impractical for another individual ? 

If a condo owner wants a jacked 2500 coal roller that's their business and they have to deal with it, good or bad.  But you don't get a say. 

As for usefulness in the winter.  I don't know why anyone would by a 2 wheel drive truck, but again that's a choice for them not me.  I know I love watching cars struggle through weather while I plow on in 4H.  4x4 and aggressive tires and Ive never been stopped.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Diesel for the win!
> View attachment 75228



What are you driving ?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> I'm glad you are there to offset my 17L/100km 3-row V8 full sized SUV that's only used to drive to work and pick-up groceries for my wife and I.


I’m only a 2-row SUV, but the 3.0 V6 still has 460 ft-lbs of torque and can pull 7,300 lbs, so can easily pull a 2-axle hyd lift utility trailer…I just don’t get 6.5L/100 when I do that. 😉

If I ever do an EV for zipping around semi-urban  /urban mode, I still won’t be giving up my great great grandson of Rudolph Diesel! 😆


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I’m only a 2-row SUV, but the 3.0 V6 still has 460 ft-lbs of torque and can pull 7,300 lbs, so can easily pull a 2-axle hyd lift utility trailer…I just don’t get 6.5L/100 when I do that. 😉
> 
> If I ever do an EV for zipping around semi-urban  /urban mode, I still won’t be giving up my great great grandson of Rudolph Diesel! 😆



Me either.  I'm keeping my oil burner.  

I just wish I could legally do an EGR/Def Sys delete.


----------



## Quirky (1 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> I’m only a 2-row SUV, but the 3.0 V6 still has 460 ft-lbs of torque and can pull 7,300 lbs, so can easily pull a 2-axle hyd lift utility trailer…I just don’t get 6.5L/100 when I do that. 😉
> 
> If I ever do an EV for zipping around semi-urban  /urban mode, I still won’t be giving up my great great grandson of Rudolph Diesel! 😆


See if you weren't so environmentally conscious, you'd be driving an AMG. A real one, not the ones with the AMG trim level.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> See if you weren't so environmentally conscious, you'd be driving an AMG. A real one, not the ones with the AMG trim level.


They do sound good, that’s for sure!


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Maybe because Alberta uses machinery to dig and transport. Maybe because Alberta has a reclamation and rejuvenation plan for old sites. Maybe because Alberta follows Health and Safety legislation for workers that doesn't allow for 10 year old children to dig with their hands, so Red China can take advantage of them.


That’s not what it looks like based on even the slightest bit of research. It’s absurd that you’re feigning concern about mining in a different place but you’re OK with magnitudes more of the same in your own backyard. 









						Alberta is hitting the snooze button on oilsands cleanup at exactly the wrong time
					

When it comes to the growing global focus on so-called ESG metrics, Alberta’s oil and gas industry is talking the talk — now it needs to walk the walk, writes columnist Max Fawcett.




					www.nationalobserver.com


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> As far as I am concerned if you don't own a modern pick up, I think you should.  They are so very capable and efficient now.  And the idea that a person who owns a truck should be traveling goat paths is stupid.  Most trucks haul campers, hockey bags, ATVs and loads of material from Home Depot.



They have this new device that you can attach to many other vehicles to accomplish these tasks. I get it if you’re going to Home Depot daily, but most people aren’t doing that. 





						General PDP Template
					






					canadiantire.ca


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> EVs are great and all, but at least we don't have to plan our long-distance driving around EV charging stations, never mind the extra time you waste sitting at a supercharger station in -20c where battery range and performance is already reduced.


For most EVs the charging locations are integrated with the navigation  so the car does this planning for you, and some of them preheat the battery when it knows you’re going there to charge. For me, the kids need to stop more frequently and for longer than what’s required to charge, YMMV. Works for the 1 or 2 road trips a year, the other 99% of the time it’s nice to never have to go to the gas station because it’s full every morning. Bonus feature: it preheats in the garage so you can set it for the cabin to be warmed up at your normal departure time, with the garage door closed.


----------



## Quirky (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> For most EVs the charging locations are integrated with the navigation  so the car does this planning for you, and some of them preheat the battery when it knows you’re going there to charge. For me, the kids need to stop more frequently and for longer than what’s required to charge, YMMV. Works for the 1 or 2 road trips a year, the other 99% of the time it’s nice to never have to go to the gas station because it’s full every morning.



The trips _we _do don't have charging stations or make it completely impractical. EVs don't work in Canada, for the most part, unless you are primarily a city dweller with a garage. I would reconsider my position on EVs when they start making them the size of Yukons and Expeditions with a range equal to or better than the gas versions. Oh yeah, and don't cost $40k more than the top level gas trim.



kev994 said:


> They have this new device that you can attach to many other vehicles to accomplish these tasks. I get it if you’re going to Home Depot daily, but most people aren’t doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol my beater truck cost less then that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> They have this new device that you can attach to many other vehicles to accomplish these tasks. I get it if you’re going to Home Depot daily, but most people aren’t doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks tips.  I have one of those and a 40 ft camper.  And a truck bed.  They all have their separate uses.

If you don't want a pick up don't buy one.  And if you don't like other people buying them that's cool too.  And if you voice that, we're also allowed to tell you take a hike; you don't get a say in what others want to spend their cash on.

I'm sure if I dissected your life id find things you spend cash I think are superfluous.  But guess what ?  I don't give a who ha.  It's your cash enjoy it, you earned it.

To sum up:


----------



## lenaitch (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Yup, so that's an opinion.  Who are you to decide what's practical or impractical for another individual ?
> 
> If a condo owner wants a jacked 2500 coal roller that's their business and they have to deal with it, good or bad.  But you don't get a say.
> 
> As for usefulness in the winter.  I don't know why anyone would by a 2 wheel drive truck, but again that's a choice for them not me.  I know I love watching cars struggle through weather while I plow on in 4H.  4x4 and aggressive tires and Ive never been stopped.


Yes, it was an opinion, just like yours was:



Halifax Tar said:


> As far as I am concerned if you don't own a modern pick up, I think you should




I made no pronouncement on what other people should or should not drive.  You're starting to sounds like you're yelling at clouds.


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> EVs don't work in Canada, for the most part, unless you are primarily a city dweller with a garage.


Sure there’s some outliers but works fine for the vast majority, these guys drove a Model 3 across Canada in Feb to show that. 








						Charge Across Canada - Live Tracker & Updates
					

LocaToWeb – Real time GPS tracker March 4, 2022 1:06am So I’m not sure whether or not here is where the story ends or begins!!! Blessed to have completed this journey and a special massive [...]




					driveteslacanada.ca


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Saying no one needs a pick up truck is the environmental equivalent of saying everyone should just get their meat from the store so we don't have to kill animals for it......


Nobody said that no one needs a pickup


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Nobody said that no one needs a pickup


Close enough......seems like you think you only need one to "leave the pavement".


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> Yes, it was an opinion, just like yours was:
> 
> I made no pronouncement on what other people should or should not drive.  You're starting to sounds like you're yelling at clouds.





lenaitch said:


> I'm a truck fan myself, but if you're an urban dweller who's only need is to drive to work and pick-up groceries, they are wildly impractical.  You woulld struggle to get them into a condo parking spot, townhouse garage or even a lot of retail parking spots the way they are painting them now.  Unless you go AWD, an empty truck has fairly usless winter traction.  Manufacturers love them - their profit margin is about 4x that of a passenger car.



The difference between you and I is I don't throw shade or question or judge what people buy with their money.  So I say again, who are you to decide what's practical or impractical for another ?


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Bruce Monkhouse said:


> Close enough......seems like you think you only need one to "leave the pavement".


I said, or perhaps meant, that it’s ridiculous that people complain about the price of gas to drive their enormous vehicles by themselves to downtown. I get that for some people these vehicles are utilitarian, but others want to eat their cake and have it too. You can buy whatever monstrosity you want, but quit bitchin about the price to go with your choice.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> I said, or perhaps meant, that it’s ridiculous that people complain about the price of gas to drive their enormous vehicles by themselves to downtown. I get that for some people these vehicles are utilitarian, but others want to eat their cake and have it too. You can buy whatever monstrosity you want, but quit bitchin about the price to go with your choice.



While milage for picks ups is actually pretty good, I do agree.  You don't buy a pick up and expect the milage of Prius.  

Having said that, complaining about the price of gas is very different.  As its really artificial and run by a cabal.  Milage and gas price are two very different things.  When I bought my diesel, the price of diesel was always lower than gas; that's defiantly not the way now.


----------



## Quirky (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Sure there’s some outliers but works fine for the vast majority, these guys drove a Model 3 across Canada in Feb to show that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That looks more like punishment.


----------



## lenaitch (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The difference between you and I is I don't throw shade or question or judge what people buy with their money.  So I say again, who are you to decide what's practical or impractical for another ?


I opined that, in my view, for certain people in certain situations, I think owning one is impractical.

You opined that people who don't own one, should. 

This getting tiresome.


----------



## Halifax Tar (1 Dec 2022)

Good article and video. 














						Video: Here’s What It’s Like To Road-trip & Charge The New Ford F-150 Lightning! (Part 1 of 2)￼
					

We pick up our 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning in Dearborn, MI - where the truck was born. It's a Lariat model with an extended range battery and a max towing package




					tfltruck.com


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> That looks more like punishment.


They’ve got a Guinness world record guy with them, I’m not sure what record they’re going for but it has to do with winter travel. That’s presumably why they appear to be driving all night.


----------



## kev994 (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Good article and video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There’s a “used” one in Trenton, only $35k over MSRP. Businesses gonna business.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> That’s not what it looks like based on even the slightest bit of research. It’s absurd that you’re feigning concern about mining in a different place but you’re OK with magnitudes more of the same in your own backyard.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That doesn't convince me. And it really doesn't concern me either. What we need and what we'd like, are two different things. We need to get our resources to market as the first priority. We can make things pretty again later on. So, I don't care if the open pit is in Alberta or Algeria. I have no intent on using an EV or it's battery. Basically, I don't give a shit about their emotional ecology or green technology. There are other real world problems that need more immediate attention. Gore and Suzuki will have to wait.


----------



## IKnowNothing (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> The difference between you and I is I don't throw shade or question or judge what people buy with their money*.  So I say again, who are you to decide what's practical or impractical for another?


A good policy - until* they complain about not having enough.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Good article and video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I watched one of those pull away, when the light went green, downtown the other day.

It went like a silent rocket sled.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I'm a truck fan myself, but if you're an urban dweller who's only need is to drive to work and pick-up groceries, they are wildly impractical.  You woulld struggle to get them into a condo parking spot, townhouse garage or even a lot of retail parking spots the way they are painting them now.  Unless you go AWD, an empty truck has fairly usless winter traction.  Manufacturers love them - their profit margin is about 4x that of a passenger car.


Without pickup, a entire generation will be unable to move at the end of the month. If you own a pickup, you are everyone's friend at the end of the month. Not to mention epic quests to the dump or to buy furniture.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

Waiting in the school parking lot for my daughter, looking at the school provided charging stations used by the teachers and thinking "Hmm wouldn't that be a taxable benefit?"


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> That doesn't convince me. And it really doesn't concern me either. What we need and what we'd like, are two different things. We need to get our resources to market as the first priority. We can make things pretty again later on. So, I don't care if the open pit is in Alberta or Algeria. I have no intent on using an EV or it's battery. Basically, I don't give a shit about their emotional ecology or green technology. There are other real world problems that need more immediate attention. Gore and Suzuki will have to wait.


I’m just responding to the allegations that EVs are evil because mining. Clearly an invalid argument.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> A good policy - until* they complain about not having enough.



And its their god given right through freedom of expression to do so.  You can ignore them.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I watched one of those pull away, when the light went green, downtown the other day.
> 
> It went like a silent rocket sled.



I've seen a couple around Halifornia.  

They are great vehicle for short distance and low work load.  I love the idea that it can power my house.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Without pickup, an entire generation will be unable to move at the end of the month. If you own a pickup, you are everyone's friend at the end of the month. Not to mention epic quests to the dump or to buy furniture.


If only there were a way to rent one every 5 years when you need to move… no, let’s just all buy one for that fringe case.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Waiting in the school parking lot for my daughter, looking at the school provided charging stations used by the teachers and thinking "Hmm wouldn't that be a taxable benefit?"


It probably is. In the neighborhood of ~$100 a year. It would be painful/impossible to come up with an accurate figure unless they installed chargers designed to do this, and that feature would cost significantly more to install. The same ones can be set up to charge a fee, my town does it that way, it basically costs the same as high-rate electricity. This also encourages people not to hog them and to move when they’re done. You could look on “PlugShare” and probably figure out if there’s a fee, or the app of the make of chargers that they are. Most use smartphones and/or rfid tags to start so it’s pretty hard to tell from looking at them whether there’s a charge unless they’re just plugged into a regular outlet.


----------



## IKnowNothing (2 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> And its their god given right through freedom of expression to do so.  You can ignore them.


Do you extend that sentiment to avocado toast, vice, tuition, buying too much house, entertainment etc. etc.?

Or does the god given right to a truck make it the exception to the conservative principles of fiscal prudence and personal accountability?


----------



## lenaitch (2 Dec 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> I watched one of those pull away, when the light went green, downtown the other day.
> 
> It went like a silent rocket sled.


Because the torque of an electric motor is available at zero rpm.

For what they cost, range isn't great.  If you're towing, really not great.  If I want backup power for the house, a generator is a whole lot cheaper.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Waiting in the school parking lot for my daughter, looking at the school provided charging stations used by the teachers and thinking "Hmm wouldn't that be a taxable benefit?"


Just like block heater sockets provided by just about every employer and apartment building in northern Ontario and I assume other provinces.  Interesting thought about the taxable benefit; I'm sure the CRA has considered it, there aren't many potential non-big-corporate revenue sources that get by them.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Do you extend that sentiment to avocado toast, vice, tuition, buying too much house, entertainment etc. etc.?
> 
> Or does the god given right to a truck make it the exception to the conservative principles of fiscal prudence and personal accountability?



Absolutely.  FYI I love avocado toast. 

I try my best not pass judgment on what other people buy.  Its none of my business.  I try to look after my own back yard, I'm human so I'm probably not always successful, but I try. 

Fiscal prudence for me is not the same as you and not the same as the next guy.  You do you boo. 

Now, if you want to get into the age old Ford v Dodge v Chevy/GM, I'm always up for a few beer and some shit chucking.


----------



## IKnowNothing (2 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Absolutely.  FYI I love avocado toast.
> 
> I try my best not pass judgment on what other people buy.  Its none of my business.  I try to look after my own back yard, I'm human so I'm probably not always successful, but I try.
> 
> ...


Fair enough.  Honestly that's an admirable adherence to personal principles. I apologize for the snark.


The point I was trying to make is that (within the context of policy/finance discussions) often times we on the right (I still claim that relative to Canada) can be guilty of a hypocrisy where the "other" on an individual level (millenials, urbanites etc etc) are exclusively responsible for adapting to their circumstances and the world around them,  whereas "our" wants/standard of living/decisions are sacrosanct.  It's a double standard I find incredibly frustrating, and projected it on you.

 Cheers (Ford- though with no great feeling, dealer proximity and family negotiating history)


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Dec 2022)

IKnowNothing said:


> Cheers (Ford- though with no great feeling, dealer proximity and family negotiating history)


Well, someone has to keep the tow companies in business… 😉


----------



## Dana381 (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Tesla is already using cobalt-free LFP batteries in half of its new cars produced
> 
> 
> Tesla confirmed that nearly half of all its vehicles produced last quarter are already using cobalt-free iron-phosphate (LFP) batteries. The...
> ...



I didn't say anything about strip mining. Good or bad, Alberta or anywhere. 

I was talking about child slave labour in cobalt mining.

Strip mining dosent bother me in and of itself. We use resources of all types and if the best way to get them Is strip mining then so be it. The key issues are how are the sites remediated after they are done. And how environmentally  damaging is the process during. I'm sure both of these issues have exponentially better outcomes in Canada then in Africa.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

Good2Golf said:


> Well, someone has to keep the tow companies in business… 😉



Oh!  Its on!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> They have this new device that you can attach to many other vehicles to accomplish these tasks. I get it if you’re going to Home Depot daily, but most people aren’t doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you are talking about putting a trailer behind an EV/Hybrid, during a test drive with one manufacturer, I was told specifically that towing a trailer would void the warranty.


----------



## Remius (2 Dec 2022)

I don’t drive a truck.  I also don’t drive a Ferrari.  I do sometimes raise my eyebrows at some people that do drive those things but I have no issues with because it’s their choice.

I do roll my eyes when two of my sibling in laws complain about how life is hard and they can’t buy a house but drive brand new trucks just to drive trucks.  To each their own.  Neither used their truck once to help us when we built a family cottage.  I either rented something or used our qashqai. 

The reality though is Canada is a big place.  I live in Ottawa.  You can be in the bush in 15 mins from just about anywhere in the City.  We have lots of cottage country and people do have boats, ATVs etc

My father had an off road version of a Forerunner.  Could tow, carry a pile of stuff etc.  If I needed a truck i would borrow it.  It was great.

That being said I had a chance to take an Uber that was a Tesla.  He answered a lot of questions I had and there are pros and cons. I was impressed.   My current car still has 10 years life on it or so, (i am very much a « as long as I can get from point a to b and i don’t care how old my car is » and drive my cars until they die) so when the time comes maybe the tech will be up to par and more affordable that I might consider an EV.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Dec 2022)

Remius said:


> .   My current car still has 10 years life on it or so, (i am very much a « as long as I can get from point a to b and i don’t care how old my car is » and drive my cars until they die) so when the time comes maybe the tech will be up to par and more affordable that I might consider an EV.


A man after my own heart....still have my 2006 Montana with almost 500,000 km on it but finally had to scrap my 2008 Impala with 400,000 km on it a couple weeks ago.
Replaced it with another 2008 vehicle.....with only 190,000 km , it's like brand new compared to what I'm used to.  

I'll be darned if I'm spending 25 grand on a used Dodge Caravan.....


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> If you are talking about putting a trailer behind an EV/Hybrid, during a test drive with one manufacturer, I was told specifically that towing a trailer would void the warranty.


Depends on the car of course, Model Y has 5,000 lb towing but based on demand they’re really expensive right now. Cadillac Lyriq is also 5,000 lbs, they’re ~$70k if you can get one.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Depends on the car of course, Model Y has 5,000 lb towing but based on demand they’re really expensive right now. Cadillac Lyriq is also 5,000 lbs, they’re ~$70k if you can get one.



From what I have seen online, when you put a load on the 150 Lightening it turns your battery charge state into your range indicator.

Meaning 100% charge is 100 miles (American) of range.  TFL found it was impractical to use for any sort of hauling with distance.  Maybe a utility trailer locally where you can keep it connected to charger when parked.

The truck can pull, just not for very long or far.


----------



## Dana381 (2 Dec 2022)

I have nothing against electric vehicles, I think its a great idea on many levels. I am actually working on a low budget plug in hybrid add on to my F-550.

The problem is forcing people into a technology that is not ready. Yes electric cars work for some, but they don't work for all yet. Are we at the point where outlawing ice cars is prudent, hard no. We should never outlaw ice cars like we never outlawed steam powered cars. When the technology proves itself demand will dry up, as long as demand exists we should be able to purchase them.

Currently every technology to generate electricity has strong environmental opponents, for good reason. Right now it is almost impossible to build a large scale power generator anywhere in North America. Yet EV enthusiasts insist we should all drive EVs or we are evil. Canada and California have banned ice cars after 2035. There are currently no projects underway that can supply that much electricity, there likely won't be either because environmentalists won't allow it.

Meanwhile the oil, gas, and auto industries have been under ever increasing extremely stringent environmental laws for 50 years now. ICE cars are super clean burning and fuel efficient compared to years ago. I have been inside a building with multiple 13-15 liter modern diesel engines running at the same time and you can't even tell aside from the noise.


----------



## TacticalTea (2 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I have nothing against electric vehicles, I think its a great idea on many levels. I am actually working on a low budget plug in hybrid add on to my F-550.
> 
> The problem is forcing people into a technology that is not ready. Yes electric cars work for some, but they don't work for all yet. Are we at the point where outlawing ice cars is prudent, hard no. We should never outlaw ice cars like we never outlawed steam powered cars. When the technology proves itself demand will dry up, as long as demand exists we should be able to purchase them.
> 
> ...


slight correction: ICE bans don't actually ban ICE cars, you just can't make them anymore.

If the 2035 bans stay in place, every car on the road then won't be an EV, we just won't see more ICE cars added to traffic from then on.


----------



## Dana381 (2 Dec 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> slight correction: ICE bans don't actually ban ICE cars, you just can't make them anymore.
> 
> If the 2035 bans stay in place, every car on the road then won't be an EV, we just won't see more ICE cars added to traffic from then on.


Yes, for now. Can the grid handle 1.6 million new electric cars per year?





						Canada - Flash report, Automotive sales volume, 2021 - MarkLines Automotive Industry Portal
					

Canadian vehicle sales down 12.8% in Q4, up 6.6% for full-year 2021. Canadian vehicle sales of 341,786 units in the fourth quarter of 2021 decreased 12.8% from the 392,162 units sold in the same quarter in 2020.Overall vehicle sales for 2021 increased



					www.marklines.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

TacticalTea said:


> slight correction: ICE bans don't actually ban ICE cars, you just can't make them anymore.
> 
> If the 2035 bans stay in place, every car on the road then won't be an EV, we just won't see more ICE cars added to traffic from then on.


Banning ICE is a really stupid idea, fostered onto us by politicians and policy makers that really don't know what they are talking about. EV will always be a niche vehicle in Canada. The real future is in Hybrids.


----------



## TacticalTea (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Banning ICE is a really stupid idea, fostered onto us by politicians and policy makers that really don't know what they are talking about. EV will always be a niche vehicle in Canada. The real future is in Hybrids.


Maybe. 

I won't defend the idea; looking at our current leadership, it's hard to believe it could be properly implemented and managed (in terms of secondary effects). Plus, it's hard to get the actual facts, given all the propaganda on both sides.

Part of me thinks they're half-assing it because they don't expect the policy to survive all the way to 2035 anyway.


----------



## Dana381 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Banning ICE is a really stupid idea, fostered onto us by politicians and policy makers that really don't know what they are talking about. EV will always be a niche vehicle in Canada. The real future is in Hybrids.


I don't think EVs are bad in Canada, they have their place and work well for some people. Someday they may work well for all people but not yet.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I didn't say anything about strip mining. Good or bad, Alberta or anywhere.
> 
> I was talking about child slave labour in cobalt mining.
> 
> Strip mining dosent bother me in and of itself. We use resources of all types and if the best way to get them Is strip mining then so be it. The key issues are how are the sites remediated after they are done. And how environmentally  damaging is the process during. I'm sure both of these issues have exponentially better outcomes in Canada then in Africa.


Well, as luck would have it, cobalt is being removed from batteries at a rather quick rate (see link in the post you quoted) because of your concern and because it’s expensive. So you will soon be able to redirect your concern to other cobalt-containing items such as air bags and catalytic converters. 





						Cobalt Statistics and Information | U.S. Geological Survey
					

Statistics and information on the worldwide supply of, demand for, and flow of the mineral commodity cobalt




					www.usgs.gov


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Halifax Tar said:


> Maybe a utility trailer locally where you can keep it connected to charger when parked.
> 
> The truck can pull, just not for very long or far.


That’s pretty much the extent of hauling that the vast majority of the population is doing. Large travel trailers, yep, that’s going to be an issue and so maybe not for everyone. But the portion of the population regularly using their vehicles for long-haul trips with a large trailer is minuscule. Taking the boat 25 kms to put it in the water? Not a problem.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I don't think EVs are bad in Canada, they have their place and work well for some people. Someday they may work well for all people but not yet.


As I said they are a niche vehicle, very good at some things, but not as good as a Hybrid overall.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> As I said they are a niche vehicle, very good at some things, but not as good as a Hybrid overall.


It’s kinda the worst of both worlds though unless you need something specific from the hybrid. One of the big advantages to the EV is the lack of maintenance and reduced complexity/components. If you’re still dragging around an ICE then you miss out on that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2022)

I don't  need to pay well over $100,000 to go shopping or run around town and pay the extra charge on my hydro bill.
Before you go pushing EVs, you have to completely rebuild our hydro distribution system. Not add to it. Not repair it. Tear it down and rebuild it with an eye to the future. Nuclear power is the only power that will supply the millions of EVs on the road, that some people seem to want. Definitely putting the cart before the horse on this one. You're going to have thousands of EV sitting in driveways waiting for their half day a week to charge up. Where do the hookups for street parking go?
How many barrels of petroleum are going to go into the manufacture of an EV? Just about every part will require petroleum somewhere in their manufacture. Same as a new grid. How many millions or billions of barrels will that require? I've yet to see a report on how well they fare or how long the battery lasts for vehicles going through six months of Canadian winter. Crank up the heat and lower your mileage even further.
Maybe people who want to,push EVs down our throat can give us a cost and completion time of the new grid to support the new cars. All I see is me driving with a gas generator, in the truck bed, feeding directly to my battery so that I can drive more than a hundred km between charges, while pulling a trailer.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't  need to pay well over $100,000 to go shopping or run around town and pay the extra charge on my hydro bill.
> Before you go pushing EVs, you have to completely rebuild our hydro distribution system. Not add to it. Not repair it. Tear it down and rebuild it with an eye to the future. Nuclear power is the only power that will supply the millions of EVs on the road, that some people seem to want. Definitely putting the cart before the horse on this one. You're going to have thousands of EV sitting in driveways waiting for their half day a week to charge up. Where do the hookups for street parking go?
> How many barrels of petroleum are going to go into the manufacture of an EV? Just about every part will require petroleum somewhere in their manufacture. Same as a new grid. How many millions or billions of barrels will that require? I've yet to see a report on how well they fare or how long the battery lasts for vehicles going through six months of Canadian winter. Crank up the heat and lower your mileage even further.
> Maybe people who want to,push EVs down our throat can give us a cost and completion time of the new grid to support the new cars. All I see is me driving with a gas generator, in the truck bed, feeding directly to my battery so that I can drive more than a hundred km between charges, while pulling a trailer.


You pay the $30 a month on the hydro bill with the $300 you were using for gas


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> You pay the $30 a month on the hydro bill with the $300 you were using for gas


How simplistic. That's what you took out of there? Trillions of tax dollars needed to manufacture the grid and you want to argue the cost of hooking up to it v. the cost of a fill up. The taxes that were collected on petroleum have to be made up somewhere. You won't be getting away with any $30 charge when there are no other alternatives. Someone has to pay the cost of the new infrastructure and delivery. It won't be the company or carrier either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> It’s kinda the worst of both worlds though unless you need something specific from the hybrid. One of the big advantages to the EV is the lack of maintenance and reduced complexity/components. If you’re still dragging around an ICE then you miss out on that.


Unless you buy a Tesla, don't expect a long life out of your car and the resale value longterm is yet unknown. Your EV valve is all about the condition of the battery. If you park indoors, have access to 240v charger, don't charge over 90% and don't go under 25% then your battery should last the average 8 years. The real question is how long will they last? It's quite possible resale value will plummet, either by a poor average lifespan after 8 years or if insurance companies decline to insure them after X years.
Also the previous generation of Tesla electric motors were failing all the time. Apparently they have fixed the issue, but I guess we will see.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> If you park indoors, have access to 240v charger, don't charge over 90% and don't go under 25% then your battery should last the average 8 years.


maybe if it was 2013. This is just completely wrong. In fact, every EV on the market has an 8 year/160,000 km warranty that includes capacity retention.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> maybe if it was 2013. This is just completely wrong. In fact, every EV on the market has an 8 year/160,000 km warranty that includes capacity retention.





kev994 said:


> maybe if it was 2013. This is just completely wrong. In fact, every EV on the market has an 8 year/160,000 km warranty that includes capacity retention.


Lithium-Ion Battery This warranty does not cover damage or failures resulting from or caused by: • Exposing a vehicle to ambient temperatures above 120F (49C) for over 24 hours. • Storing a vehicle in temperatures below -13F (-25C) for over seven days. LIMITATIONS TO YOUR NEW VEHICLE LIMITED WARRANTY (CONT’D) 12 • Leaving your vehicle for over 14 days where the lithium-ion battery reaches a zero or near zero state of charge. • Physically damaging the lithium-ion battery or intentionally attempting to reduce the life of the lithium-ion battery. • Exposing the lithium-ion battery to contact with a direct flame. • Immersing any portion of the lithium-ion battery in water or fluids. • Opening the lithium-ion battery enclosure or having it serviced by someone other than a Nissan LEAF certified technician. • Neglecting to follow correct charging procedures. • Use of incompatible charging devices. • Consequential damage caused by the failure to repair an existing problem. Gradual Capacity Loss The Lithium-ion battery (EV battery), like all lithiumion batteries, will experience gradual capacity loss with time and use. Loss of battery capacity due to or resulting from gradual capacity loss is NOT covered under this warranty beyond the terms and limits specified in the LITHIUM-ION BATTERY CAPACITY COVERAGE above. See your OWNER’S MANUAL for important tips on how to maximize the life and capacity of the “Lithium-ion battery.”

Industry average for batteries at 8 years is 60%. That may be ok for you and possibly the 2nd owner. But no one really knows what the market will look like for the 3rd owner. I will agree that now is the optimal time to own one thanks to the purchase subsidies and the fact that you are not paying road tax. Eventually when enough EV's are on the road those subsidies will dry up and governments will want their road tax. Then the EV vs ICE/Hybrids will not look so good.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Industry average for batteries at 8 years is 60%. That may be ok for you and possibly the 2nd owner. But no one really knows what the market will look like for the 3rd owner. I will agree that now is the optimal time to own one thanks to the purchase subsidies and the fact that you are not paying road tax. Eventually when enough EV's are on the road those subsidies will dry up and governments will want their road tax. Then the EV vs ICE/Hybrids will not look so good.


I’m not sure where you’re getting 60%, here’s a list of warranties and they’re all 70. The leaf is a bit of an oddball with no thermal management, I think this is the last year that they’re making it. 








						The Best Electric Vehicle Battery Warranties in 2022
					

Don't get stuck footing the $20,000 bill to replace an EV battery outside of warranty. These are the best manufacturer warranties for electric vehicles.




					joinyaa.com


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> How simplistic. That's what you took out of there? Trillions of tax dollars needed to manufacture the grid and you want to argue the cost of hooking up to it v. the cost of a fill up. The taxes that were collected on petroleum have to be made up somewhere. You won't be getting away with any $30 charge when there are no other alternatives. Someone has to pay the cost of the new infrastructure and delivery. It won't be the company or carrier either.


A trillion dollars does seem like a lot. How many litres of gas does Canada use in a year? I think I might have a solution.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> A trillion dollars does seem like a lot. How many litres of gas does Canada use in a year? I think I might have a solution.


I don't  think you do.


----------



## lenaitch (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Depends on the car of course, Model Y has 5,000 lb towing but based on demand they’re really expensive right now. Cadillac Lyriq is also 5,000 lbs, they’re ~$70k if you can get one.


I was in traffic the other day behind a Tesla (don't know which one) and it had what looked like a factory-installed hitch receiver.

Maybe they can tow a generator.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> I was in traffic the other day behind a Tesla (don't know which one) and it had what looked like a factory-installed hitch receiver.
> 
> Maybe they can tow a generator.


$1300 for a factory hitch, includes some software options for better towing.


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> I don't  think you do.


Don’t worry, it’s not a tax, we’re going to call it a levy, that way we can charge gst on it. We’ll give it a catchy name, like “freedom levy”. You like freedom don’t you?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> I’m not sure where you’re getting 60%, here’s a list of warranties and they’re all 70. The leaf is a bit of an oddball with no thermal management, I think this is the last year that they’re making it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was from a study done on the average capacity reported on used EV's in the 8 year range. Keep in mind that because Tesla is the market leader in thermal battery management, that their vehicles will generally rate higher than that, and others like the Leaf below that. I find EV's interesting, but I just don't drink the Koolaid. I used to work on Hovercraft, love them to bits, but like EV's they are niche machines that do some things very well, but are being oversold and over pushed by regulators that do understand the consequences of their actions. Don't underestimate the impact of insurance rates or coverage. Batteries unlike gas release very energetically and are susceptible to spontaneous fires and there is often no way to predict which battery will fail. If Insurance companies identify a trend of expensive fires after X years, guess what the value of your EV is at that time?


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Don't underestimate the impact of insurance rates or coverage. Batteries unlike gas release very energetically and are susceptible to spontaneous fires and there is often no way to predict which battery will fail. If Insurance companies identify a trend of expensive fires after X years, guess what the value of your EV is at that time?


bigger fire but much, much less likely:





						EV Fires: Less Common But More Problematic?
					

IDTechEx Research Article: Fires in electric vehicles (EVs) certainly gain a lot of media attention in comparison to their internal combustion engine (ICE) counterparts. But a crucial question for the future of mobility is whether EVs are actually any more likely to catch fire than an ICE...



					www.idtechex.com


----------



## lenaitch (2 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> bigger fire but much, much less likely:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


According to Transport Canada, about 10K vehicle fires per which is higher than I thought.  Whether EV fires are more or less prevalent per capita I guess remains to be seen.  Not so much a "bigger" fire, but certainly more difficult:

"Up to 150,000 litres to extinguish EV fire"









						Up to 150 000 liters of water needed to put out a fire in an electric car
					

Due to the construction and placement of the battery pack, it is difficult to reach the the fire in many types of EVs/




					www.ctif.org


----------



## kev994 (2 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> According to Transport Canada, about 10K vehicle fires per which is higher than I thought.  Whether EV fires are more or less prevalent per capita I guess remains to be seen.  Not so much a "bigger" fire, but certainly more difficult:
> 
> "Up to 150,000 litres to extinguish EV fire"
> 
> ...


Basically every EV fire makes the news but nobody cares about regular car fires, which are surprisingly common, so it skews perceptions.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Basically every EV fire makes the news but nobody cares about regular car fires, which are surprisingly common, so it skews perceptions.



You can put a gas car fire out, with normal equipment. In reasonably short order. It is basically just a fuel fire.

A thermal run away on an EV battery, not so much. Lots of times all they can do is let it burn for hours until it eats itself. Then there are the toxic fumes venting all over the place.

Maybe that's why the advertise them. Whatever pollutants it kept out of the air when working, is massively overwhelmed and magnified by the crap it's  spewing into the air till it burns itself out.

Just like a burning wind tower.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)




----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2022)

A back-of-envelope calculation I did based on my driving habits and some mileage/energy figures available online indicated that overall electricity would be cheaper than gasoline (1/4 cost, and that was before recent gasoline price increases) and would double to triple my electricity consumption.  So I expect EVs to be cheaper to operate just purely in terms of "fuel" cost, but someone has to produce the energy (or else the price of electricity is going to go up as demand increases, and the "fuel" cost savings will be eroded).  Since that's all new capability (infrastructure) required, it's a sizeable capital cost that has to be absorbed by someone.  For now, the novelty and sparseness of the EV fleet hides the difficulty of the path.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> A back-of-envelope calculation I did based on my driving habits and some mileage/energy figures available online indicated that overall electricity would be cheaper than gasoline (1/4 cost, and that was before recent gasoline price increases) and would double to triple my electricity consumption.  So I expect EVs to be cheaper to operate just purely in terms of "fuel" cost, but someone has to produce the energy (or else the price of electricity is going to go up as demand increases, and the "fuel" cost savings will be eroded).  Since that's all new capability (infrastructure) required, it's a sizeable capital cost that has to be absorbed by someone.  For now, the novelty and sparseness of the EV fleet hides the difficulty of the path.


I suspect that “hides the difficulty” bit is about to leap out into the open with various utility companies across Canada in the next year or so.

I already know of several relatively new sub-divisions in Edmonton that cannot get 200 amp service. The grid is maxed out.

There are clever ways around it like slaving your car charger to either your electric stove or dryer circuit (both are 240V), but you won’t be car charging while either of those two are running (they get preferred for power draw) , which means likely at night.

This has implications for grids that want to run on solar or even wind. Cue nuclear power…unless you want run your electric car on natural gas or coal….


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)

Like I said, the current grid can't  handle it. California even told people to unplug their cars because of brown and black outs. Even here, I think I read 10 plug ins at the same time in a regular city block is all the current infrastructure can handle.  The cost of the new infrastructure will be rolled into your electricity costs. Once there's  enough EVs out there the price will skyrocket. Beside the crazy price on electricity and on the cars, you'll have to upgrade your home to plug in. 

Nobody yet has been able to show me where I'll save enough on an EV to offset the costs of my gas burner.

Fossil fuels are going nowhere. They are here to stay.


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Like I said, the current grid can't  handle it. California even told people to unplug their cars because of brown and black outs. Even here, I think I read 10 plug ins at the same time in a regular city block is all the current infrastructure can handle.  The cost of the new infrastructure will be rolled into your electricity costs. Once there's  enough EVs out there the price will skyrocket. Beside the crazy price on electricity and on the cars, you'll have to upgrade your home to plug in.
> 
> Nobody yet has been able to show me where I'll save enough on an EV to offset the costs of my gas burner.
> 
> Fossil fuels are going nowhere. They are here to stay.


You’re leaving out key parts in your California example. They’re asking people not to use major appliances and EV during PEAK DEMAND. Total demand isn’t an issue, peak demand is. And most people charge their cars at night, when they’re home and it’s not peak demand. 








						EVs aren't straining the electric grid — and they just might save it
					

Some feared EV charging would tip California over the edge, but EVs aren't the problem, and could be a solution.




					www.axios.com


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> View attachment 75266


This is basically a lesson in “don’t take your 12-year-old-car to the dealership for power train work”. An ICE at the dealership is also ridiculous, that’s why nobody does it. You get a used one or you get a rebuilt one.


----------



## Dana381 (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> You’re leaving out key parts in your California example. They’re asking people not to use major appliances and EV during PEAK DEMAND. Total demand isn’t an issue, peak demand is. And most people charge their cars at night, when they’re home and it’s not peak demand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Anyone can right an article and say pigs can fly. But I know they can't, at least not without some good drugs.

That's with 563,000 all electric vehicles on the road in California. California has 15,000,000 cars registered. They are also banning small gas engines for lawn mowers and chain saws. California has been having power issues for years.  20 years ago when I was trucking they were having rolling blackouts. 
They haven't fixed their problems in 20 years then how are they going to handle 1.7 million new EVs per year. You will be forced to buy a EV and not be allowed to charge it. They have the same 2035 ban on new ICE cars we do.


kev994 said:


> This is basically a lesson in “don’t take your 12-year-old-car to the dealership for power train work”. An ICE at the dealership is also ridiculous, that’s why nobody does it. You get a used one or you get a rebuilt one.



Where can you get an aftermarket battery? What shops will tackle replacement? How bad will they screw it up? Also that particular battery is discontinued, yes those people who bought that expensive HYBRID are now screwed. 





						24043694 - Genuine GM Battery Assembly, High Vltg
					

GMPartsGiant.com offers the great deal for genuine GM parts, 24043694. Battery Assembly, High Vltg. All parts are backed by the GM's warranty.




					www.gmpartsgiant.com


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> Where can you get an aftermarket battery? What shops will tackle replacement? How bad will they screw it up? Also that particular battery is discontinued, yes those people who bought that expensive HYBRID are now screwed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You’ll note the skill requirements to install this are on the low side. A bunch of bolts holding it in and ~5 cannon plugs. Substantially less work than a gas engine. 








						Let Me Google That
					

For all those people that find it more convenient to bother you with their question than to google it for themselves.




					letmegooglethat.com


----------



## Dana381 (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> You’ll note the skill requirements to install this are on the low side. A bunch of bolts holding it in and ~5 cannon plugs. Substantially less work than a gas engine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I won't use rebuilt parts in any job unless the customer supplies them and I state in the bill I'm not responsible for rework. Rebuilders and remanufacturers only replace the bad parts and many don't do it well. I used to but I got quickly tired of doing my job twice. An $8000 used battery found on the internet that claims warranty you would likely never would be able to actually receive if needed. You can take that gamble, not me.

As for the install, I've seen lots of simple jobs F-ed up big time. I've seen lots of shops refuse to fix those screw ups. On something like this at least with a dealer you can call corporate and or get the media involved. Small shops you don't really have that leverage


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Dana381 said:


> I won't use rebuilt parts in any job unless the customer supplies them and I state in the bill I'm not responsible for rework. Rebuilders and remanufacturers only replace the bad parts and many don't do it well. I used to but I got quickly tired of doing my job twice. An $8000 used battery found on the internet that claims warranty you would likely never would be able to actually receive if needed. You can take that gamble, not me.
> 
> As for the install, I've seen lots of simple jobs F-ed up big time. I've seen lots of shops refuse to fix those screw ups. On something like this at least with a dealer you can call corporate and or get the media involved. Small shops you don't really have that leverage


Then we’re back at the same problem as an ICE; it’s ridiculously expensive to get a new engine at the dealership.


----------



## Dana381 (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Then we’re back at the same problem as an ICE; it’s ridiculously expensive to get a new engine at the dealership.



Rebuilding an engine is something I can do and control the quality. I have done many in my career and had no failures yet. I have little reservation about offering warranty on my work. The only reservation I do have is ending up doing a job over for free because of substandard parts. Even trusted parts suppliers make mistakes sometimes. A shop I worked at was bitten by a John Deere rebuild once that way. It was 100% a faulty part.that the installer had no way of seeing.


----------



## lenaitch (3 Dec 2022)

There are load shedding/energy management EVSEs (the charger is in the vehicle).  Most are aimed at multiple charge points like condos but I believe you get them at the home owner level.  Either way, for most it would likely mean you vehicle would only charge at max rate in the night.

If and when EVs reach some unknown level of market penetration, governments will have to figure out a way to replace the lost revenue from taxes on fuel.  Right now, charging at home only generates (!?!) HST in Ontario.


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

lenaitch said:


> There are load shedding/energy management EVSEs (the charger is in the vehicle).  Most are aimed at multiple charge points like condos but I believe you get them at the home owner level.  Either way, for most it would likely mean you vehicle would only charge at max rate in the night.
> 
> If and when EVs reach some unknown level of market penetration, governments will have to figure out a way to replace the lost revenue from taxes on fuel.  Right now, charging at home only generates (!?!) HST in Ontario.


You can get devices now that attach to your meter and only charge when your load for the entire house is low enough, in case people have a smaller service and try to charge while roasting a turkey, drying the laundry, and having a shower. It’s basically aimed at people have smaller panels and the load calculation won’t allow them to install another circuit. Though for a lot of people, a regular outlet is good enough. Painfully slow but they’re not using enough in a day to need a faster charge.


----------



## Quirky (3 Dec 2022)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I already know of several relatively new sub-divisions in Edmonton that cannot get 200 amp service. The grid is maxed out.



I have a solution for you:


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

I have a solution for you:


Quirky said:


>


Gas can turn into electricity? That seems convenient. Can you do the opposite?


----------



## Quirky (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> I have a solution for you:
> 
> Gas can turn into electricity? That seems convenient. Can you do the opposite?



So owning EVs is not about emissions. Ok, got it.


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> So owning EVs is not about emissions. Ok, got it.


You can’t honestly think this guy is doing this regularly. It’s probably staged. Best case it’s a fringe case, and you’ve already blown them off, you can’t have it both ways.


----------



## Quirky (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> You can’t honestly think this guy is doing this regularly. It’s probably staged. Best case it’s a fringe case, and you’ve already blown them off, you can’t have it both ways.



It looks like it's somewhere in the Middle East, which is laughable considering it has the lowest prices for gas in the world. It doesn't look staged, I would guess it's because the infrastructure in that country isn't set-up for EV charging, either because it's in the early stages of Tesla sales or the country hasn't invested in it yet. Whatever the case, the owner didn't factor his driving distance with charge remaining, no different than someone running out of gas and using a jerry can. My comment was towards the Edmonton infrastructure issue and I offered a solution, which comes back to a dirty generator running on dirty oil-sands gas, charging an EV to save on emissions for the commute. I can't imagine how long it will take to charge an EV on a portable generator....days? Either way, that's the only solution to get anywhere in an EV when the power grid is limited like it is in California.


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Quirky said:


> I can't imagine how long it will take to charge an EV on a portable generator....days? Either way, that's the only solution to get anywhere in an EV when the power grid is limited like it is in California.


It would depend on the amperage of the generator and the cord (the Tesla ones IIRC adjust based on what plug you use), but you wouldn’t fill it in this case, you just need enough juice to get it to a charger. Strangely enough, you could also flat tow it and the car will generate power, though it’s obviously using additional power from the tow vehicle to do this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> It would depend on the amperage of the generator and the cord (the Tesla ones IIRC adjust based on what plug you use), but you wouldn’t fill it in this case, you just need enough juice to get it to a charger. *Strangely enough, you could also flat tow it and the car will generate power, though it’s obviously using additional power from the tow vehicle to do this.*


So, now you can use your frunk to carry a tow bar or A-frame. Adding to your weight and reducing your mileage even more. Deplete one vehicle to charge another. Seems pretty ridiculous. Why not slave the two together until the batteries level out to a half charge each? How long would that take? Maybe tents and sleeping bags can become part of the emergency kit. Or maybe take a five gallon jerry can and go get some electricity.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> You can’t honestly think this guy is doing this regularly. It’s probably staged. Best case it’s a fringe case, and you’ve already blown them off, you can’t have it both ways.


So it's OK to blow it off when it doesn't fit your narrative? You're hypothesizing your opinion. Neither holds the weight of fact.

You are right though. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> I have a solution for you:
> 
> Gas can turn into electricity? That seems convenient. Can you do the opposite?


“Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”​― Albert Einstein


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> So, now you can use your frunk to carry a tow bar or A-frame. Adding to your weight and reducing your mileage even more. Deplete one vehicle to charge another. Seems pretty ridiculous. Why not slave the two together until the batteries level out to a half charge each? How long would that take? Maybe tents and sleeping bags can become part of the emergency kit. Or maybe take a five gallon jerry can and go get some electricity.


You could if you wanted to but it’s completely unnecessary


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Fishbone Jones said:


> “Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.”​― Albert Einstein


So you can harvest your own gasoline or no? I just pointed out that there are many ways to get electricity, I don’t think that’s true for gas. Didn’t say a generator was a good way to do it or that anyone needs to do this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2022)

I suspect the underlying point, given the reality of friction in the actual non-ideal universe, it that in almost all conceivable cases it's more efficient to burn a fuel at the point of use.


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I suspect the underlying point, given the reality of friction in the actual non-ideal universe, it that in almost all conceivable cases it's more efficient to burn a fuel at the point of use.


Again, sounds logical, but grossly misinformed 








						How Efficient is Your Cars Engine
					

It has become routine. You get in your car, turn the key, put the transmission in gear, hit the gas and off you go. But, have you ever stopped to think what it takes to make your car run?




					www.aaa.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> Again, sounds logical, but grossly misinformed


I couldn't find a part where it shows that burning the gasoline in a generator to produce electricity and then using the electricity to power the car would be more efficient.  Could you cut and paste that?


----------



## kev994 (3 Dec 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> I couldn't find a part where it shows that burning the gasoline in a generator to produce electricity and then using the electricity to power the car would be more efficient.  Could you cut and paste that?


That’s not how I read that, those are not efficient at all, they’re ~20%. I was thinking more along the lines of commercially generated electricity transferred via a cable to an outlet. Not necessarily produced near where it’s used but the efficiency is much higher.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Dec 2022)




----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Dec 2022)

kev994 said:


> That’s not how I read that, those are not efficient at all, they’re ~20%. I was thinking more along the lines of commercially generated electricity transferred via a cable to an outlet. Not necessarily produced near where it’s used but the efficiency is much higher.


Go back and read what I wrote.  My point is not about the efficiency of burning gasoline; it's about the fact that the longer the path from source to use, the more energy is lost.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2022)

More Leaf issues








						Two electric vehicles left undriveable after plugging into Horseshoe Bay station  | Globalnews.ca
					

BC Hydro has 124 charging sites across B.C. and spokesperson Mora Scott said that only Nissan Leaf drivers seemed to have an issue at this station.




					globalnews.ca


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Thursday at 01:14)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1588640412717178882


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Thursday at 01:30)

Colin Parkinson said:


> More Leaf issues
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A gas generator will get them going.


----------



## ArmyRick (Thursday at 06:52)

kev994 said:


> You pay the $30 a month on the hydro bill with the $300 you were using for gas


Big problem with your line of thinking. Your firing off knee jerk instant answers. Without context or understanding.
It will be a F of alot more than $30 a month.

Tell me when do they plan to build an electric tractor? Electric dump truck? Electric snow ploughs?


----------



## ArmyRick (Thursday at 06:54)

kev994 said:


> Basically every EV fire makes the news but nobody cares about regular car fires, which are surprisingly common, so it skews perceptions.


Again, an instant answer for everything. When my mothers car erupted in flames, believe me it made the news.


----------



## ArmyRick (Thursday at 06:57)

kev994 said:


> So you can harvest your own gasoline or no? I just pointed out that there are many ways to get electricity, I don’t think that’s true for gas. Didn’t say a generator was a good way to do it or that anyone needs to do this.


There are engineers out there who have created fuel from nuts, old cooking oil, tallow and lard. Energy is energy.


----------



## ArmyRick (Thursday at 07:12)

In my opinion, EVs are a big nothing burger. They might be suitable for driving around downtown Clownville (Ottawa) or Toronto, but not suitable for real rural living. Or hauling. Or working. 

I think one of the biggest problems is too many people have bought into the green lies, Below is a link to bright green lies, well worth the watch. I know Lierre Kieth personally (one of the authors)   








						Bright Green Lies
					

Bright Green Lies the film and book dismantle the illusion of "green" technology.




					www.brightgreenlies.com
				




IMO too Canadians buy into the propaganda of so called environmentalist (They are anything but), REAL environmentalist (like Allan Savory are totally ignored)


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 10:17)

ArmyRick said:


> Big problem with your line of thinking. Your firing off knee jerk instant answers. Without context or understanding.
> It will be a F of alot more than $30 a month.
> 
> Tell me when do they plan to build an electric tractor? Electric dump truck? Electric snow ploughs?


The more you drive the more you save vs gas. I can answer quickly because the same stupid FUD comes up all the time.


----------



## PuckChaser (Thursday at 10:40)

Let me know how that balances out when your battery needs replacement in 5 years at $25K...


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 10:49)

PuckChaser said:


> Let me know how that balances out when your battery needs replacement in 5 years at $25K...


It’s got an 8 year 160,000 km warranty. More FUD. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Edit: also doesn’t cost 25k unless you need TikTok clicks.


----------



## PuckChaser (Thursday at 11:33)

kev994 said:


> Edit: also doesn’t cost 25k unless you need TikTok clicks.


Yeah, they probably negotiated a better hourly rate for the kids in the Cobalt mines in the Congo to drop the price.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 11:57)

PuckChaser said:


> Yeah, they probably negotiated a better hourly rate for the kids in the Cobalt mines in the Congo to drop the price.


Or someone has figured out how to remove cobalt from batteries. The same can’t be said for the catalytic converter. You’re really grasping at straws here. 








						Lithium iron phosphate battery - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## FSTO (Thursday at 12:02)

Cobalt-free batteries are here, so why are we still mining the mineral?
					

Cobalt mining is linked to child labor and loss of habitat to local wildlife -- and its use is increasing. Can battery innovation end it?




					thenextweb.com
				




China "claims" it has solved the problem. Sure.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 12:04)

FSTO said:


> Cobalt-free batteries are here, so why are we still mining the mineral?
> 
> 
> Cobalt mining is linked to child labor and loss of habitat to local wildlife -- and its use is increasing. Can battery innovation end it?
> ...


There are numerous manufacturers using LFP


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 12:05)

kev994 said:


> Or someone has figured out how to remove cobalt from batteries. The same can’t be said for the catalytic converter. You’re really grasping at straws here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We agree that alterative engines are the future, be it EVs or Hydrogen or some other method.

But you cant sit high on the hog about the positive effects of an EV without recognizing the major negative human, environmental  and moral implication of the precious metal mining that takes place in their production.  Nor the fact the mass amount of plastic used in vehicle fabrication is dependent on petroleum production. 






						Cobalt Mining: The Dark Side of the Renewable Energy Transition | Earth.Org
					

While cobalt is the mineral conundrum at the heart of the renewable energy transition, cobalt mining is associated with environmental and social issues.




					earth.org
				












						The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush
					

Cell phones and electric cars rely on the mineral, causing a boom in demand. Locals are hunting for this buried treasure—but are getting almost none of the profit.




					www.newyorker.com
				




Its much akin to the social justice warrior pontificating about the great injustices in their society from an electronic device; and while wearing clothing; and eating food that was probably manufactured or grown using slave labor in some far off land.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 12:09)

Halifax Tar said:


> We agree that alterative engines are the future, be it EVs or Hydrogen or some other method.
> 
> But you cant sit high on the hog about the positive effects of an EV without recognizing the major negative human, environmental  and moral implication of the precious metal mining that takes place in their production.  Nor the fact the mass amount of plastic used in vehicle fabrication is dependent on petroleum production.
> 
> ...


Public transportation would be way better, but arguing that the status quo is OK is ridiculous


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 12:23)

kev994 said:


> Public transportation would be way better, but arguing that the status quo is OK is ridiculous



Maybe. 

The fact remains, unless we get economies like China, USA, India and Russia to curtail their emissions anything we do in Canada will have no effect. 

I think we should be embracing and incentivizing WFH as much as possible.


----------



## Remius (Thursday at 12:31)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think we should be embracing and incentivizing WFH as much as possible.



If this were to become the « normal state » I’d be ditching one of our cars sooner rather than later.  The amount I save on gas alone is insane.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 12:38)

Halifax Tar said:


> Maybe.
> 
> The fact remains, unless we get economies like China, USA, India and Russia to curtail their emissions anything we do in Canada will have no effect.
> 
> I think we should be embracing and incentivizing WFH as much as possible.


We can’t control Russia and China though, all we can do is ameliorate our part.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 12:41)

Remius said:


> If this were to become the « normal state » I’d be ditching one of our cars sooner rather than later.  The amount I save on gas alone is insane.



Absolutely.  I think many would. 



kev994 said:


> We can’t control Russia and China though, all we can do is ameliorate our part.



You're kidding ?  

I know, I get it.  Our efforts have negligible effects in the grand scheme of things.  We're a minnow.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 12:49)

.


----------



## Quirky (Thursday at 12:50)

Has anyone checked the price of an EV lately? 

Fu*k. That.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 12:54)

Quirky said:


> Has anyone checked the price of an EV lately?
> 
> Fu*k. That.



When you factor in you're not paying for gas, and very little maintenance it equals out, depending on what you buy.  

The caveat is you have to drive enough to save the gas money.


----------



## QV (Thursday at 12:56)

kev994 said:


> We can’t control Russia and China though, all we can do is ameliorate our part.


Canada could sure have had an impact... say for example if Canada had developed its resource sector export capability to be able to supply the worlds cleanest LNG product to Europe while Russia is acting badly...


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 12:58)

Quirky said:


> Has anyone checked the price of an EV lately?
> 
> Fu*k. That.


Have you checked the price of any new cars lately?


----------



## Quirky (Thursday at 13:06)

kev994 said:


> Have you checked the price of any new cars lately?



Ya we just bought one last spring for under MSRP.



Halifax Tar said:


> When you factor in you're not paying for gas, and very little maintenance it equals out, depending on what you buy.
> 
> The caveat is you have to drive enough to save the gas money.



I personally don't drive enough which is why I have a $2000 beater 4x4 SUV. Let me know when I can buy a beater EV for that price and I'll happily sit with the other idiots at the charging stations in -30c.


----------



## Remius (Thursday at 13:18)

Halifax Tar said:


> When you factor in you're not paying for gas, and very little maintenance it equals out, depending on what you buy.
> 
> The caveat is you have to drive enough to save the gas money.


Yeah, a tesla owner I spoke to said his annual maintenance is a fraction of what it was for his combustible engine vehicle.   He was an Uber driver and it seems that a tesla made perfect sense for him.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 13:23)

Quirky said:


> Let me know when I can buy a beater EV for that price and I'll happily sit with the other idiots at the charging stations in -30c.


If you’re not buying a new car then it’s never going to make sense. Side note, you can run the heat while it’s charging, but I just charge in my garage while I’m sleeping and almost never need to use a charger away from home.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 13:24)

Remius said:


> Yeah, a tesla owner I spoke to said his annual maintenance is a fraction of what it was for his combustible engine vehicle.   He was an Uber driver and it seems that a tesla made perfect sense for him.


There’s a dude in Toronto with something crazy like 300,000 kms on his model 3 doing Uber.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 13:24)

Remius said:


> Yeah, a tesla owner I spoke to said his annual maintenance is a fraction of what it was for his combustible engine vehicle.   He was an Uber driver and it seems that a tesla made perfect sense for him.



100% makes sense for an Uber driver. 

My understanding is there really isn't maintenance outside of breaks and tires.  Maybe some coolant somewhere?  I stand to be corrected. 

Unless something fails.  But I don't feel like that happens often enough to be a major concern. 

The added cost might be the installation of home charging station ?  It might be advantageous to have those added to the price of the vehicle.  Or give an equal value tax break to those households with an income less than 100K let's say.


----------



## Remius (Thursday at 13:36)

Halifax Tar said:


> 100% makes sense for an Uber driver.
> 
> My understanding is there really isn't maintenance outside of breaks and tires.  Maybe some coolant somewhere?  I stand to be corrected.
> 
> ...


Pretty much what he said.  Brakes, tires etc.

Some dealerships are starting to offer home charging installation as incentives.  When I bought my current home in 2018 the builder was offering and pushing EV charge stations as an upgrade.


----------



## kev994 (Thursday at 13:37)

Halifax Tar said:


> The added cost might be the installation of home charging station ?  It might be advantageous to have those added to the price of the vehicle.  Or give an equal value tax break to those households with an income less than 100K let's say.


I paid $450 to get it wired the first time (I just had him wire a NEMA 14-50 outlet), $900 the second time because of labour shortages and because I had them use a larger gauge for expansion. The charger itself I think was around $650. Some of the manufacturers are offering an installation credit or DCFC credit. My leaf I can sometimes drain the battery in a day so the faster charge is useful, for a larger battery it might not be necessary since there’s so much buffer and it spends so much time in the garage.


----------



## Good2Golf (Thursday at 13:43)

Remius said:


> When I bought my current home in 2018 the builder was offering and pushing EV charge stations as an upgrade.


My builder called it a 50A welder outlet, in my garage.  Probably can take a Level 2 charger if I ever decide to have a vehicle with less than a 1300km range and don’t want to tow 7,000lbs.


----------



## Halifax Tar (Thursday at 13:45)

Good2Golf said:


> 1300km range and don’t want to tow 7,000lbs.



And that's the hitch.  

EVs are perfect for the urban folk don't drive far and don't tow/haul loads.  EVs are the perfect grocery getter and hockey bag hauler.


----------



## QV (Thursday at 14:18)

Halifax Tar said:


> And that's the hitch.
> 
> EVs are perfect for the urban folk don't drive far and don't tow/haul loads.  EVs are the perfect grocery getter and* hockey bag hauler.*


Not true for the last part when factoring in the distances, overnighters, and adverse weather associated to any competitive hockey.


----------



## Brad Sallows (Thursday at 15:05)

So by this point everyone has discovered that advantages depend on context and no one platform fits all uses?

Moving on...

If people are arguing that we have to take steps to mitigate past shortsight and to internalize former externalities, then obviously the time to consider the externalities that will have to be mitigated for EVs is right now and stop waffling and hand-waving over the real problems with converting a large fraction of the passenger vehicle fleet.


----------



## QV (Thursday at 17:54)

Brad Sallows said:


> So by this point everyone has discovered that advantages depend on context and no one platform fits all uses?


I think that much has always been obvious to everyone but the zealots.


----------



## lenaitch (Thursday at 22:48)

Remius said:


> Pretty much what he said.  Brakes, tires etc.
> 
> Some dealerships are starting to offer home charging installation as incentives.  When I bought my current home in 2018 the builder was offering and pushing EV charge stations as an upgrade.


An Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE - the 'charger' is in the vehicle) circuit iwas briefly added to the Ontario Building Code until Ford pulled it.  I don't recall what the mandated amperage was.  

Chevrolet incentive:









						Home Charging Installation | Chevrolet
					

Chevy is helping even more people experience how easy it is to live electric with home charging installation. See details to learn if you qualify.




					www.chevrolet.com


----------



## daftandbarmy (Saturday at 13:16)

Nice work, Science:


Despite gloomy headlines, our planet is getting cleaner and healthier​ 
 The media sells bad news, but scientific evidence shows that we are making progress toward a greener planet.

Key Takeaways


Dreary, despondent headlines about pollution and climate change are the norm. But they are not painting a full or accurate picture.
While Earth is still no Garden of Eden, many countries are making serious efforts to become clean and green. The results are scientifically notable but underreported by the media.
Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource. In a world filled with bad news, that's a fact worth celebrating.
There is no shortage of bad news in media headlines. “Climate change is already killing us,” the World Health Organization (WHO) declared in the run up to the UN’s COP 27 Climate Change Conference. “Low levels of air pollution deadlier than previously thought,” McGill University lamented. “Brazil’s plans to pave an Amazon road could open path to more deforestation,” yet another despondent headline from NPR blared. 

Most people undoubtedly accept that climate change, air pollution, and deforestation are very real problems we ought to take seriously. What fewer of us seem to realize, however, is that the world _has_ taken these issues seriously and made significant progress toward solving them as a result. This observation leads us to an important but oft-overlooked conclusion: Economic growth and technological innovation are making our planet a cleaner, safer place to live.
Pollution is plummeting​“Between 1970 and 2020,” according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “the combined emissions of the six common pollutants (PM2.5 and PM10, SO2, NOx, VOCs, CO, and Pb) dropped by 78 percent.” Similar trends have been observed in other developed nations as well. Between 1970 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions of all air pollutants except ammonia by 60%. The trend is unmistakable to anyone looking carefully at the evidence. Drs. Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser helpfully summed up the situation for Our World in Data in 2019:

_“What becomes clear is that far from being the most polluted in recent history, the air in many rich countries today is cleaner than it has been for decades.”_

They rightly cautioned that we have more work to do. Many developing countries have yet to acquire the resources necessary to invest in pollution-reduction measures; they are primarily focused on raising their standard of living by gaining access to abundant food and energy supplies, for example. As their economies develop, they will have both the means and the desire to tackle air pollution. This pattern has been observed in countries all over the world.
More food on less land​One of the best ways to bring a nation out of grinding poverty is to boost its agricultural productivity. The introduction of high-yielding crop varieties during the Green Revolution, led by plant pathologist Norman Borlaug, nicely illustrated how this phenomenon works. According to a July 2021 study, enhanced crops developed between 1965 and 2010 increased food production by more than 40%, saving the world a whopping $83 trillion. Addressing the environmental impact of agriculture, the authors didn’t mince words:

_“Our paper also sheds light on a concern, often expressed in the literature, that agricultural productivity improvements would pull additional land into agriculture at the expense of forests and other environmentally valuable land uses. We find evidence to the contrary… the Green Revolution tended to reduce the amount of land devoted to agriculture.” _










						Despite gloomy headlines, our planet is getting cleaner and healthier
					

The media sells bad news, but scientific evidence shows that we are making progress toward a healthier, cleaner, and greener planet.




					bigthink.com


----------



## Brad Sallows (Saturday at 14:01)

Thank prosperity.  A prosperous people can afford to dream and to make dreams come true.  Inexpensive and abundant energy is the key to prosperity...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (Saturday at 16:07)

Brad Sallows said:


> Thank prosperity.  A prosperous people can afford to dream and to make dreams come true.  Inexpensive and abundant energy is the key to prosperity...


No! No! No!

You have it all wrong!

Only expensive, intermittent electricity can save us! (well, a few of us. Sod the rest of Mankind…)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Saturday at 16:56)

If I bought a new F150 EV, and towed my 21' cargo trailer, I would get about 100 miles per charge. By the time I got where I was going, vacation would be over.


----------



## ArmyRick (Saturday at 17:27)

AN interesting watch


----------



## Quirky (Saturday at 19:48)

Fishbone Jones said:


> If I bought a new F150 EV, and towed my 21' cargo trailer, I would get about 100 miles per charge. By the time I got where I was going, vacation would be over.



If you’re delusional enough to buy a $100k F-150 for towing.


----------



## ArmyRick (Sunday at 11:55)

Here is an interesting video that kind of looks at the ice age and now, and looks into margins of error and mistakes made by scientist.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Sunday at 17:19)

ArmyRick said:


> AN interesting watch


As soon as Al Gore got involved, I knew it was a ponzi scheme. It's just a long con, so far as I'm concerned. Anything dreamed up by politicians is suspect and they'll only push it as long as they can line their pockets. No more money? No more climate crisis.


----------



## daftandbarmy (Yesterday at 13:42)

"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read." 

Mark Twain 

Go science!

*Despite gloomy headlines, our planet is getting cleaner and healthier*

The media sells bad news, but scientific evidence shows that we are making progress toward a greener planet.

Key Takeaways

Dreary, despondent headlines about pollution and climate change are the norm. But they are not painting a full or accurate picture.
While Earth is still no Garden of Eden, many countries are making serious efforts to become clean and green. The results are scientifically notable but underreported by the media.
Human ingenuity is the ultimate resource. In a world filled with bad news, that's a fact worth celebrating.
Despite gloomy headlines, our planet is getting cleaner and healthier


----------



## Good2Golf (Yesterday at 14:00)

daftandbarmy said:


> "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read."
> 
> Mark Twain
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Yesterday at 20:00)

Obama spent millions on an estate/compound on Martha's Vineyard. He's obviously not worried about climate change. I wonder why?


----------



## daftandbarmy (Yesterday at 22:53)

Fishbone Jones said:


> Obama spent millions on an estate/compound on Martha's Vineyard. He's obviously not worried about climate change. I wonder why?



I hope it's waterfront


----------



## Fishbone Jones (Yesterday at 23:54)

daftandbarmy said:


> I hope it's waterfront


Marthas Vineyard is about 43' ASL, at its highest point, from what I read.


----------

