Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Haletown]

"Well Haletown, at least he is consistent.  "

ya . .  "Do as I say not as I do"  level of consistent.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Must be one of those new electric jets.  Surely a member of the United Nations wouldn't be a hypocrite?  ^-^

 

[Cheshire]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

Good on ya Haletown.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.)

We've heard reports that Environment Minister John Baird has been so audacious to even suggest that future climate treaties include caps on developing nations such as China and India, a truly offensive suggestive shared by the unoffensive new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd. We've heard that Baird "ran away" from a meeting of environmental activists, "Canadian youth" and Svend Robinson!

CTV reports:

    Baird was supposed to explain Canada's position at a meeting with non-governmental activists attending the conference. He showed up for the meeting, but quickly left before speaking.

    Canadian activists and others waited for the minister to return. But they were later told Baird had to attend negotiations and would not be back.

    "The minister who was supposed to address us was AWOL. He ran away," said Olivier Lavoie of the Canadian Youth in Action.

    Lavoie said the minister probably did not want to confront young activists critical of Canada's stand.

How can Baird turn a blind eye to good people that are non-partisan, non-ideological and simply concerned about the coming worldwide devastation?

Unreported by CTV and undeclared by Lavoie is this "activist" and leader of the "Canadian Youth in Action" was also president of the Liberal campus club at McGill.

So was Baird simply avoiding a meeting with people who see so much green that they see red when they see blue?

Was he avoiding a partisan ambush by a group of NDP and Liberal activists?

When can we get some honest reporting on the merits of Baird's plan and what interests some have in blocking it?

At its core, Canada and Australia's vision for a future climate treaty is rooted in environmental concern.

The intent of Baird's position is that no matter what country in which you emit CO2, you pay the same cost. All worldwide CO2 would be declared equal if Baird and Rudd had their way. However, the intent of "social" environmental activists is to shift the burden on developed nations. If China and India and other "developing" countries get a better deal on their CO2 emissions, economic development and manufacturing of companies headquartered in Canada or the US, for example, will shift to developing countries because of their lower CO2 costs. The effect of this is redistribution of wealth.

If we are concerned about CO2 emissions, then all CO2 should be costed the same. If it is not, the effect will be the creation of CO2 havens. CO2 production will be shifted rather than reduced. Perhaps what Baird is doing is calling on the warming warriors to show their cards. Is all of this noise really about CO2 or is it about the redistribution of wealth and production?
Posted by Stephen Taylor at December 12, 2007 04:13 PM

 

[a_majoor]

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,

Is Global Warming an informational cascade?


This is a little old, so I don't know if you have seen this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/
09tier.html?_r=2&em&ex=1192248000&en=
9f36687fe8aef756&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin&oref=slogin 

It describes why the scientific consensus that a diet high in Fat leads to heart disease is wrong. This same phenomenon of informational cascade can also explain the consensus on Global Warming. Some excerpts below:

Thus begins an informational cascade as one person after another assumes that the rest can't all be wrong.

Because of this effect, groups are surprisingly prone to reach mistaken conclusions even when most of the people started out knowing better, according to the economists Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer and Ivo Welch. If, say, 60 percent of a group's members have been given information pointing them to the right answer (while the rest have information pointing to the wrong answer), there is still about a one-in-three chance that the group will cascade to a mistaken consensus.

The scientists, despite their impressive credentials, were accused of bias because some of them had done research financed by the food industry. And so the informational cascade morphed into what the economist Timur Kuran calls a reputational cascade, in which it becomes a career risk for dissidents to question the popular wisdom

But when the theories were tested in clinical trials, the evidence kept turning up negative. As Mr. Taubes notes, the most rigorous meta-analysis of the clinical trials of low-fat diets, published in 2001 by the Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that they had no significant effect on mortality.

This is a matter, he continued, of such enormous social, economic and medical importance that it must be evaluated with our eyes completely open. Thus I would hate to see this issue settled by anything that smacks of a Gallup poll.? Or a cascade.

Mike Plaster
Divisional Product Quality Engineer

 

[Haletown]

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]

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]

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.