No more global warming? [Archive] - Page 2

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-21-2009, 02:17

I by no means use the memo as evidence that the Reps are falsifying information. On the contrary, I use it to show that they are into something far more insidious. 'Depraved cynicism' is I believe the phrase I used. Far more dangerous than easily verifiable falsifications.

Well, having read the global warming portion of that I would have to disagree with you. Still, the essential gist of your argument - warning: Republicans copying Democrats - is hardly damning.

There is more to language than lying or telling the truth. Luntz is a master of cunning spin. He unfortunately realises most of the electorate will not understand what he is doing.

So, now we come back to politics. You're taking something that every single political party does, whether they are for or against your personal views, and applying it to the Republican Party. It doesn't help your argument, as the source you linked identifies precisely where the idea in this case came from - the Democrats. So, if the Democrats were the original to do it, how can we say that the "depravity" is a wholly Republican phenomenon?

You are only taking this in a decidedly negative light because it is a party that disagrees with your viewpoint. You are spinning.

Again, of course it is not out of context.

Your claims were out of context.

This is the second time you recommend I actually read this source, a source which I provided for discussion, of which I even directed you to a specific paraghraph of a specific page.

Then perhaps we are merely approaching it from opposite angles.

Louis VI the Fat

12-21-2009, 23:56

Oh dear.

The leaked memo is considered an embarrassement by the GOP itself. They were caught with their pants down, and were not amused that it was leaked.

If all you can take away from it though is that it proofs that the Democrats are evil and that everybody who mentions the memo are themselves spinning, then..well, so be it, eh? In that case, I must grant victory to Luntz: story and preconceived notions, not facts, are decisive for the majority of the electorate.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-22-2009, 00:16

The leaked memo is considered an embarrassement by the GOP itself. They were caught with their pants down, and were not amused that it was leaked.

Of course it was. Just because everyone does it doesn't mean anyone wants it confirmed that they do.

If all you can take away from it though is that it proofs that the Democrats are evil and that everybody who mentions the memo are themselves spinning, then..well, so be it, eh?

That isn't what I said. I said that the way you were talking about was spinning, as you are blaming the evil Republicans without conceding that the Democrats do it to, and that they do it about the same issue. In that regard you are not being even-handed, but criticizing only those who disagree with your opinion. I am sharing the blame equally between the two parties.

In that case, I must grant victory to Luntz: story and preconceived notions, not facts, are decisive for the majority of the electorate.

Of course it is, otherwise all parties wouldn't use that strategy.

Louis VI the Fat

12-22-2009, 01:02

Lots of political parties use spin. The Democrats do too.

I would still content that the GOP in the past two decades has taken spin further than perhaps any mainstream party in a liberal democracy.

Whether it concerns healthcare, terrorism, the environment - or: 'Washington Takeover', 'War on Terror', 'Scientific Controversy Global Warming Climate Change' - the GOP is too much in the grip of its project to change reality. It believes - rightly - that a debate is not won by facts, but by having decided on the language before the debate has even started.

Two problems:
Shouldn't policy, not winning the debate, be decisive?
The GOP has a tendency to end up believing its own spin. To then lose the distinction between the facts, and their spin of it. Then act on the latter. Usually, with catastrophic results. (What, for example, if the US had not believed there was a War on Terror but a securty problem that needed adressing?)

Furunculus

12-23-2009, 12:56

Louis VI the Fat

12-23-2009, 17:46

Cosmic rays and CFC's:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/

Remember, the science is peer reviewed, and settled. The debate is over:
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3aa2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDestAs to the second link: the lesson there is to always use the original source. :smash:

The first article is of more consequence. Quite interesting. We'll see if his theory holds up. I'm not holding my breath. He's an adventurous professor of astronomy, that's for sure.
If I were a sceptic, I suppose I should attack him for his arguing that climate change is the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses. But I think most sceptics will embrace him, rather than deploy their usual arguments how the climate can't possible be influenced by human pollution.

Louis VI the Fat

12-23-2009, 17:54

Returning to the leaked emails, so eagerly touted as proof of a vast conspiracy, as 'the biggest scientific scandal of all time', a closer reading should be most sobering for any such bold claims:

Science not faked, but not pretty

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mailsI suppose I should also link to some source that shows some Democrat somewhere doing something evil, lest I be acussed of spinning, but I won't. ~;)

drone

12-23-2009, 18:10

But the leaks still highlight the bias and unwillingness to use proper scientific methods in their research. Basically, they are doing a poor job, and therefore should not be trusted.

And regarding the CFC/cosmic ray thing, we all know the global temperatures have declined recently mainly due to Somalia's main industry. ~;)

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-23-2009, 18:15

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.

The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.

Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"

So in essence, they didn't lie or falsify anything, they were just very generous in their interpretations. That fills me with confidence, and I now firmly believe that we should spend billions of dollars because someone with a degree told me to, even though they clearly have an agenda and, as Yes, Prime Minister put it:

Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets [honesty] you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

Excuse me for retaining the beliefs that the conduct was improper and not following good scientific method, and that proper methods should be established and proper tests conducted before we arrive at a concrete position.

Furunculus

12-23-2009, 18:39

If I were a sceptic, I suppose I should attack him for his arguing that climate change is the result of man-made emissions of greenhouse gasses. But I think most sceptics will embrace him, rather than deploy their usual arguments how the climate can't possible be influenced by human pollution.

most of the scientists and statisticians who are seen to 'lead' the skeptic camp quite blatently state that they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

where they dissent from the consensus is the following:
how much warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2
how much faith should be invested in current catastrophic models
how efficacious the proposed Kyoto/Copenhagen solutions will be

Idaho

12-24-2009, 19:24

most of the scientists and statisticians who are seen to 'lead' the skeptic camp quite blatently state that they believe in anthropogenic climate change.

where they dissent from the consensus is the following:
how much warming is attributable to anthropogenic CO2
how much faith should be invested in current catastrophic models
how efficacious the proposed Kyoto/Copenhagen solutions will be

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-24-2009, 21:29

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

No, these aren't stages, these are skeptics who believe in different things. What I believe as a skeptic may well be different from what Furunculus believes, that doesn't mean that one of us is more "behind" than the other.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 02:49

Removed hotlinked picture. BG

That is all.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-25-2009, 03:26

That is all.

I hate that excuse. "If the skeptics are right, then this is all OK anyway, isn't it? Because we'll get all the benefits anyway, so it doesn't really matter if we're right, right?"

Wrong. I demand, and the electorate should demand, complete openness, honesty, and a proper scientific process. I don't want to reduce smog because somebody says it will stop global warming, I want to reduce smog because I want to reduce smog. The environmental issues can and should be dealt with, but they should be dealt with properly as important issues in and of themselves, rather than as a sub-issue or byproduct of global warming legislation.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 03:40

ummm, wat? Have you lost your mind? "I want to make the world better only under this pretense! I don't like this other pretense and I don't want to make the world better if we are going under this pretense, only the pretense I like!"

Guess what, I am not going to clean the dust from my computer if I have to do it to stop my computer from "overheating", I am only going to clean it if I am cleaning to unclog my fan!

EDIT: To sum up. Your reasoning is an excuse not to do anything. You and everyone should be making the world better for the sake of making the world better.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-25-2009, 05:58

ummm, wat? Have you lost your mind? "I want to make the world better only under this pretense! I don't like this other pretense and I don't want to make the world better if we are going under this pretense, only the pretense I like!"

No. I don't appreciate being lied to. I don't appreciate the rationalization. If you want to clean up the environment, call it cleaning up the environment. Don't hide it beneath something else or use it as a tool. I don't believe that the ends justify the means.

EDIT: To sum up. Your reasoning is an excuse not to do anything. You and everyone should be making the world better for the sake of making the world better.

Exactly. For the sake of making the world better. Not for global warming.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 06:29

Exactly. For the sake of making the world better. Not for global warming.

The point of global warming is to make the world better or the worlds climate will be less suitable for our survival. It's the same as doing it for the sake of making the world better but you have that second part to it where if we don't, Philadelphia will be closer to the ocean then ever before.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-25-2009, 06:40

The point of global warming is to make the world better

Glad to hear it. ~;)

It's the same as doing it for the sake of making the world better but you have that second part to it where if we don't, Philadelphia will be closer to the ocean then ever before.

It is not just the what that matters, but also the why. It isn't the same as doing it to make the world better, especially when it is used as an excuse to shovel more free money into third-world countries.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 06:54

First I wantyed to clear up what I said earlier. I meant:
The whole point of acting on global warming is to make the world better.
Just wanted to clear that up.

It is not just the what that matters, but also the why. It isn't the same as doing it to make the world better, especially when it is used as an excuse to shovel more free money into third-world countries.

See, this is where you need to turn off the Hannity.
A. Third world countries are reluctant to help with action on global warming because it will probably limit their economic growth in terms of industrialization (AKA less factory jobs for their people).
B. In terms of foreign aid, to talk about "shoveling" free money to third world countries is laughable considering the U.S's two biggest receivers of foreign aid are Israel and Egypt.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-25-2009, 07:23

See, this is where you need to turn off the Hannity.

I don't generally watch pundits.

A. Third world countries are reluctant to help with action on global warming because it will probably limit their economic growth in terms of industrialization (AKA less factory jobs for their people).

Yes, I know why they say they want it, I just don't agree that we should give them money, or at least not very much. Again, if we gave money to help environmental causes such as deforestation in those nations, I wouldn't object (as long as it was responsibly spent, whereas quite a bit of the money given at Copenhagen to African nations especially will probably end up in Switzerland anyway, if you know what I mean).

B. In terms of foreign aid, to talk about "shoveling" free money to third world countries is laughable considering the U.S's two biggest receivers of foreign aid are Israel and Egypt.

Yes, the US does give a lot of money to Israel and Egypt (and Egypt could probably be considered third world), but it also gives a lot of money to third-world countries. Yes, the international community (I wasn't discussing the US) shovels money to the third world. There isn't really another way to describe it. And yet, I recognize the political uses of foreign aid and don't really object to it as long as the amounts aren't excessive. I don't recall mentioning foreign aid per se, just payments under Copenhagen.

EDIT: And you're using pre-2000 figures for your foreign aid recipients. The top recipient now, or at least using more recent data, is Iraq, with the second being Israel, third Afghanistan, fourth Sudan, fifth Ethiopia.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 07:51

Yes, I know why they say they want it, I just don't agree that we should give them money, or at least not very much. Again, if we gave money to help environmental causes such as deforestation in those nations, I wouldn't object (as long as it was responsibly spent, whereas quite a bit of the money given at Copenhagen to African nations especially will probably end up in Switzerland anyway, if you know what I mean).
Please tell me where you are getting this idea that we are going to take billions of dollars and just give it over to third world countries.

Yes, the US does give a lot of money to Israel and Egypt (and Egypt could probably be considered third world), but it also gives a lot of money to third-world countries. Yes, the international community (I wasn't discussing the US) shovels money to the third world. There isn't really another way to describe it. And yet, I recognize the political uses of foreign aid and don't really object to it as long as the amounts aren't excessive. I don't recall mentioning foreign aid per se, just payments under Copenhagen.

EDIT: And you're using pre-2000 figures for your foreign aid recipients. The top recipient now, or at least using more recent data, is Iraq, with the second being Israel, third Afghanistan, fourth Sudan, fifth Ethiopia.I am looking at the 2004 figures right here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf
and it is saying yes Iraq is #1. But not counting the wars which is basically forced foreign aid (since the point is that building up Iraq and Afghanistan is more for National Security then charity), Israel is 2nd and Egypt is 3rd. Basically shifting one down due to Iraq. Afghanistan it says is 4th (probably now 2nd shifting Israel and Egypt down another spot), then it is Columbia 5th and Jordan 6th. Ethiopia is down at 10th and Sudan is at 14th.

And when you look at the list in the pdf given, the amount of money actually going to third world countries (i.e. not the middle east which is practically national security spending) then you have:

Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia) 0.57

Liberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia) 0.21

Peru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peru) 0.17

Ethiopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopia) 0.16

Bolivia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia) 0.15

Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda) 0.14

Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan) 0.14

Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia) 0.13

Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya) 0.13

for a total of 1.8 billion. Wow, so much money being shoveled at about 509 million people. That's about 3 and half dollars per person. Break out them shovels.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

12-25-2009, 08:52

Please tell me where you are getting this idea that we are going to take billions of dollars and just give it over to third world countries.

Fifty years of history? Sure, we get some things in return, such as support for wars and access to natural resources, but that's something else. The gist of it is that we would be giving up billions of dollars to give money to African nations to "make up" for something. Which is silly.

I am looking at the 2004 figures right here:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

2005: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/189662626_257b15004f_o.jpg

and it is saying yes Iraq is #1. But not counting the wars which is basically forced foreign aid (since the point is that building up Iraq and Afghanistan is more for National Security then charity), Israel is 2nd and Egypt is 3rd. Basically shifting one down due to Iraq.

By that logic giving to Israel is also forced foreign aid.

Afghanistan it says is 4th (probably now 2nd shifting Israel and Egypt down another spot), then it is Columbia 5th and Jordan 6th. Ethiopia is down at 10th and Sudan is at 14th.

1. Iraq
2. Israel
3. Afghanistan
4. Sudan
5. Ethiopia
6. Colombia
7. Egypt
8. Jordan
9. Pakistan
10. Serbia

for a total of 1.8 billion. Wow, so much money being shoveled at about 509 million people. That's about 3 and half dollars per person. Break out them shovels.

:rolleyes:

Did I at any point say I was opposed to a reasonable amount of foreign aid? I said I was opposed to the Copenhagen deals to allocate money to third world nations, not that I was opposed to foreign aid.

a completely inoffensive name

12-25-2009, 09:49

2005: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/51/189662626_257b15004f_o.jpg
Hmmm, what website did you get that from if you don't mind me asking?

By that logic giving to Israel is also forced foreign aid.
Sure, I think I said that later down.

Did I at any point say I was opposed to a reasonable amount of foreign aid? I said I was opposed to the Copenhagen deals to allocate money to third world nations, not that I was opposed to foreign aid.

The purpose of foreign aid is to help third world nations through allocation of resources that they need for various reasons. The only ones who need resources and money from others are third world nations. I am for charities lending help to others but I don't like when decisions are made that give money to the poor or starving.

Furunculus

01-03-2010, 14:04

We have seen the skeptics go through many stages over the last 2 decades.

First they said there was no such thing as climate change. Then they said that there might be minor natural changes. Then they said there might be large natural changes. Then it was large natural changes with some human element. And now we have statements like the above.

equally we have witnessed the IPCC fan-boi's change the branding from Global Warming to Climate Change.

perhaps this results from an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the science on both sides?

a completely inoffensive name

01-03-2010, 21:53

Beskar

01-06-2010, 13:57

You know, the biggest threat to Europe (Great Britain especially) is the Ice-caps melting as the distruption of the Gulf Stream. If you didn't know, United Kingdom is on a similar level to parts of Alaska. However, the big difference is, the Gulf Stream bring heat to the United Kingdom, which significantly increases the temperature (hence we are far warmer than those parts).

With the ice-caps melting, it could critically distrupt the Gulf Stream, vastly changing the climate of the United Kingdom.

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 14:06

what you say is all true, but what matters is the cause............

Major Robert Dump

01-06-2010, 15:23

I just read SuperFreakonomics and it has a chapter about Global Warming and deals with it in a very neutral way. I can see why it got flak from environmentalists when it even goes so far as to somewhat talk a little smack to those who are putting emotion above calm logic when it comes to the issue and it even cuts down Al Gore a little bit.

Freakonomics was a good book. Although I don't have an opinion on global warming, the author pointing out that a bunch small, green farming operations cause more pollution and resource waste than a few big farms was spot on. He also went on to show that there is no evidence that smaller operations would break eco-law any less than big operations, because small ops are in it for profit as well and even suffer greater harm and cost from restrictions and having to adhere to regulations.

And the tongue lashing he got from the greenies shows just how immature people can be on when they are faced with overwhelming facts that their model is not perfect.

And I think the change from "global warming" to "climate change" was made because of all the psuedo-intellects who liked to sarcastically point out global warming wasn't happening because of how cold it is on a particular day. While it's a funny take on language vs labels, it's really not an argument because one-half of the earth is always facing away from the sun and it doesn't really prove that global warming does not exist

Beskar

01-06-2010, 17:08

Also the fact Winter keeps getting colder.. then there is also the comment "Global Warming is not all bad, it would be blessing to have weather here like it is in Spain".

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 17:36

are you reading this out by rote from the realclimate rebuttals page?

Subotan

01-06-2010, 18:18

Are you reading your points out by rote from climate realists FAQ's?

The problem appears to be:
1. Disrupted weather patterns cause winters to be colder and more extreme than average. This leads to claims that global warming doesn't exist.
2. In recognition of this, the term "climate change" is adopted. This then leads to claims that we're flip floppers who can't make up our mind.
ad infinitum

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 19:55

are you accusing me of being a climate realist, i might have to accept that title?

Subotan

01-06-2010, 20:12

http://climaterealists.com/faqs.php?id=197

lol, some title

Furunculus

01-06-2010, 20:28

never heard of the webpage before now, but i'm fine with the title in and of itself.

Fragony

01-11-2010, 13:10

lol

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914-1,00.html

Note the date of the article, read it for a good laugh, and most of all

BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 13:24

one i quite like for the parallel that will cause knashing teeth here:
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2010/01/cold_wars.html

Subotan

01-11-2010, 14:34

Why is that climate change sceptics, who profess to have such a deep understanding of the climate, cannot tell the difference between the weather and the climate? If we're going to resort to anecdotal evidence, then the fact that it has been so long since we last had a winter like this is at least a suggestion that climate change is happening.

@Fragony
Time Magazine publishes a lot of junk (See their adoration of Chiang Kai-Shek in WWII for the best example). A few scientists proposing some hypotheses in a non-peer reviewed, non-science specific magazine is under no circumstances equivalent with the overwhelming majority of scientists agreeing that man-made climate change is a reality.

Fragony

01-11-2010, 14:43

Scored me 30 pages of hate in a different forum, including wishing me cancer, going to let this one pass :laugh4:

vuk you are gonna love it

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 14:48

Vladimir

01-11-2010, 14:49

Which would you rather have: A cold world with no ozone layer or a hot one with ozone? I think the choice is clear.

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 15:01

Which would you rather have: A cold world with no ozone layer or a hot one with ozone? I think the choice is clear.

i didn't realise it was all that simple, thanks.

Subotan

01-11-2010, 15:08

ah, you only got as far as the first sentence, how sweets. :clown:

No, I did read the rest of it. It just wasn't worth commenting on because it was such rubbish.

Not only have none of Miliband's "experts" (sneer quotes entirely deliberate) been able to predict the recent succession of colder winters; it goes way beyond that. The point is: these experts assured the world, or allowed their more ignorant followers to assure the world, that these cold winters would not happen, and despite all their protestations now about how weather is not climate, well, shouldn't they have born this in mind when saying, only a few short years ago, and have been repeating ever since, that winter snow in places like Britain would be a thing of the past
This is complete BS. Ignoring the fact that the only answer that Ed Milliband could give that would make this guy happy would be "We have all been lying for the past 30 years", What the Met Office actually said was:

"Early indications are that it's looking like temperatures will be near or above average,"[Said a Met Office spokesman]: "But there's still a one in seven chance of a cold winter – with temperatures below average."
That's hardly saying "these experts assured the world...that these cold winters would not happen". He has written terrible science and terrible journalism.

He then goes into a typical rant comparing "warmists" with Marxists, ravings about the mainstream media and why isn't he a real journalist yet etc.

Furunculus

01-11-2010, 15:28

He then goes into a typical rant comparing "warmists" with Marxists, ravings about the mainstream media and why isn't he a real journalist yet etc.

i thought you'd like it.

Ironside

01-11-2010, 16:51

Very negative NAO (http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao_index.html) (north atlantic oscillation) index this winter, so artic winds is what to expect. :book:

Viking

01-11-2010, 17:11

Another Ice Age?

Yes, most likely.

Fragony

01-11-2010, 17:12

that's just cold you know

aimlesswanderer

01-12-2010, 23:54

Well, Melbourne has had a number of ridiculously hot days. The minimum temperature was 30c! My relos nearly melted and had to stay indoors the whole day(s). This is happening more frequently, and it's no surprise that the Bureau of Meteorology has issued this. Climate over the decades (http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml)

Ridiculously hot in Melbourne (http://www.theage.com.au/national/blackouts-hit-state-as-100year-mark-is-reached-20100112-m4qd.html)

It was so hot some trains had to be cancelled because the train lines were warping (http://www.theage.com.au/national/train-fix-still-to-come-kosky-20100112-m4qb.html)

Subotan

01-28-2010, 00:54

Climate Change Denier denounces "bullying" of a Conservative candidate; then proceeds to go bully the "bully" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial)

Furunculus

01-28-2010, 09:53

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/mosher-the-hackers/

Mosher on the hackers.

Fragony

01-28-2010, 10:09

Our minister of trees and carrots explains it in her best English

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5Dfu6BvS0

0:20 :beam:

Furunculus

01-29-2010, 01:11

the great moonbat suspects that the evil delingpole is a double agent for greenpeace:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial

Subotan

01-29-2010, 09:58

I just posted that :no:

And I doubt he's being serious.

Furunculus

01-29-2010, 12:51

apologies.
--------------------------------------------
looks like the positive feedback from CO2 induced warming is much less than expected:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/
--------------------------------------------
Phile Jones of CRU could be up for 10 year sabbatical in Her Majesty's Prisons:
http://www.climategate.com/climategate-professor-phil-jones-could-face-ten-years-on-fraud-charges/

Fragony

01-30-2010, 10:10

LOL if this is true the church of global warming has found an ally that would trip over his beard playing hockey, his goatness Osama Bin Laden has an opinion as well hehe. Who said radical muslims had no respect for other religions, my bad lololol

Shaka_Khan

01-30-2010, 11:27

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bin_laden_tape

Bin Laden blasts US for climate change

By LEE KEATH and SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writers Lee Keath And Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press Writers –

CAIRO – Osama bin Laden sought to draw a wider public into his fight against the United States in a new message Friday, dropping his usual talk of religion and holy war and focusing instead on an unexpected topic: global warming.

The al-Qaida leader blamed the United States and other industrialized nations for climate change and said the only way to prevent disaster was to break the American economy, calling on the world to boycott U.S. goods and stop using the dollar.

"The effects of global warming have touched every continent. Drought and deserts are spreading, while from the other floods and hurricanes unseen before the previous decades have now become frequent," bin Laden said in the audiotape, aired on the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera.

The terror leader noted Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases and painted the United States as in the thrall of major corporations that he said "are the true criminals against the global climate" and are to blame for the global economic crisis, driving "tens of millions into poverty and unemployment."

-(more in the link)-
Hmm.......

Fragony

01-30-2010, 11:40

Let me guess you agree

Aemilius Paulus

01-30-2010, 15:13

Damn him to hell, but I swear Bin Laden is a climate change denier. He is not stupid, and he knows his endorsement of climate change will, in the West, only promote climate change denying.

But yes, Frags, I do agree with him, save for his call to boycott US. That is only going to start another recession, or actually, a depression.

I think this should only shame the US Republicans, as it shows that even scum the likes of Bin Laden, the religious extremists of Islam, are more open-minded then the US religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right. Of course, plenty will disagree with me... Not to mention, I lost my faith in humanity a long time ago. If climate change is real, humans will be :daisy:. But if it is not real, either nothing will happened (due to the fact we are nto doing anything to stop it) or the world will be better (because we stopped polluting our planet as much). But of course, how can common sense interfere with the Republican plans?

Furunculus

01-30-2010, 16:19

But if it is not real, either nothing will happened (due to the fact we are nto doing anything to stop it) or the world will be better (because we stopped polluting our planet as much). But of course, how can common sense interfere with the Republican plans?

or, on the other hand, if it ain't as 'real' as is claimed and we spend trillions ineffectually trying to stop something that is not understood, then in a hundred years time an extra 500m will have died from malaria, an extra billion dead from poor sanitation and drinking water, whilst a total of two billion will have lived and died in poverty who might otherwise have had much happier lives.

just saying........

InsaneApache

01-30-2010, 16:39

I thought the science was settled. But hey, why bother with science when you can trouser millions from the taxpayer in order to raise more tax and then trouser some more. One big giant ponzi scheme.

Now where did I mislay that melting glacier? :inquisitive: :book:

Aemilius Paulus

01-30-2010, 17:36

or, on the other hand, if it ain't as 'real' as is claimed and we spend trillions ineffectually trying to stop something that is not understood
Stop something? I am not speaking of bioengineering projects here. Those are far too tricky and unpredictable to be carried out. Those are not even well-received in the mainstream scientific community, so no significant number of politicians will approve it either. So far, the great majority of projects designed to stop global warming (which, in some regions leads to cooling, hence the more appropriate label 'climate change') are very much beneficial to us. What part of lowering emissions does not make sense? Well, it will slow the economy, but I would rather have a good planet than a good (temporary) economy.

then in a hundred years time an extra 500m will have died from malaria, an extra billion dead from poor sanitation and drinking water, whilst a total of two billion will have lived and died in poverty who might otherwise have had much happier lives.

Huh? May you enlighten me as to how you came to that conclusion?

InsaneApache

01-30-2010, 18:26

If you decimate the economies of the west in order to fund third world countries in their fight against climate change, what do you think will be the outcome?

Aemilius Paulus

01-30-2010, 18:40

If you decimate the economies of the west in order to fund third world countries in their fight against climate change, what do you think will be the outcome?
You do not have to exaggerate to make your arguments valid. Who said decimate? We are not talking about moving our economies from 'polluting' to 'green' in a similar amount of time Stalin moved Russia from 'rural, agricultural, backward' to 'modern, industrialised, metropolitan'. Slow but sure change can do the trick. You do not honestly think that with the current levels of pollution and habitat destruction any of this is sustainable? I mean, I despise Greenpeace, PETA, etc with passion, I believe organic foods are hogwash that will kill millions of poverty-stricken Third-World citizens, but I am also a person who reads quite a lot, and I am not blind to the levels we have spread rubbish throughout this world .

And really, if it was the choice really, truly was between the planet and the economy I would choose the first (I hope you would too), but it does not have to be that way - especially since we are not quite sure about climate change, even if most of the evidence does point that way. And anyway, climate change is but a small part - much of the policies with which we hope to fight climate change aid the environment, and we do not need climate change to trash this planet. If the modern-day Republicans would have their way we would still be living by the standards of the age of Industrial Revolution, or the 'Gilded Age' as they called it in US. Do not deny this, for the policies of modern-day Republicans, if placed in that time, would keep the status quo.

Furunculus

01-30-2010, 19:08

Stop something? I am not speaking of bioengineering projects here. Those are far too tricky and unpredictable to be carried out. Those are not even well-received in the mainstream scientific community, so no significant number of politicians will approve it either. So far, the great majority of projects designed to stop global warming (which, in some regions leads to cooling, hence the more appropriate label 'climate change') are very much beneficial to us. What part of lowering emissions does not make sense? Well, it will slow the economy, but I would rather have a good planet than a good (temporary) economy.

Huh? May you enlighten me as to how you came to that conclusion?

nor am i, i am talking about solutions outlined in kyoto etc.*

as IA said above, these measures will cost trillions, they will cost 12.9% of global GDP by 2100 ( the equivalent of €27 trillion a year), and this at a time when tens of millions die unnecessarily each year from disease and poor infrastructure, and two thirds of the worlds >current< population lives in abject poverty............... which we wouldn't be able to spend because we had gone all Canute on the climates rear.*

* http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,665703,00.html
Professor Richard Tol -- who has been a contributing, lead, principal and convening author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working groups -- showed that achieving the target would require a high, global CO2 tax starting at around €45 per ton.

CO2 Emissions Cuts Will Cost More than Climate Change Itself

Based on conventional estimates, this ambitious program would avert much of the damage of global warming, expected to be worth somewhere around €2 trillion a year by 2100. However, Tol concludes that a tax at this level could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9% in 2100 -- the equivalent of €27 trillion a year.

Tol's figures are based on projections from all of the major economic models of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum. Around half of the models actually found it impossible to achieve the target of keeping temperature rises lower than 2 degrees Celsius with carbon cuts; the €27 trillion price-tag comes from those models that could do so.

Aemilius Paulus

01-30-2010, 21:12

So, do you propose we give up? Just not do anything about it? Alright, like I said, I am not a naive fool - I have given up on people quite some time ago...

But yes, it is going to hurt. Such large changes always will. So will the healthcare bill. However, we need both. We are so entrenched in our backward practices that no one wants to change any longer. Oh well, it will come back later, and it already is :shrug: Like I said, I am not just speaking specifically about climate change, but all environmental degradation. Stopping one will, generally speaking, stop the other, as both have the same or very similar culprits.

InsaneApache

01-31-2010, 00:25

Subotan

01-31-2010, 01:23

Climate Secretary "declares war" on climate change sceptics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/31/ed-miliband-climate-change-scepticism)
The climate secretary, Ed Miliband (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/edmiliband), last night warned of the danger of a public backlash against the science of global warming in the face of continuing claims that scientists have manipulated data.
In an exclusive interview with the Observer, Miliband spoke out for the first time about last month's revelations that climate scientists had withheld and covered up information (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi) and the apology made by the influential UN climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change) (IPCC), which admitted it had exaggerated claims about the melting of Himalayan glaciers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake).
The perceived failure of global talks on combating climate change in Copenhagen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-closes-weak-deal) last month has also been blamed for undermining public support. But in the government's first high-level recognition of the growing pressure on public opinion, Miliband declared a "battle" against the "siren voices" who denied global warming was real or caused by humans, or that there was a need to cut carbon emissions to tackle it.
"It's right that there's rigour applied to all the reports about climate change, but I think it would be wrong that when a mistake is made it's somehow used to undermine the overwhelming picture that's there," he said.
"We know there's a physical effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leading to higher temperatures, that's a question of physics; we know CO2 concentrations are at their highest for 6,000 years; we know there are observed increases in temperatures; and we know there are observed effects that point to the existence of human-made climate change. That's what the vast majority of scientists tell us."
Mistakes and attempts to hide contradictory data had to be seen in the light of the thousands of pages of evidence in the IPCC's four-volume report in 2007, said Miliband. The most recent accusation about the panel's work is that its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, may have known before the Copenhagen summit that its assessment report had seriously exaggerated the rate of melting of the Himalayan glaciers.
However, Miliband was adamant that the IPCC was on the right track. "It's worth saying that no doubt when the next report comes out it will suggest there have been areas where things have been happening more dramatically than the 2007 report implied," he said.
The danger of climate scepticism was that it would undermine public support for unpopular decisions needed to curb carbon emissions, including the likelihood of higher energy bills for households (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/plan-to-cap-energy-bills), and issues such as the visual impact of wind turbines (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/24/wind-farms-opposition-ed-miliband), said Miliband, who is also energy secretary.
If the UK did not invest in renewable, clean energy, it would lose jobs and investment to other countries, have less energy security because of the dependence on oil and gas imports and contribute to damaging temperature rises for future generations. "There are a whole variety of people who are sceptical, but who they are is less important than what they are saying, and what they are saying is profoundly dangerous," he said. "Every#thing we know about life is that we should obey the precautionary principle; to take what the sceptics say seriously would be a profound risk."
The Copenhagen conference in December ended with no formal agreement to make deep cuts in global emissions, or even set a timetable, but Miliband warned activists against "despair".
The UN conference was a "disappointment", he said, but there were important achievements, including the agreement by countries responsible for 80% of emissions to set domestic carbon targets by today. "There's a message for people who take these things seriously: don't mourn, organise," said Miliband, who has previously called for a Make Poverty History-style mass public campaign to pressure politicians into cutting emissions.
Lord Smith, the Environment Agency chairman, said: "The [Himalayan] glaciers may not melt by 2035, but they are melting and there's a serious problem that's going to affect substantial parts of Asia over the course of the next 100 or more years."

Woo! :birthday2:
Makes a change from the usual "One out of a thousand predictions made by the IPCC is wrong CLIMATE CHANGE IS A LIE" that we're all so very used to hearing.

InsaneApache

01-31-2010, 02:08

You'd be better off with a banana.

Aemilius Paulus

01-31-2010, 02:51

The Earths climate does change. The hubris is that man is the cause of this. The recent debunking of the IPCCs' 'voodoo science' claims that the glacies are melting faster than an ice lolly in Tunisia, goes to show how far these 'scientists' are prepared to go to purloin some more wonga from the taxpayer, (that's you me and me folks!), as my grandad used to say, Piffle!.

Oh yeah, that's something new - a certain group of people have their own interests to look after for. You do know those scientists are still people, and you were probably born before yesterday too :tongue:. Hell, if it were not for deniers, they would notbe so overeager to present new proof. But enough of this, as I said, climate change or not, we need to stop the trashing of this planet (God, I hate saying that...). You do not need an excuse for idleness.

Fragony

01-31-2010, 09:17

lolololol http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Subotan

01-31-2010, 13:24

You'd be better off with a banana.
Way to avoid the actual topic. Besides, that was the Foreign Secretary, someone totally different.

lolololol http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
So, two sources trustworthiness are in dispute. It's a terrible shame for the climate change denier camp that the IPCC uses more than just two sources to come to it's conclusions. I guess it shows just how desperate that deniers are when they have to resort to such weak, pathetic and infantile attempts to refute science.

Fragony

01-31-2010, 13:52

I am not desperate I am patient, more is yet to come.

Furunculus

01-31-2010, 21:25

So, two sources trustworthiness are in dispute. It's a terrible shame for the climate change denier camp that the IPCC uses more than just two sources to come to it's conclusions. I guess it shows just how desperate that deniers are when they have to resort to such weak, pathetic and infantile attempts to refute science.

the correct appellation is "skeptic" thank you very much, and; lol.

PBI

02-01-2010, 01:57

The Earths climate does change. The hubris is that man is the cause of this.

I seem to see this claim repeated a lot; that it is somehow arrogant to claim that humans can be affecting the climate.

Do you have some sort of order-of-magnitude calculation to back this up, or at least some coherent line of reasoning? You see, I have come to suspect it is nothing more than a gut feeling based on the observation that the earth is "big" while humans are "small".

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, I'm afraid I have yet to hear any convincing argument that it is somehow obvious.

Furunculus

02-01-2010, 09:11

wow, common sense prevails at the BBC, who'd a thunk it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/

The problem with hidden agendas

Justin Rowlatt | 19:18 UK time, Wednesday, 27 January 2010

I'm used to my reports and blogs causing a stir but the Analysis programme I made this week for Radio 4 seems to have been even more incendiary than most.

It asks an admittedly deliberately provocative question - whether the green movement is bad for the environment.

But the actual programme is, I thought, more balanced and nuanced. It discusses whether some of the ideological baggage of the green movement can be a problem when campaigning on the climate issue.

Yet it led one contributor to the programme to describe me as dangerous. I've been called all sorts of things in my life, but that's a new one on me.

I've also had a clutch of critical e-mails. One described the programme as "an attempt to catch a currently fashionable vogue for smearing environmentalists".

Then there is the usual slew of angry posts on my blog.

This time even the producer has come in for flack. There have been pointed attacks on her article on the use of religious imagery by environmentalists. (But it has been posted up by Al Gore.)

So why is the programme causing such controversy?

A number of people thought it was plain biased.

"It's good old fashioned journo trick", reads a comment on one blog.

"Set up the straw man, conflate lots of ideas and different people's work behind it and deliver your own value laden conclusions as if you were taking the only rational position possible."

Is that fair? Judge for yourself, listen to it now.

Alternatively, you can read a full transcript here.

The more patient among you can wait until Sunday 31st, then you will be able to do it the old fashioned way and listen to the programme on the wireless. Radio 4 at 9.30pm. (You may it find a useful sleep aid).

But I will cut to the chase. I argue in the programme that green campaigners should be very wary of using the urgency of the climate issue as cover to push forward other, agendas - poverty or equality, for example.

Here's the conclusion: "I don't have a problem with people campaigning for those other agendas for their vision of a better society. For me the problem comes if the
fear of the consequences of climate change is used as cover to smuggle in other objectives for social and political change. That's because many people already
have a sense that there's something suspicious about the campaign to tackle global warming; they instinctively distrust the science and if they feel that the solutions people are proposing are less to do with carbon than pushing through a hidden agenda that will only serve to confirm their scepticism."

Now that's not that controversial is it?

Fragony

02-01-2010, 09:59

Cool stuff from serious scientists, looks promising. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/fusion-ldx-0125.html

Fragony

02-01-2010, 19:15

lolololol http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html

Subotan

02-01-2010, 20:06

I'd trust Greenpeace to be more truthful about climate change than people sponsored by the likes of ExxonMobil.

Fragony

02-01-2010, 20:09

well I don't

Subotan

02-01-2010, 20:19

Aemilius Paulus

02-01-2010, 20:26

well I don't
Why not? ExxonMobil has monetary interests on their side. I swear, if the Devil himself appeared to them and asked them to sell their souls for money, they would do it, without more than a minute of consideration. I mean, I do not wish to cartoonishly vilify them, as I think this greed is absolutely natural, and do not get me wrong, I am not at all anti-corporation, but I do understand how things work to a degree. ExxonMobil has all the interest do downplay peak oil, global warming, etc, etc and if they are not already downplaying it, then they are idiots - which they are not.

Greenpeace, well, they are crazy about the environment, they are semi-militant 'green' radicals, but they genuinely think they have a duty for the environment and they try to protect it to the best of their somewhat misguided minds. They have no ulterior interests. Not unless you are some conspiracy nut at least...

Furunculus

02-01-2010, 21:24

And your reasoning for that is? At least Greenpeace are not only unlikely to be motivated by a financial agenda, but seeing as they are "the" environmental NGO, they're going to have all the experts, access to the data etc.

lol. and greenpeace obviously have no agenda!

whereas the oil companies stand to make a fortune in green technologies.

Subotan

02-01-2010, 21:35

Furunculus

02-01-2010, 23:52

So what is Greenpeace's agenda then? Are they actually a false flag organisation?

And there is no way you can seriously believe that the second point makes oil companies credible when discussing climate science.

no, but they are full of ageing hair-shirt hippies who want us all to spend the rest of our lives living in caves and eating mung-beans. they engage zero lofic as witnessed by brent-spar.

yes i do, because the oil companies are among the biggest investors in renewable energy, and thus stand to make a killing from climate alarmism.

Subotan

02-01-2010, 23:57

no, but they are full of ageing hair-shirt hippies who want us all to spend the rest of our lives living in caves and eating mung-beans. they engage zero lofic as witnessed by brent-spar.
That may be true amongst some members of the organisation, but that is not official policy.

yes i do, because the oil companies are among the biggest investors in renewable energy, and thus stand to make a killing from climate alarmism.
Haha! Hahahahaha!

Aemilius Paulus

02-02-2010, 01:44

Diversification and insurance policies are not necessarily carried out/bought because you believe the bad event is going to happen. It is more of a just-in-case thing. Nor are the diversification and insurance policies there to make future profit - no, they normally exist for the purpose of minimising the losses, as opposed to being the primary vehicles of money-making.

The oil companies squeeze comparatively spectacular profits from the mining, refining, and sometimes distribution. 'Green' technology may also make profit, but it will never match the today's status quo. Oil companies see the supposed trend towards 'green' technology, and they jump on the bandwagon, partially in hopes of additional, but smaller profits; partially as a PR stunt; partially as insurance in case petroleum production does go bust/becomes outdated. However, they do not want, under any circumstance, to see the shift from oil to 'green' energy sources.

'Green' technology, however, is certainly not their territory (technological innovation is not the hallmark of oil industry, and even if it was, there are hundreds of tech companies doing the same), it is uncertain territory, with possible competition on all sides, and the profits significantly lower even in the best of circumstances. Right now, the oil companies' environment is rather secure, stabilised, with no apparent possibility of large-scale competition.

The Economist, for instance, pointed out that the costs of oil exploration are so high, and the returns so low and distant that even the national oil companies, such as that of Mexico or Venezuela, are abandoning the search for new deposits. Only the major private oil companies have the money, as well as some of the nationalised oil industries, such as the Russian one. Thus, the current petroleum market environment is so secure that even a discovery of new deposits will only benefit the oil companies. And for all we know, they may keep some deposits intentionally unannounced (but of course, keep the land to themselves so that others will not get to the oil before they open it up) to keep the supply tight and prices high. Then, they could 'discover' the 'new' oil fields just to keep the concept of peak oil far away enough from people's minds to be comfortable. While this is rather quite unlikely, it is a possibility. And the companies could do this without keeping the fields secret too, as they are doing this right now, day-by-day, keeping the quotas, but if the oil price soar too high, they may find themselves under government pressure.

drone

02-02-2010, 04:02

I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

a completely inoffensive name

02-02-2010, 06:08

I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
**** it, you beat me to it.

Fragony

02-02-2010, 08:15

So what is Greenpeace's agenda then? Are they actually a false flag organisation?

It's their interest to feed the hoax and keep people scared, and it are watermelons, they preach green but pray to scoialism

even more fraud, Chinese data joins the great deception

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

CountArach

02-02-2010, 09:08

It's their interest to feed the hoax and keep people scared
Yes, we get that but WHY!?

Fragony

02-02-2010, 09:58

Money of course. Billions of euro's go to all sort of NGO's, the same NGO who are behind this global hoaxing.

Billions of euro's to Africa to help poor country's combat CO2 and you aren't like eeehhhh wut, CO2 from what. Like all development aid 80% willend up in Switzerland and the rest on the stock market.

edit: forgot about carbon emmision rights trade, google it, and then google it with scam and fraud and organised crime

Furunculus

02-02-2010, 10:55

CountArach

02-02-2010, 13:04

That certainly explains why countries aren't living up to their developmental commitment, and didn't firm up much of their commitment to countries at Copenhagen.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on. You say there is a global conspiracy, yet provide no real evidence for it. Also can you explain why no evidence for a monetary conspiracy was found in the East Anglia emails?

Fragony

02-02-2010, 13:17

Because they only do what some still think to be 'science'.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on.

How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc

Furunculus

02-02-2010, 13:34

CountArach

02-02-2010, 13:41

How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc
You can add 'gate' to whatever you like. Scientists make some mistakes, yeah. The IPCC is not infallible, yeah. But that doesn't deny the fact that the overwhelming (note: I don't believe it is a complete concensus) majority of the climatological community believes in Man-made global warming.

now hold on there cowboy, i said nothing about a global conspiracy, and have actually disavowed that very conspiracy theory earlier in this thread.
That was aimed more at Fragony than you, who has consistently been pushing the faceless conspiracy theory stuff.

Fragony

02-02-2010, 13:44

now hold on there cowboy, i said nothing about a global conspiracy, and have actually disavowed that very conspiracy theory earlier in this thread.

Maybe he meant the SPIES ARE BEHIND CLIMATEGATE conspiracy as Blairs senior-advisor Sir David King put it, which isn't even that unlikely by the way but I thank them for it, have had enough with this nonsense.

CountArach

02-02-2010, 13:52

Maybe he meant the SPIES ARE BEHIND CLIMATEGATE conspiracy as Blairs senior-advisor Sir David King put it, which isn't even that unlikely by the way but I thank them for it, have had enough with this nonsense.
A response would be appreciated.

Furunculus

02-02-2010, 14:05

But that doesn't deny the fact that the overwhelming (note: I don't believe it is a complete concensus) majority of the climatological community believes in Man-made global warming.

That was aimed more at Fragony than you, who has consistently been pushing the faceless conspiracy theory stuff.
i believe in anthropogenic warming, what i question is the following:
> The IPCC's full understanding of of feedback and forcing mechanisms.
> The consequent assumption that CO2 increase will lead to catastrophic warming.
> The fact that there will be catastrophic warming which will require radical action.
> The efficacy of the radical action proposed (if CO2 ain't such a baddy)
> The sense of pursuing such expensive action when the human condition suffers so many other ills.
as stated in my profile: "No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout is not principally anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth on controlling CO2 may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides. I have grave doubts about the proposed political solution, and I do not accept that IPCC climate scientists are peerless and disinterested paragons worthy of unquestioning faith."

fair enough.

Subotan

02-02-2010, 14:48

Money of course. Billions of euro's go to all sort of NGO's, the same NGO who are behind this global hoaxing.
So let me get this straight.

You do not trust Greenpeace, an environmental not-for-profit NGO, with information about the environment. Meanwhile you do trust multinational companies such as ExxonMobil who happen to have every interest in misleading the public about the environment at best, and suppressing debate about climate change at worst with that same information?

Now I have met people who hold opinions I disagree with, including you. I have also met people who hold opinions which are misinformed, including you. But I have never met someone who holds an opinion so obviously illogical, and so stubbornly opposed to reality. There is no way you can actually believe that.

How about IPCC-gate, climate-gate, amazon-gate, himelaya-gate, northpole-gate, gletcher-gate, etc etc etc

https://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll286/Phalanxia/alan-blaustein-hampton-gate.jpg

Note the use of the word gate in substitution for an argument.

Fragony

02-02-2010, 14:50

A response would be appreciated.

Hey you are the moderator and I am your loyal slave, tell me, how can national wealth distribution exist without a national government, then how can it exist internationally without world government?

There is no way you can actually believe that.

Oh I do, wouldn't call it a conspiracy, more like mass hysteria making it easy for those who make a nice living from it. Fun thing is, terrorists actually exist and everybody sees a global conspiracy in the war against it.

CountArach

02-02-2010, 14:53

Hey you are the moderator and I am your loyal slave, tell me, how can national wealth distribution exist without a national government, then how can it exist internationally without world government?
Why aren't you simply responding to my request? I'll quote it here for you:

That certainly explains why countries aren't living up to their developmental commitment, and didn't firm up much of their commitment to countries at Copenhagen.

Your argument hasn't got a leg to stand on. You say there is a global conspiracy, yet provide no real evidence for it. Also can you explain why no evidence for a monetary conspiracy was found in the East Anglia emails?

Fragony

02-02-2010, 15:07

I did answer, I said what I think. And I don't believe in conspiracy's but I do believe in the dynamics of human stupidity. And believing that men can be responsible for climate change is pretty stupid in my book. And there will always be people who can use that to their advantage, all I can say is wait a few years and we will be having a laugh over this, in case you aren't dead of course.

Subotan

02-02-2010, 15:33

I already explained why X-gate isn't an answer.

Fragony

02-02-2010, 15:48

edit ohno

Aemilius Paulus

02-02-2010, 17:25

Come on guys, move on. Arguing with a conspiracy theorists is absolutely pointless... Fragony, calling a conspiracy theory using different names 'collective human stupidity', still makes it a conspiracy theory, if what you posted recently is your true viewpoint.

What I would not expect, however, is someone as intelligent as Fragony falling for such a cheap trick. Denialists come in all sorts, and I am fine with many, as I have a strong cynical and skeptical streak myself, but conjuring conspiracy theories of that scale seemed to me like a thing a Right-wing nut in the Southern US would do. I suppose humans are more alike than I thought :shrug:.

Why can you not simply say the science is bungled and let it rest? Does this really need a conspiracy?

While I may not argue with you on this, Frags, I would like it if you explained your theory in one post, in a lengthy and descriptive manner, instead of evading questions and throwing accusations around (not that I am accusing specifically you of doing such things). I am genuinely curious - I do not want a debate - I simply want to listen to you :yes:.

Fragony

02-02-2010, 20:12

Sure, global warming = scam = money for scammers

Subotan

02-02-2010, 20:14

Do you have any explanation for that reasoning?

Fragony

02-02-2010, 20:19

Yes I know bull when I see it, and this is bull.

CountArach

02-03-2010, 01:08

Yes I know bull when I see it, and this is bull.
So you are entirely relying on intuition? Well, that's excellent...

Fragony

02-03-2010, 09:46

So you are entirely relying on intuition? Well, that's excellent...

Well that and common sense, mass attracts mass so I would rather blame the clockwork consistency of temperature fluctuations on planetary alignment.

Subotan

02-03-2010, 09:59

Planetary Alignment (http://www.timecube.com/) you say?

Fragony

02-03-2010, 10:04

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

What else

Beskar

02-03-2010, 10:33

the correct appellation is "skeptic" thank you very much, and; lol.

For some reason, when I read that, I read it as "The correct application is 'septic' thank you very much" and I had to double-take to make sure I read it right.

Furunculus

02-03-2010, 11:02

thanks for that. :balloon2:

Subotan

02-03-2010, 12:56

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

What else

The way you apply science so selectively is astonishing.

Fragony

02-03-2010, 13:11

The way you apply science so selectively is astonishing.

You are of course correct. What we can clearly see in this graph is a cycle of industrial ages leading to CO2 output, and the dust is because earth dies each and every time.

But then again maybe it doesn't. Good thing warmists like hockeysticks as there are billions of them.

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

Subotan

02-03-2010, 14:00

Luckily, the IPCC has more backbone that Fragony gives it credit for. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers)

In a robust defence of his position and of the science of climate change, Pachauri said:

• The mistake had seriously damaged the IPCC's credibility and boosted the efforts of climate sceptics.
• It was an isolated mistake, down to human error and "totally out of character" for the panel.
• It does not undermine the "basic truth" that human activity is causing temperatures to rise.
• That he would not resign and was #subject to lies about his personal income and lifestyle.

:birthday2:

Fragony

02-03-2010, 14:47

Luckily, the IPCC has more backbone that Fragony gives it credit for. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/climate-change-pachauri-un-glaciers)

:birthday2:

This isn't just about the IPCC anymore mia muca

CountArach

02-03-2010, 14:54

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

What else
Note how:
1) We haven't come out of that high temperature.
2) Dust has come out of that high range.
3) CO2 has increased

You can't post graphs without explaining what you are trying to say in using them.

PanzerJaeger

02-03-2010, 15:00

I’m probably late to the party, but here’s my opinion re:the conspiracy discussion.

While there is no evidence (and no reason to believe) that Al Gore is sitting at the head of an evil organization using Global Warming as a front for world domination a la Dr. Evil, it is quite clear that there is a powerful group of aligned interests far too invested in the theory to allow it to be questioned. Many scientists have staked their careers on the theory panning out, while many left wing politicians have embraced it as sequitur to increased government power and regulation, especially over Leftist boogey-men such as large corporations and industry. The recent EPA ruling on co2 in the United States opens the door for unprecedented government power over virtually all aspects of American’s lives. Then you have the profiteers, such as Gore, who stoke fears of apocalyptic destruction to peddle books and “Green” technology. And of course, at this point everyone’s reputation is on the line.

What is worrying is that these varied groups are increasingly dependent on each other in a vicious cycle for support, especially now that there is a concerted movement challenging the validity of the theory. The scientist rely on government grants for their livelihoods and to continue their research, while the politicians need a steady stream of cataclysmic “projections” and “models” to stoke fears and maintain support for an expansion of government power that is only acceptable in the public’s eyes under the guise of “saving the planet”. Of course the profiteers need both of the aforementioned parties to stay in business.

None of this is to say that man-made global warming is definitively false, or even that the original fears were not completely justified given the computer models at the time. However, Global Warming… err… Climate Change is now an industry, complete with balance sheets and lobbyists. And what is clear is that despite mounting evidence the runs contrary to the theory, there is an entrenched group of powerful interests pushing wild and unjustified claims of global catastrophe on a populace with no real way to parse the science behind it; with far more at stake than an egalitarian concern for the future of the planet – as evidenced by the fact that even if the harshest legislation were passed across the globe, their own projections indicate it would have little to no actual impact on global temperatures. Even more troubling is the demonstrated willingness of this collusion to alter and even eliminate contrary data and target the careers of opposing scientists for destruction. Scary stuff, indeed.

InsaneApache

02-03-2010, 15:03

Wasn't Pachauris' job fixing trains or summat? Obviously well qualified to head up a global con trick organisation propagating inquiring into global warming.

Fragony

02-03-2010, 15:13

CountArach

02-03-2010, 15:16

Welcome back PanzerJaeger.

You can't post graphs without explaining what you are trying to say in using them.

I thought I made it pretty clear. No such thing as manmade global warming. It just doesn't exist.
Yes, I know that is what you think, but you have not refuted any evidence nor provided any alternative explanations.

Fragony

02-03-2010, 15:21

Yes, I know that is what you think, but you have not refuted any evidence nor provided any alternative explanations.

That's odd I thought I just did, planetary alignment, do you deny planetary alignments? Look at the moon and what it does to the currents every day, but sure a change in planetary alignments has no effects on oceanic currents whatsoever, no effect, it's Co22222222222 brrr

Subotan

02-03-2010, 15:25

The Time Cube is not a legitmate explanation.

Fragony

02-03-2010, 15:36

The Time Cube is not a legitmate explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems (did these idiots consider land masses moving??)

Many problems, but still that much more likely. Dunno what a time cube is by the way

Fragony

02-07-2010, 21:25

I am shocked, shocked I say http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156703

edit; encore http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/02/and-now-for-africagate.html

Subotan

02-07-2010, 22:10

The Daily Express? Why should I trust a rag owned by a pornographer over peer-reviewed scientific journals?

Fragony

02-07-2010, 22:12

yeahlol

a completely inoffensive name

02-08-2010, 06:42

yeahlol

I can't think of a rebuttal to this, so I'm declaring Fragony the winner of this thread.

Fragony

02-08-2010, 07:46

Isn't like the IPCC isn't discredited because of gross manipulation of data, peer review doesn't mean anything if the peer reviewers are cherry-picked and sceptics aren't invited to the party.

Furunculus

02-08-2010, 11:07

The Daily Express? Why should I trust a rag owned by a pornographer over peer-reviewed scientific journals?

that's right there cowboy, play the man not the ball!

Subotan

02-08-2010, 14:38

that's right there cowboy, play the man not the ball!

The Daily Express is not a legit source of information about climate change, or for that matter, anything.

Furunculus

02-08-2010, 14:43

let me put it more simply:
1) have the beeb been repeatedly accused of uncritical coverage of AGW as put forward by the IPCC?
2) does the beeb have a huge proportion of its pension fund tied in investments concentrating on AGW industries?

If yes to Q 1& 2 what is it about the article that is reprehensible?

---------------------------------------------------------------

on earths orbit and climate change:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/07/tracking-the-earths-orbit-looking-for-for-warming-signs/

Subotan

02-08-2010, 15:11

let me put it more simply:
1) have the beeb been repeatedly accused of uncritical coverage of AGW as put forward by the IPCC?
The same reason the BBC is accused of uncritical coverage of evolution.

2) does the beeb have a huge proportion of its pension fund tied in investments concentrating on AGW industries?

Huge? Rather, its the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/sites/scheme/pages/investments.shtml

Vodafone Group£81.4mGlaxosmithkline£80.0mAstrazeneca£74.3mHSBC£71.1mBP£56.8mRoyal Dutch Shell£53.6mPetroleo Brasileiro£47.9mImperial Tobacco£44.1mBG Group£44.0mTesco£37.6mBritish American Tobacco£37.5mBHP Billiton£30.6mAmazon£30.2mAtlas Copco£29.8mBAE Systems£28.3mBarclays£26.6mCentrica£26.0mGoogle£25.0mReckitt Benckiser£21.7mRio Tinto£20.7mTotal£20.1mBanco Santander£20.0mABB Ltd£19.9mSandvik£19.8mCapita£19.2mVestas Wind System£19.1mGazprom£18.9mMerck & Co£18.7mSun Hung Kai Properties£18.4mNational Grid£17.8mApple£17.7mMicrosoft£17.2mCanon£17.1mAltria£17.0mCompass£16.8mMonsanto£16.6mReynold s£16.3mL'oreal£16.3mBT£15.9mKoninklijke£15.7mNintendo£15.7mRWE£15.4mCredit Suisse£15.1mRoyal Dutch Shell£14.7mScottish & Southern Energy Plc£14.4mPfizer£14.2mDeere & Co£14.2mSAP£13.9mEbay£13.3mTeva Pharmaceutical£13.2mDrax£12.3mOracle£12.1mFirst Solar£12.0mCisco£12.0mWalgreen£12.0mLloyds Banking Group£11.9mTencent£11.9mLukoil£11.9mVCA Antech£11.6mRSA Insurance£11.5mMuenchener Rueckversicherungs£11.4mChina Overseas Land & Invest£11.4mStraumann£11.4mIron Mtn£11.4mAlstom£11.4mChina Mobile£11.3mNovozymes£11.3mDiageo£11.2mCobham£11.2mUBS£11.1mArcelormittal £11.0mWhole Foods£11.0mBayer£10.9mDBS£10.9mSiemens£10.9mIBM£10.8mSociete Generale£10.8mAnadarko£10.8mUnilever£10.8mING£10.3mLi & Fung£10.3mChevron Corporation£10.2mPPR£9.9mRolls Royce Group£9.8mHong Kong Exchanges & Clearing£9.7mTelefonica£9.6mBHP Billiton£9.5mHutchison£9.4mBank Of China£9.3mKroger£9.2mStatoilhydro£9.2mMorrison£9.2mItau Unibanco£9.0mMacquarie£9.0mSABmiller£8.9mJPMorgan Chase & Co£8.6mEricsson£8.5mWalt Disney£8.5mConocophillips Uk£8.3m

Damn, the formatting went all screwy :(

Furunculus

02-08-2010, 15:39

The same reason the BBC is accused of uncritical coverage of evolution.

Huge? Rather, its the opposite.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mypension/en/sites/scheme/pages/investments.shtml

Vodafone Group£81.4mGlaxosmithkline£80.0mAstrazeneca£74.3mHSBC£71.1mBP£56.8mRoyal Dutch Shell£53.6mPetroleo Brasileiro£47.9mImperial Tobacco£44.1mBG Group£44.0mTesco£37.6mBritish American Tobacco£37.5mBHP Billiton£30.6mAmazon£30.2mAtlas Copco£29.8mBAE Systems£28.3mBarclays£26.6mCentrica£26.0mGoogle£25.0mReckitt Benckiser£21.7mRio Tinto£20.7mTotal£20.1mBanco Santander£20.0mABB Ltd£19.9mSandvik£19.8mCapita£19.2mVestas Wind System£19.1mGazprom£18.9mMerck & Co£18.7mSun Hung Kai Properties£18.4mNational Grid£17.8mApple£17.7mMicrosoft£17.2mCanon£17.1mAltria£17.0mCompass£16.8mMonsanto£16.6mReynold s£16.3mL'oreal£16.3mBT£15.9mKoninklijke£15.7mNintendo£15.7mRWE£15.4mCredit Suisse£15.1mRoyal Dutch Shell£14.7mScottish & Southern Energy Plc£14.4mPfizer£14.2mDeere & Co£14.2mSAP£13.9mEbay£13.3mTeva Pharmaceutical£13.2mDrax£12.3mOracle£12.1mFirst Solar£12.0mCisco£12.0mWalgreen£12.0mLloyds Banking Group£11.9mTencent£11.9mLukoil£11.9mVCA Antech£11.6mRSA Insurance£11.5mMuenchener Rueckversicherungs£11.4mChina Overseas Land & Invest£11.4mStraumann£11.4mIron Mtn£11.4mAlstom£11.4mChina Mobile£11.3mNovozymes£11.3mDiageo£11.2mCobham£11.2mUBS£11.1mArcelormittal £11.0mWhole Foods£11.0mBayer£10.9mDBS£10.9mSiemens£10.9mIBM£10.8mSociete Generale£10.8mAnadarko£10.8mUnilever£10.8mING£10.3mLi & Fung£10.3mChevron Corporation£10.2mPPR£9.9mRolls Royce Group£9.8mHong Kong Exchanges & Clearing£9.7mTelefonica£9.6mBHP Billiton£9.5mHutchison£9.4mBank Of China£9.3mKroger£9.2mStatoilhydro£9.2mMorrison£9.2mItau Unibanco£9.0mMacquarie£9.0mSABmiller£8.9mJPMorgan Chase & Co£8.6mEricsson£8.5mWalt Disney£8.5mConocophillips Uk£8.3m

Damn, the formatting went all screwy :(
that's more like it Subotan; challenge the facts instead of suffocating the debate.

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 06:13

A scary look into the future via Audi, pre-global warming implosion. Thank god for climate-gate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml54UuAoLSo

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2010, 06:20

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2010, 06:30

Furunculus

02-09-2010, 09:39

I can't believe how people just love to shut themselves off from the facts. Hey global warming denyers, how about you just take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right now, so before you start commenting on how snow outside your window disproves global warming I suggest you take a good look at the world around you.

thanks for that, i'm a changed man now that i have absorbed your righteous wisdom!
*sense of humour failure* apologies, thanks Louis. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------

entertaining tear-down of Sir David Kings recent op-ed in the telegraph:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/sir-david-king-half-right-on-the-ipcc-and-global-warming-policies-despite-bad-logic/

Louis VI the Fat

02-09-2010, 14:05

take one look down south at Australia, I see temps down there and they are skyrocketing, it's like its summer down there right nowIt is summer down there right now. :cowboy:

Edit: wait, you made a joke.

Furunculus

02-10-2010, 14:58

Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University - Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/climategate-plausibility-and-the-blogosphere-in-the-post-normal-age/

Fragony

02-11-2010, 07:56

And after gate after gate we now also have waterpower-gate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

Of course this isn't going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2, but every person that becomes secular, or even who allows himself a shred of doubt, is a victory of reason on absolute faith.

edit, lol http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3040

edit, surprise surprise, members of the IPCC panel were handpicked by the government on religious believes, out of the 108 (wth??) members of the Dutch IPCC delegation guess how many sceptics there were. Let me give you a hint, more then zero, less then two.

Fragony

02-15-2010, 09:54

Ah, told you so, next

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Well, what is going to kill us now? I say we should be absolutely terrified of aliens.

Fragony

02-16-2010, 07:31

Oh gah, our minister of windmills, who doesn't speak english but knew the hacks were taken out of context the minute they were released, is still absolutely convinced the IPCC is correct even after the IPCC admitting they aren't. Repeat repeat repeat, keep repeating THERE IS CONSENSUS.

Now she wants to ban eating meat to SAFE EARTH, go in with the stretched leg CONSENSUS ES MUSS SEIN

MOAR WINDMILLS, the minarets of the green religion.

drone

02-16-2010, 16:57

MOAR WINDMILLS, the minarets of the green religion.

Even though I'm a global warming sceptic, I don't see anything wrong with more windmills. The more power you can generate without paying off the Russians or Arabs, the better. Energy dependence is a national security concern.

Furunculus

02-16-2010, 18:17

Even though I'm a global warming sceptic, I don't see anything wrong with more windmills. The more power you can generate without paying off the Russians or Arabs, the better. Energy dependence is a national security concern.

agreed, but its the shear vastness of the subsidy they recieve, completely out of proportion to the amount of energy they produce, justified because some idiot said they were cardon neutral.

InsaneApache

02-17-2010, 09:36

Fragony

02-17-2010, 09:41

DON'T YOU SAY IT, windmills don't run on wind they run on money. They also chop up birds, and gives beach-lovers a pet dolphin.

Thankfully http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/death_of_the_wind_farms/

Furunculus

02-17-2010, 09:46

I have an old friend who has worked on offshore windfarms. The money these buggers suck up is unbelievable. For instance, did you know that when there's no wind the farms draw power from the grid? Also the componant parts are very expensive. They only have a lifetime of twenty years and need regular maintenance. Oh and did I say that when the wind isn't blowing they take electricity from the national grad? :book:

hah, i have some polish friends who work on wind-farms, and they used to rake in ~£50,000 per annum for working about 6 months of the year.

admitedly its damned hard work, and non stop to boot, and i am delighted for them.

they are now 'supervising' teams of chinese peasants in inner mongolia who are oblivious to the dangers of erecting a 100m carbon fibre pole in the middle of a thunderstorm, so presumably they are paid even more these days.

good for them i say, but it is possible due to artificial demand created by staggering subsidy.

Fragony

02-17-2010, 10:52

Gate du jour <- lol to that

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/16/register-ipcc-hurricane-data-questioned/#more-16454

But yeah, yet another g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-gate. Of course it isn't going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2.

edit: lolololol climate-neutral ice sweeping machine ruins ice in Vancouvar FAIL

Louis VI the Fat

02-17-2010, 22:31

Gate after gate after gate after gate. :sleeping:

Gold-standard scientific reporting from the IPCC , and indeed the value of scientific inquiry itself, is now under sustained assault from a motley assortment of cranks, ideologues and special interest voices intent on stopping the transition to a clean energy economy.

It was just these sorts of tactics that, with the Swift boat campaign questioning his military service, helped to bring down Senator John Kerry's presidential candidacy in 2004 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/aug/24/uselections2004.usa). The problem was that Kerry thought being right would be enough. His response was to be photographed going wind-surfing. In contrast, when Obama ran in 2008 and he faced a similar smear campaign attack on the basis of inflammatory comments made by his former pastor, the Reverend Wright, he knew being right wouldn't be enough. What followed was Obama's race speech in Philadelphia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/barackobama.uselections20081) setting the record straight, and the rest is history.

There's still time for the IPCC to be Obama in 2008 rather than Kerry in 2004, but that's going to require a much stronger response than it's issued so far. At the moment there's a real danger that when the next major IPCC climate assessment report is released, the likes of the BBC will feel the need to spend 30% of their coverage remembering an inconsequential error about Himalayan glaciers in the last report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/14/climate-scientist-himalayan-glacier-report), because the battle here is over trust and perception. On both of these fronts there can be no doubt that the scientists are losing ground. We all need the IPCC to focus urgently on rebuilding trust, and for the scientific community at large to robustly defend science itself.

Influential sceptical commentators can afford to just throw mud and see what sticks, because they have what former PM Stanley Baldwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Baldwin) famously attacked back in 1931 as "power without responsibility." It's the same dynamic that allowed Sarah Palin to make up "death panel" myths (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin-healthcare-town-halls) to distort the US healthcare debate and get away with it— those in opposition just don't face the same scrutiny as those holding the incumbent establishment position. That's why inside newsrooms the balance of legitimacy has been allowed to tilt so considerably that the climate science controversy that was largely resolved is now live once again, despite the rock solid nature of the core facts.

Prolific climate deniers such as Ian Plimer, James Delingpole and Christopher Booker who deliberately spread untruths on climate change can be wrong 99% of the time and right for less than 1% of the time and still win the argument because the playing field simply isn't level. Equally, the IPCC can be right 99% of the time and wrong less than 1% of the time, and they still lose.
I say maybe disband the IPCC altoghether. A political institution that serves to brief politicians of the current best insights of science is bound to make mistakes, be political at times, be too brief, or make choices between unsresolved issues.

This will create the impression that the science itself is compromised, whereas it is not.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-17-2010, 22:37

hah got me

thanks for that, i'm a changed man now that i have absorbed your righteous wisdom!
*sense of humour failure* apologies, thanks Louis. :)

It is summer down there right now. :cowboy:

Edit: wait, you made a joke.

:laugh4:

Fragony

02-18-2010, 13:57

See? Climate sceptics are right

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/publiek477.jpg

:sweetheart:

Louis VI the Fat

02-18-2010, 14:14

See? Climate sceptics are right

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/publiek477.jpg

:sweetheart:Climate sceptics right? Hah! I'm panting so hard right now that global CO2 levels just went through the roof. Prepare for imminent spring.

But she'd make a great catch indeed, yes. Her dad next to her looks loaded as well. I already look forward to the Christmas dinner where she introduces me as her new lover, and I can wait for an opportune moment when she and her mum have retreated into the kitchen to discuss of what polite, agreeable character her new catch is, to whisper in this man's ear that I'm going to blow his family fortune with even more speedy rigour than her daughter is going to **** me in the bathroom between dessert and coffee, just to increase his blood pressure and hasten the moment of her becoming the sole beneficiary of the family fortune.

[Okay okay - I've just sank to a new low. :shame:
Don't blame me - life must be great literature, and as for me, I'd have it a 19th century scandal novel]

Fragony

02-18-2010, 14:23

I don't blame you she is even cuter in motion 2:30 http://www.geenstijl.tv/2010/02/rutger_castricum_kletst_bij_me.html

Nice.

Fragony

02-21-2010, 10:00

But yeah, yet another g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-gate.

WHAT??? Another one????? Enough gates already we are running out of gardens!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Now of course this isn't going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2.

edit: gawd she's cute loves what she does at 3:24

Aemilius Paulus

02-21-2010, 17:21

Climate sceptics right? Hah! I'm panting so hard right now that global CO2 levels just went through the roof. Prepare for imminent spring.

her daughter is going to **** me in the bathroom between dessert and coffee

Okay okay - I've just sank to a new low. :shame:
Yeah, you sort of did :inquisitive: First that Dutch morzh girl whose only asset was here ridiculously oversized rack and now this specimen whose prime display seems to be her ability to twist her mouth in peculiar grimaces... You sound like a man who has gone a long time without, Louis :stare::dizzy2: You should try online dating - with your quality of writing, any woman will fall for you even before she sees you in person.

Louis VI the Fat

02-21-2010, 18:36

YYou sound like a man who has gone a long time without, Louis :stare::dizzy2: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I get plenty!

There were these twins, in 2007. They were drunk, so they kissed. In the middle of the dancefloor and I got to watch!!
Then there was this girl in 2004. I instantly liked her. I met her on the street, as I was standing in line to buy a train ticket. She chatted me up, I'm that cool. Ten minutes after we met, she agreed to a kiss. Then she took the ten euros so she could finally buy a train ticket to visit her sick mother in hospital.

So yeah, I have plenty of action. :stare:

Subotan

02-22-2010, 01:30

See? Climate sceptics are right

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/publiek477.jpg

:sweetheart:
Phwoar! Such concentration of beauty! What physical perfection! Look at all those elderly men!

Aemilius Paulus

02-22-2010, 03:32

At least the climate sceptics have a worthwhile womyns at their forefront attracting the wide demographic of political louts who go for the side with the hottest chicks. The liberals in US, for instance, seem to lack that figure, period, and the conservatives tried the tactic, only to stumble into an epic fail:

Ermh, I could not find that image I wanted, that (genuine RL political) poster of Ann Coulter with the words 'conservatism is beautiful'

Wait, I got it, but the image is too small to see the words: https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y44/messiercat/poster2.jpgNevertheless, trust me, it did say what I stated previously.
This one is my fav, though:
https://img29.imageshack.us/img29/4692/conservativewoman.jpg
Splendid, but the cleavage should be conspicuous while the skirt is not pulled high enough - I am certain it could have been negotiated that the skirt-line should have been raised a few more centimetres. I mean, if you already lost all your shame and propriety by making such a blatantly objectionable ad, why not go for it, and make it even more memorable?

Fragony

02-22-2010, 08:24

Beskar

02-22-2010, 16:57

Fragony

02-22-2010, 17:19

I thought the IPCC was?

Subotan

02-22-2010, 19:06

Aemilius Paulus

02-22-2010, 20:53

The word is out http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/?feat=article_top10_read

no global warming, told you so.

our minister of carrots won't be stopped though, repeat repeat repeat keep repeating

THERE IS CONSENSUS!!!!

Because the Washington Times is the authority on Climate Change. especially from the most corrupted area, America.
Beskar could not be more correct. Frags, you seem to be confusing Washington Times with Washington Post. The latter is a very old, highly respected newspaper with a slight right lean. The former is a far-right upstart, whose articles at times approach yellow journalism and racism (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/radical-propaganda).

Fragony

02-22-2010, 21:21

Yes and it's about the former head of the IPCC admitting there is no global warming and manipulation of data, you know, the IPCC. UN.

Aemilius Paulus

02-23-2010, 00:01

Heh, this thread should be a sticky by now. Sorta like the climate change deniers HQ. I tell you, Frags, if the climate-change proponents were as persistent and dedicated as you are, we would be living in a world of global warming sceptics. Too bad you are on the other side.

Subotan

02-23-2010, 00:06

Frags, you seem to be confusing Washington Times with Washington Post. The latter is a very old, highly respected newspaper with a slight right lean. The former is a far-right upstart, whose articles at times approach yellow journalism and racism (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/winter/radical-propaganda).
Whoops! I admit that I fell for that :shame:

Fragony

02-23-2010, 04:33

pick one you like

Aemilius Paulus

02-23-2010, 06:48

I like you, Frags. Where does that put me?

Fragony

02-23-2010, 07:41

Don't fight it

Fragony

02-23-2010, 08:01

http://www.icis.com/blogs/asian-chemical-connections/035ostrich_468x538.jpg
A very sandy consensus.

oh the irony, if even the IPCC admits it, not going to convince people who are absolutely terrified of CO2, and the Green Church will keep calling for prayer, but the world is waking up from this indoctrination.

lol http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/

and then you read this http://www.soul-online.co.uk/news.html

isn't the green khmer efficient

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/ohohoh.jpg

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 21:36

the institute of physics submission to the Parliament Science & Technology Select Committee:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's inquiry, 'The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia'.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute's Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics

February 2010

The science is settled, they deserve our trust. Those words may come to haunt the less critical.

Aemilius Paulus

02-27-2010, 22:15

Hmmm, Putin does all but scream that he denies the global warming. Perhaps we should listen to him :yes:.

Furunculus

02-28-2010, 01:47

Hmmm, Putin does all but scream that he denies the global warming. Perhaps we should listen to him :yes:.

not sure what this is adding to the debate, but i'll go with it...............

Fragony

03-01-2010, 09:41

On the myth of rising sea-levels

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

Subotan

03-01-2010, 10:05

So we're citing La Rouche now? LOL

Fragony

03-01-2010, 10:25

So we're citing La Rouche now? LOL

We have more gates then gardens by now, so yeah I kinda am, with each revelation the scale of the deception becomes ever more epic. I know you will remain absolutely terrified of CO2 anyway, but inquisitive minds should know by now that they have been scammed, or at least have doubts.

Ah more gate http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=3314&utm_source=tcotmon&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Climatescam+%28ClimateScam%29&utm_content=Twitter

However, the latest research, just published in the Nature Geoscience journal, paints a very different picture.

It suggests the rise in cyclone frequency since 1995 was part of a natural cycle and that several similar previous increases have been recorded, each followed by a decline.

oh noes

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 00:36

not sure what this is adding to the debate, but i'll go with it...............
Glad we can agree on one thing. How does it feel to have Putin on yours side? :tongue::laugh:

On the myth of rising sea-levels

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

So we're citing La Rouche now? LOL
Sorry Frags, but there is no justification for citing La Rouche. If you have to resort to posting his views, then you have already lost the debate.

EDIT: But wait, the La Rouche supporters have something to say!!:
https://img28.imageshack.us/img28/701/larouchesupporters.jpg
Dammit, they got me there :shame:

EDIT2: An here is the special Internet edition:
https://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8273/winj.png

Fragony

03-02-2010, 01:24

Sorry Frags, but there is no justification for citing La Rouche. If you have to resort to posting his views, then you have already lost the debate.

What does it matter who hosts the interview.

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Swe- den. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Com- mission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. He was interviewed by Gregory Murphy on June 6 for EIR.

Dr. Mörner was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research’s (INQUA) Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003). Its research proved that the catastrophic predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), based on computer models of the effects of global warming, are “nonsense.”

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 01:30

What does it matter who hosts the interview.

What does it matter when a poster closes his eyes on reality? The interviewer matters no less than the interviewee. I mean, you post good arguments, Frags, but this one was not one of those :shrug: Best to leave this at this.

Furunculus

03-02-2010, 01:33

Glad we can agree on one thing. How does it feel to have Putin on yours side? :tongue::laugh:
i'm ok with it.

i don't like the man.

but what does that have to do with it?

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 01:54

i'm ok with it.

i don't like the man.

but what does that have to do with it?
Nah, just litmus-testing your outlooks. Don't worry about this.

Centurion1

03-02-2010, 03:37

I dont really believe all the hype about global Warming. slash that, i think its bull and gore used images fromt he day after tommorow in his famed movie. (nobel peace prize my *** that doesnt even make sense)

but for the record all this snow on the east coast that the right is spouting on about and the left has twisted to support global warming (imagine that!) is because of the flipping el nino. thats why its snowing in bloody texas and there was no snow in vancouver.

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 03:54

but for the record all this snow on the east coast that the right is spouting on about and the left has twisted to support global warming (imagine that!) is because of the flipping el nino. thats why its snowing in bloody texas and there was no snow in vancouver.
This irks me the most. People need to realise they are not professionals in every field of science. People look for evidence which re-affirms their beleifs. People ignore what does not. People see notable, but singular events and interpret them as a trend. People are not scientists. We cannot debate climate change in scientific terms. Fudging data is a time-honed occupation. Instead, the best we can do is examine the tactics of each side and decide who is more trustworthy. This goes for both sides, before you start gloating, Frags :tongue:.

Centurion1

03-02-2010, 03:57

This irks me the most. People need to realise they are not professionals in every field of science. People look for evidence which re-affirms their beleifs. People ignore what does not. People see notable, but singular events and interpret them as a trend. People are not scientists. We cannot debate climate change in scientific terms. Fudging data is a time-honed occupation. Instead, the best we can do is examine the tactics of each side and decide who is more trustworthy. This goes for both sides, before you start gloating, Frags

But that will never happen my dear cicero because the plebs are so easily swayed by stories of apocalypse.

we can get evidence in 20000 years i suppose.

Personally im of the camp that the earth goes through natural phases and humanity is far too self obsessed if we believe Mother Earth can't handle us.

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 04:05

humanity is far too self obsessed if we believe Mother Earth can't handle us.
There, my friend, you are making a big mistake. Fine, I can swallow that climate change is a myth. But we are doing very well in destroying this planet. Oh yes. Destroying has always been easy. If as it seems, the early humans had a significant role in the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and if they could do it, we could do the same with hundred times the ease.

Centurion1

03-02-2010, 04:09

There, my friend, you are making a big mistake. Fine, I can swallow that climate change is a myth. But we are doing very well in destroying this planet. Oh yes. Destroying has always been easy. If as it seems, the early humans had a significant role in the extinction of Pleistocene megafauna, and if they could do it, we could do the same with hundred times the ease.

let me guess guns germsn and steel by jared diamond.

yeah i know and we ARE wrecking like rainforests, and water supply, and driving certain species to extinction. But some things i just dont believe we have that much power over. global warming being an issue.

Aemilius Paulus

03-02-2010, 04:31

let me guess guns germsn and steel by jared diamond.

No, my HS AP history teacher recommended it.

yeah i know and we ARE wrecking like rainforests, and water supply, and driving certain species to extinction. But some things i just dont believe we have that much power over. global warming being an issue
Sorry, but the list goes on forever.

Fragony

03-02-2010, 07:23

What does it matter when a poster closes his eyes on reality? The interviewer matters no less than the interviewee. I mean, you post good arguments, Frags, but this one was not one of those :shrug: Best to leave this at this.

It just a site that hosts the interview, doesn't change what the good man says

Fragony

03-02-2010, 13:01

pssssssssst http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7046036.ece

Furunculus

03-02-2010, 14:05

British parliament gets its act together at long last:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/02/parliament_climategate/

Fragony

03-02-2010, 14:17

timber

Beskar

03-02-2010, 16:45

Furunculus

03-02-2010, 17:04

All I can say is - http://climate.nasa.gov/

You lose, and the world loses because of people denying it. I been talking to a whole bunch of environmental scientists, and people who do know what they are talking about. So much information, I could actually start a new topic.
at the very worst we will have a vastly greater understanding of climate change; its primary mechanisms, its feedback mechanisms, and by extension the politicals measures that will effectively ammeliorate the real impact.

nothing in the whole gates saga can be construed as unnecessary waste or delay, and whatever the final conclusion we will have a healthier scientific process as a result.

three cheers for each and every hero that worked tirelessly to expose the inadequacies of post-normal science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science

Beskar

03-02-2010, 17:12

at the very worst we will have a vastly greater understanding of climate change; its primary mechanisms, its feedback mechanisms, and by extension the politicals measures that will effectively ammeliorate the real impact.

nothing in the whole gates saga can be construed as unnecessary waste or delay, and whatever the final conclusion we will have a healthier scientific process as a result.

I am for healthier scientific process, but we really seriously need to tackle Climate Change.

I found out for you Furunculus, the answer was actually quite simple as you will see, the reason they renamed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

It is mainly Global Warming is part of the problem and it was simply an umbrella for all the climate change we see all around us, like messed up weather cycles (you live in Britain, so you have seen them), changes in climate, the changing of the natural order of seasons. The melting of the poles which change the sea currents, which changes how temperature is regulated across the globe, The cutting down of the forests in persuit of palm oil. The increase of dust in the atmosphere. Obviously, there is far more going on than just "warming" as change in climate are making some areas colder than what they should be.

There are also major issues associated with this, there are politics students which advocate not acting on Climate Change as the resulting Water Wars in areas such as the Middle East which cause lots of deaths to the enemies of the West.

Big Money do not want Climate Change being tackled (these even include Fuel nations like Russia) as it affects their incomes, also, it might restrict their trade and decrease competitiveness, which means they loss out, hence why they pour lots of money into trying to discredit it at everystep.

There a loads of solutions which are not done, such as changing from Oil/Petrol to Hydrogen. Doing this, means we have a very abundant resource which is clean since it is water, also, the waste is Fresh Clean Water, which also provides the solution to clean/fresh waters issues we will experience.

In short, there are a lot of things.

Furunculus

03-02-2010, 17:29

none of which changes the following statement:

"at the very worst we will have a vastly greater understanding of climate change; its primary mechanisms, its feedback mechanisms, and by extension the politicals measures that will effectively ameliorate the real impact."

those two words were italicised for a reason, i.e. i remain unconvinced that we understand the primary mechanisms of climate change, or its feedback mechanisms, and so i have little faith that the political measures suggested will be effective in mitigating the real impacts, whatever they may be.

Fragony

03-02-2010, 21:53

Centurion1

03-02-2010, 22:14

There a loads of solutions which are not done, such as changing from Oil/Petrol to Hydrogen. Doing this, means we have a very abundant resource which is clean since it is water, also, the waste is Fresh Clean Water, which also provides the solution to clean/fresh waters issues we will experience.

In short, there are a lot of things.

id love hydrogen run cars too now y=tell me how to mass produce hydrogen without fossil fuels

Subotan

03-03-2010, 00:36

I dont really believe all the hype about global Warming. slash that, i think its bull and gore used images fromt he day after tommorow in his famed movie. (nobel peace prize my *** that doesnt even make sense)
Right, because Al Gore is the sole proponent of taking action on climate change, since he invented global warming, along with the internet.

but for the record all this snow on the east coast that the right is spouting on about and the left has twisted to support global warming (imagine that!) is because of the flipping el nino. thats why its snowing in bloody texas and there was no snow in vancouver.
See:

I am for healthier scientific process, but we really seriously need to tackle Climate Change.

I found out for you Furunculus, the answer was actually quite simple as you will see, the reason they renamed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

It is mainly Global Warming is part of the problem and it was simply an umbrella for all the climate change we see all around us, like messed up weather cycles (you live in Britain, so you have seen them), changes in climate, the changing of the natural order of seasons. The melting of the poles which change the sea currents, which changes how temperature is regulated across the globe, The cutting down of the forests in persuit of palm oil. The increase of dust in the atmosphere. Obviously, there is far more going on than just "warming" as change in climate are making some areas colder than what they should be.

There are also major issues associated with this, there are politics students which advocate not acting on Climate Change as the resulting Water Wars in areas such as the Middle East which cause lots of deaths to the enemies of the West.

Big Money do not want Climate Change being tackled (these even include Fuel nations like Russia) as it affects their incomes, also, it might restrict their trade and decrease competitiveness, which means they loss out, hence why they pour lots of money into trying to discredit it at everystep.

id love hydrogen run cars too now y=tell me how to mass produce hydrogen without fossil fuels
Hydrogen is a pie dream. It's always just 15 years away, and it has remained that distance from our grasps since the early 1990's, according to the car companies. Not to mention the safety aspects of it (Q. What would happen if a hydrogen car crashed in a tunnel, and the hydrogen tank was punctured? A. There would be a colossal fireball, that would approach 2000C in temperature, which is enough to cause concrete to suffer extreme structural stress.)

Beskar

03-03-2010, 02:14

Nasa-gate is among the many gates, sorry no.

Like Wilders-gate ? Garden-gate?

(Also, Maggie Thatcher even believes in the enviroment climate change issues, Furunculus. :gasp: )

Centurion1

03-03-2010, 02:33

Hydrogen is a pie dream. It's always just 15 years away, and it has remained that distance from our grasps since the early 1990's, according to the car companies. Not to mention the safety aspects of it (Q. What would happen if a hydrogen car crashed in a tunnel, and the hydrogen tank was punctured? A. There would be a colossal fireball, that would approach 2000C in temperature, which is enough to cause concrete to suffer extreme structural stress.)

See: hindenburg.

See:
beskars long quote

el nino is a natural phenomena that has been happening fro millinos of yyears nothing to do with change. it is a rare wind that goes south instead of north.

Aemilius Paulus

03-03-2010, 03:11

(Also, Maggie Thatcher even believes in the enviroment climate change issues, Furunculus. :gasp: )
Dude, put spoilers on that, and a warning on top. We would not want to see Furnuculus traumatised like that :no:~;):tongue:

Fragony

03-03-2010, 03:13

Like Wilders-gate ?

Care to enlighten me

edit: you are lucky there is a Wilders-gate, lefties invented a case of intimidation of shopkeepers by the PVV, didn't work it took only a few hours before the shopkeepers ties to the extreme left were exposed and the police doesn't take it seriously anymore. Ow lefties and their spiteful intolerance and devious tricks if it doesn't suit them. They just don't understand that we have internet nowadays, these things come out. In the meantime Wilders who doesn't want to debate according to lefties was chosen best debater by the viewers. Fail.

Furunculus

03-03-2010, 09:20

Like Wilders-gate ? Garden-gate?

(Also, Maggie Thatcher even believes in the enviroment climate change issues, Furunculus. :gasp: )

people keep on trying* to 'trick' me into awkard positions by throwing people at me with contrary views who i respect, or similar views that i dislike, in the hope that i will paint my self into a rhetorical corner due to my 'dogmatic' and 'blind-sided' passions. would it surprise you if i didn't react to your statement with horror and indignation? *shrugs*

really folks, try harder, because this is pathetic.

* https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122329-No-more-global-warming&p=2441590&viewfull=1#post2441590

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in other news, brief global warming may be a normal part of transition from interglacial > glacial climate change:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/03/global_warming_seen_before/

Global warming may be normal at this point in glacial cycle

Happened last time (followed by Glacier UK), say profs

By Lewis Page

Posted in Environment, 3rd March 2010 10:59 GMT

German and Russian scientists say that it is normal for an interglacial period like the one just ending to finish with one or more brief - in geological terms - spells of warming before the glaciers return.

According to boffins based at the Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ) and at the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the Earth's history thus far there have been eras where the glaciers covered much of Europe, lasting about 100,000 years. These are separated by warmer interglacial periods lasting around 10,000 years. We are currently at the end of an interglacial era called the Holocene.

The scientists, looking into the last interglacial period - the Eemian - which ended around 115,000 years ago, say they have found that that it ended with "significant climate fluctuations" before the rule of the glaciers returned.

The scientists got their results by examining ancient lake sediments exposed by modern open-cast mining in Russia and Germany. They believe that the end of the Eemian interglacial epoch saw "possibly at least two" warming events, according to a statement issued by the UFZ.

"The observed instability with the proven occurrence of short warming events during the transition from the last interglacial to the last glacial epoch could be, when viewed carefully, a general, naturally occurring characteristic of such transition phases," concludes UFZ boffin Dr Tatjana Boettger.

Boettger and her fellow researchers say that the Eemian ice-free period wound up with sudden - in these terms - warming spells and serious changes in vegetation. Then the glaciers surged south, at their high tide 21,000 years ago reaching as far as Berlin.

This Weichselian Glacial era ended around 15,000 years ago, leading to the conditions which have been seen for all of human history with the ice caps confined to the polar regions. The UFZ says that this Holocene era reached its "highest point so far around 6000 years ago" and that we might now expect to see sudden warmings and changes as at the end of the Eemian - followed by a slow descent into another freezing glacial era.

"Detailed studies of these phenomena are important for understanding the current controversial discussed climate trend so that we can assess the human contribution to climate change with more certainty," comments Dr Frank W Junge of the Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Saxon Academy of Sciences, SAW) in Leipzig.

The profs' paper Instability of climate and vegetation dynamics in Central and Eastern Europe during the final stage of the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) and Early Glaciation can be read here (subscriber link). ®

oh right, the russians are involved, thus the evidence can be dismissed because it is automatically tained by big-oil. that's right, retreat to your comfort zone, where you don't have to analyse anything because you have faith in the public experts. :p

Louis VI the Fat

03-30-2010, 17:47

A Greenpeace investigation (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/dirty-money-climate-30032010) has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil) company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.

The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries (http://www.kochind.com/), which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/greenpeace) says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/scienceofclimatechange), nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.

In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.

"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.

"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says. The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity (http://www.americansforprosperity.org/national-site), the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/), the Cato institute (http://www.cato.org/), the Manhattan Institute (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/) and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment (http://www.free-eco.org/). All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/hacked-climate-science-emails) or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.

Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/11/fossilfuels.pollution) and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.

Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/) fined Koch industries $30m (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/kochcwa.html) for its role in 300 oil spills (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil-spills) that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters. "The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-millions-climate-sceptics
The biggest company you've never heard of (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries).

Sasaki Kojiro

03-30-2010, 17:55

The tobacco companies did the same for a while. I don't think they do it much anymore though, there's not enough evidence on their side for it to be plausible.

InsaneApache

03-30-2010, 18:10

I thought that the science was settled and that global warming is a hoax.

Furunculus

03-30-2010, 18:14

the science is never settled, that is the point of science.

Rhyfelwyr

03-30-2010, 18:14

It snowed here at the end of March, hence global warming is obsolete.

Crazed Rabbit

03-30-2010, 18:17

The biggest company you've never heard of (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries).

Well clearly any opposition to AGW spreads 'lies and misleading information' according to Greenpeace.

It's the funding of those big evil corporations that make the IPCC commit mistakes and the climategate people delete original data.

Seriously, this report 'accuses' them? As though it's a crime? This report simply assumes that any opposition to AGW is based on lies.

According to them, we should only trust scientists sponsered by the governments that want to pass environmental legislation and that cut funding for scientists who don't agree.

CR

InsaneApache

03-30-2010, 18:19

the science is never settled, that is the point of science.

Indeed. Something that the alarmists should be aware of. Settled my arse.

Subotan

03-30-2010, 23:59

The biggest company you've never heard of (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries).
Of course, it's the AGW-NWO-WTF alarmists who are crooked, evil kleptomaniacs, living lives of luxury, swimming in pools filled with dirty money etc. etc. But this huge financial commitment and support by Koch just a bit of friendly sponsoring, that's all.

The tobacco companies did the same for a while. I don't think they do it much anymore though, there's not enough evidence on their side for it to be plausible.
They actually did it so much that attempts to argue that some aspects of smoking may not be bad for your health (E.g. third hand smoke, smoking in doorways) are instantly met with allegations of funding by BAT and the like.

I thought that the science was settled and that global warming is a hoax.

Indeed. Something that the alarmists should be aware of. Settled my arse.
Notice how the debate is a Sisyphean endeavour for actual scientists, as there must always be more proof, more evidence, more facts, whilst the tiniest sliver of a whisper of incorrect data is met with baying howls from climate change deniers, that the end of the AGW warmists is nigh and that science has triumphed over alarmism and ad infinitum

Seriously, this report 'accuses' them? As though it's a crime? This report simply assumes that any opposition to AGW is based on lies.

It may not be a crime, but it certainly throws the science (LOL) of deniers into serious question seeing as they are being directly funded by an organisation that has every interest in whipping up paranoia, hindering science and confusing the public on this issue. And before you say that Greenpeace is the same; it isn't. Greenpeace is an environmental NGO; not a solar power company, not a wind turbine manufacturer, not an electric car manufacturer, but a organisation that is committed to protecting the environment, regardless of the nature of the damage they protest against.

InsaneApache

03-31-2010, 02:52

Notice how the debate is a Sisyphean endeavour for actual scientists, as there must always be more proof, more evidence, more facts, whilst the tiniest sliver of a whisper of incorrect data is met with baying howls from climate change deniers, that the end of the AGW warmists is nigh and that science has triumphed over alarmism and ad infinitum

:tumbleweed: :scastle3:

a completely inoffensive name

03-31-2010, 05:14

Fragony

03-31-2010, 07:46

whilst the tiniest sliver of a whisper of incorrect data

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Furunculus

03-31-2010, 08:32

It may not be a crime, but it certainly throws the science (LOL) of deniers into serious question seeing as they are being directly funded by an organisation that has every interest in whipping up paranoia, hindering science and confusing the public on this issue. And before you say that Greenpeace is the same; it isn't. Greenpeace is an environmental NGO; not a solar power company, not a wind turbine manufacturer, not an electric car manufacturer, but a organisation that is committed to protecting the environment, regardless of the nature of the damage they protest against.

lol, many of us have long since accomodated ourselves to the reality that ideology can be at least as dangerous, if not more than so, than the most venal expression of profit hunger.

why don't you join the party, it's where all the people with more than two brain-cells to rub together hang out?

Fragony

03-31-2010, 08:46

lol, many of us have long since accomodated ourselves to the reality that ideology can be at least as dangerous, if not more than so, than the most venal expression of profit hunger.

Indeed, it's a religion for people who think the flying spaghetti-monster was smart. The end of days or being absolutely terrified of CO2, same thing, both apocalyptic doctrines for people who will believe everything they hear.

Subotan

03-31-2010, 10:36

Hey guys, did you hear? We can annihilate a city the size of Paris with a single bomb. I know, its really scary. What? All of humanity is capable of warming the planet and 99% of evidence shows that? lol next you are gonna say that we can suddenly transport people onto another celestial body.
No way, next you'll be saying that heavier-than-air flight is possible.

lol, many of us have long since accomodated ourselves to the reality that ideology can be at least as dangerous, if not more than so, than the most venal expression of profit hunger.
Very true. But is environmentalism an ideology?

An ideology is a set of ideas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea) that directs one's goals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goals), expectations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectations), and actions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actions). An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview)), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#In_everyday_society) below) and several philosophical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical) tendencies (see Political ideologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Political_ideologies)), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a 'received consciousness' or product of socialization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization)).
Environmentalism is too vague and general an idea to be considered an ideology. Environmentalism is just concern for the planet (Or rather, the life on it)

N.B. I'm not a hippie. I couldn't care less about sodding polar bears, butterflies or chimpanzees.

Indeed, it's a religion for people who think the flying spaghetti-monster was smart.
Oh don't get me started on him. I got banned from Veganza.org for being too critical of Overlord Bobby :smug:

The end of days or being absolutely terrified of CO2, same thing, both apocalyptic doctrines for people who will believe everything they hear.
So how about them Atheist Climatologists, huh?

Fragony

03-31-2010, 10:53

So how about them Atheist Climatologists, huh?

You mean the ones of the manipulated data? These are not atheists they are preachers. Why are you still absolutely terrified of CO2 after what can only be described as floodgate?

InsaneApache

03-31-2010, 11:21

A high court judge in the UK recently gave a judgement that enviromentalism is to be treated the same as a religion. Sound man.

Furunculus

03-31-2010, 13:57

Very true. But is environmentalism an ideology?

seem pretty close to ideology sometimes.

from the Yale Environment 360:

Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

Greens pushed climate scientists to become outspoken advocates of action to address global warming. Captivated by the notion that their voices and expertise were singularly necessary to save the world, some climate scientists attempted to oblige. The result is that the use, and misuse, of climate science by advocates began to wash back into the science itself.

Fragony

03-31-2010, 14:17

A high court judge in the UK recently gave a judgement that enviromentalism is to be treated the same as a religion. Sound man.

Sound man indeed, but the consensus lemmings will never stop, they will keep repeating repeating repeating and repeating that there is consensus, best to start when they are really really young and moldable. How are you going to educate your parents about global warming? I never managed to educate my father about acid rain at the time despite hundreds of COMPLETELY DEAD lakes in Sweden, he got all grumpy when I tried to save the earth. Now I feel stupid as there were no dead lakes, but what can you do when you are just 8 years old?

Subotan

03-31-2010, 23:55

You mean the ones of the manipulated data? These are not atheists they are preachers. Why are you still absolutely terrified of CO2 after what can only be described as floodgate?
No, it's just you were referring to climate scientists as being in the same league as mentally ill people who roam the streets proclaiming the end is nigh. A slightly odd comparison.

A high court judge in the UK recently gave a judgement that enviromentalism is to be treated the same as a religion. Sound man.
...In that it should be offered the same protection of the law as religion or political ideology, given its nature as a personal political decision.

seem pretty close to ideology sometimes.

from the Yale Environment 360:
Efforts such as the "100 months to save the world" are indeed foolish, as scaremongering is bad regardless of whoever spouts it. I also think the identification with the bloody polar bears has been another mistake by the same greens.

Sound man indeed, but the consensus lemmings will never stop, they will keep repeating repeating repeating and repeating that there is consensus, best to start when they are really really young and moldable.
Soooooo rich.

How are you going to educate your parents about global warming? I never managed to educate my father about acid rain at the time despite hundreds of COMPLETELY DEAD lakes in Sweden, he got all grumpy when I tried to save the earth. Now I feel stupid as there were no dead lakes, but what can you do when you are just 8 years old?
I don't know anything about acid rain, so I can't comment, but wtf does acid rain have to do with climate change (Other than sulphur dioxide has a cooling effect in the atmosphere)?

The tobacco companies did the same for a while. I don't think they do it much anymore though, there's not enough evidence on their side for it to be plausible.
A very nice video which details the link between climate change denial and the tobacco lobby.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ&feature=player_embedded

Fragony

04-01-2010, 06:16

Soooooo rich.

It's not true then? Only the alarmists get a stage, and because children are most easily influenced they start really early. Al Gore's lies are still presented as facts.

I don't know anything about acid rain, so I can't comment, but wtf does acid rain have to do with climate change (Other than sulphur dioxide has a cooling effect in the atmosphere)?

Same alarmism, same lies. I had to be absolutely terrified of acid rain because all the lakes in Sweden were DEAD. Acid rain would lead to great food-shortages, leading to MASS STARVATION and WORLD-WAR. In 2000 we would probably all be dead IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW. Save the earth.

sound familiar?

InsaneApache

04-01-2010, 09:19

I see a leading AGW alarmist has said that democracy should be suspended to help combat climate change. Says it all.

Fragony

04-01-2010, 10:07

I see a leading AGW alarmist has said that democracy should be suspended to help combat climate change. Says it all.

Didn't see that coming. Wait I did.

He is absolutely correct of course only socialism can save the planet. Watermelons, green on the outside, deeply red on the inside.

Subotan

04-01-2010, 15:54

Soooooo rich.

It's not true then? Only the alarmists get a stage, and because children are most easily influenced they start really early. Al Gore's lies are still presented as facts.

Rubbish. Deniers get loads of media coverage.

Same alarmism, same lies. I had to be absolutely terrified of acid rain because all the lakes in Sweden were DEAD. Acid rain would lead to great food-shortages, leading to MASS STARVATION and WORLD-WAR. In 2000 we would probably all be dead IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW. Save the earth.

Since then, Sulphur Dioxide emissions in Europe have declined massively, leading to a consequent decline in Acid Rain. The reason the scenario you are talking about did not come about is because action was taken to prevent it

https://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6122/14489878db6371917613341.gif
SO2 emissions in the UK

I see a leading AGW alarmist has said that democracy should be suspended to help combat climate change. Says it all.
When I saw that in the newspaper, I actually facepalmed. Real scientists are having problems with a public relations issue and now this?
That said, you have to read between the lines to see what he's actually saying. He means that decisive action is necessary, with countries like China are sort-of tackling climate change, as opposed to the USA, where FOX News filibusters any proposal in the Senate.

Didn't see that coming. Wait I did.
Care to show us where, oh fortune teller who only makes predictions after they have happened?

Fragony

04-01-2010, 16:45

Care to show us where, oh fortune teller who only makes predictions after they have happened?

What, I have been saying it's all a hoax for years, ask the other members I have never believed in these lies.

Furunculus

04-01-2010, 18:38

oops, even the Germans are going cold on AGW, and they practically invented the environmental movement:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

InsaneApache

04-01-2010, 19:12

oops, even the Germans are going cold on AGW, and they practically invented the environmental movement:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

Aye, they're starting to fight like ferrets in a sack. The end is nigh.

Subotan

04-01-2010, 20:51

What, I have been saying it's all a hoax for years, ask the other members I have never believed in these lies.
I meant that particular quote, of Climatologists conspiring to end democracy and paint the world Red.

Aye, they're starting to fight like ferrets in a sack. The end is nigh.
Scientific Consensus != Public Opinion Consensus :rolleyes:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif
Sauce: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
The vast majority of the climatological community still agree that man-made climate change is a real scientific phenomenon.

And with regards to:

The strong majority of [Germans], 58 percent who said they feared global warming about three years ago has declined to a minority of 42 percent.:rolleyes: The desire for action on environmental issues always declines in recessions, understandably.

InsaneApache

04-01-2010, 23:42

Good god, don't you fellows ever give up with your propaganda and religios zeal? :inquisitive:

Subotan

04-02-2010, 01:18

https://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1278/potmeetkettle7499609.jpg

InsaneApache

04-02-2010, 09:11

I actually swallowed hook line and sinker the whole global warming theory back in the 80s and 90s. It was only when they started talking about raising vast amounts of taxes to give to the third world and hamstringing industry when I started to smell a rat. The idea that you need to cripple western industry to save mankind seemed a bit of a oxymoron IMO. After all we've managed, as you point out, to reduce acid rain and remove CFCs from fridges without buggering up the economies with higher and higher taxation.

In the late 50s the UK had a massive problem with smog. It killed hundreds, if not thousands every year. Did the government of the day raise taxes to solve it? No. They passed the clean air act and banned the burning of coal in 'smokeless zones'. It cost next to nowt and solved the problem.

I'm beggining to think the watermelon analogy is correct. After it was demonstrated that collectivism doesn't work, the left had no where to go, then bingo. They found another way to make mankind miserable. Scare them to death and tax them to death. What these plonkers don't or won't see is the death and destruction this causes. Bio-fuels instead of food anyone?

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 10:04

I spent three years at uni studying geology, during which time i spent an significant portion of which studying climate change via the sedimentary record, so i have always been skeptical about the IPCC consensus on catastrophic and anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change.

Agreed, over and above my skepticism of the cause and effect, the chosen solution is patently ridiculous that appears to be a humongous exercise in social engineering as the west voluntarily transfer all its wealth to the third world.

I have a lot of sympathy with the watermelon analogy, as stated here:

http://order-order.com/2009/11/25/time-to-defund-crus-global-cooling-deniers/

The left likes to think their prejudices are based on science rather than mere opinions derived from political goals. The power of Marxist ideas from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries within the intelligentsia was because of the internal logic that claimed it was “scientific socialism” based on immutable laws of society. Twenty-first century anti-capitalism is trying the same trick, claiming an anti-capitalist mandate from climate science that just does not exist. It is no coincidence that the collapse of the worldwide communist project and ideals in the early 1990s coincided with the rise of the global green movement. Many of the enemies of capitalism have merely changed their flag from red to green.
nb: Guido does not claim AGW is a giant left wing conspiracy, and nor do i, he merely notes that it was a convenient vehicle for those who found themselves suddenly bereft of the ideological struggle necessary to define their lives by.

Every extreme of the human spectrum, be it politics religion or something else, has those who mitigate their lack of self-worth by close association with a 'cause' bigger than themselves, and for the more hardcore left'ies the year of 1989 threatened to invalidate that which gave meaning to their lives*.

The Green movement gave them a framework by which they could pick up the tattered shreds of their guiding principles, reform it into a new and publicly acceptable ideology, and thus pretend to themselves that nothing fundamental had gone wrong; the previous ideology had merely been a flawed expression of the pure principles as expressed by intellectuals such as Marx.

Thus have we been subjected to an almost religious fervor in support of AGW, these guys have a lot riding on this so they NEED it to work, they are flawed individuals already and might not survive a second crisis of meaning.
Thus have we been subjected to an almost fawning respect to scientists who comply to the desired image of intellectual splendor, otherwise known as the IPCC, because pure political ideologies are discredited and a new more palatable 'church' is needed.

It's become a bandwagon that has pushed policy far in advance of the science.

* I just happen to believe the idealism inherent in lefty-liberal politics attracts a much greater proportion of the inadequate rebels-in-need-of-a-cause.

social science is not a science, it is a faith that you can express the breadth of human emotion and frailty with a simplified model of collective behavior.

it is an arrogance that leads to ideology which is invariably a universal failure for the reason mentioned above, and it is usually grossly intrusive to the individuals it is practiced upon.

worse, the damage that is done by these social engineers is blithely disregarded as a necessary and temporary evil, to achieve the glorious emancipation of humanity......... as they see it.

there is a world of difference between a social engineer/scientist and an real engineer or scientist, and I will always have contempt for those that think they can engineer away the less perfect parts of the human condition via some pseudo-scientific ideology.

Beskar

04-03-2010, 19:07

In the late 50s the UK had a massive problem with smog. It killed hundreds, if not thousands every year. Did the government of the day raise taxes to solve it? No. They passed the clean air act and banned the burning of coal in 'smokeless zones'. It cost next to nowt and solved the problem.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Wait, I am going to fall off my chair laughing, this is hilarious. Furunculus! Come here please, I need you to help me up and explain that it "didn't cost nothing".

Alright, I will put it in simple terms for you. The law itself might cost nothing, in theory, we could just pass a law saying "do not emit more than x of y" to solve 'Climate Change' right? You agree don't you? After all, it costs absolutely nothing right?

WRONG

Furunculus is one of the biggest skeptics here, he regularly argues that these climate laws are the these which cost the economy. So infact, the very thing you are saying which "costs nothing" is the exact same thing Furunculus is saying is going to cause a great economic struggle and stunt GDP-growth in the West. The fact, is, the reason they fund programmes like 'wind farms' is to replace the status-quo which such a law prevents, the hit to industry is enormous.

Let's use your no smog law. When it was passed was this the average factory manager conversation in your mind?
"Hey Jimmy, come here. Stop releasing that smog, people don't like it."
"You sure boss?"
"Yeah, we just released it for the lulz anyway."

The fact is, all those factories had to move location, they had to change standards, find alternatives, amongst other things, to prevent the smog from happening. Lots of people had to pay to stop it and because of this, it would have stunted economic growth, due to risen costs. The "higher taxes" is to fund the alternatives and also to prevent those from causing more pollution, so in your smog analogy, they taxing people when they produce smog, in order to try to stop them doing it, while using those taxes to solve the root cause of the smog in the first place.

However, I say lets go with InsaneApache's idea, let's just do laws to stop "Global Warming/Climate Change" causation, they don't cost a thing!