No more global warming?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm)

I am a complete sucker for sensationalist media. First of all I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', and I was sure global warming was happening and it was going to be serious. But sometimes I see things like this and I'm not so sure. I just don't have the core knowledge to make a serious decision, and I suspect 99% of the population are the same.

But what do the fine, educated minds of the Backroom think?

[Beskar]

There are reasons why this is the case, from Oceans absorbing CO2 to the temperature rise is being off-set by the ice-caps melting to things like colder winters in the south. (Remember, the global temperature is generally north+south, where is it opposite seasons).

There are lots of many factors, however, what is funny, the biggest contributor to global warming is infact, vocano's and the 2nd biggest factor is Cows (and domestic lifestock) who produce lots of methane. Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon) and additional input into the atmosphere.

Anyway, there are always periods of warming and cooling, a temporary cooling is the equalivant of moving a cold bottle of water over your body. It is temporary and not the solution.

They should use this time as an opportunity.

[Whacker]

I've read enough to be heavily, heavily skeptical of the whole thing. This does get annoying and/or amusing when I run into those mindless eco-nuts who preach it as gospel and refuse to believe otherwise.

That said, I am 100% for preserving the environment and drastically reducing humanity's impact on nature.

[CountArach]

This is built on the fallacious assumption that global warming would be a constant trend. It is not.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've read enough to be heavily, heavily skeptical of the whole thing. This does get annoying and/or amusing when I run into those mindless eco-nuts who preach it as gospel and refuse to believe otherwise.

That said, I am 100% for preserving the environment and drastically reducing humanity's impact on nature.

This. Help preserve our environment, but don't base it on this. I hesitate to call it an outright lie, but toying with the truth would certainly be accurate, especially for the way it is being hyped up.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon)
No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.

The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding (http://climatechange.110mb.com/nations-iron-seeding-oceans.htm) and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event).

The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.

[Lord Winter]

There are reasons why this is the case, from Oceans absorbing CO2 to the temperature rise is being off-set by the ice-caps melting to things like colder winters in the south. (Remember, the global temperature is generally north+south, where is it opposite seasons).

There are lots of many factors, however, what is funny, the biggest contributor to global warming is infact, vocano's and the 2nd biggest factor is Cows (and domestic lifestock) who produce lots of methane. Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon) and additional input into the atmosphere.

Anyway, there are always periods of warming and cooling, a temporary cooling is the equalivant of moving a cold bottle of water over your body. It is temporary and not the solution.

They should use this time as an opportunity.

Do you have a source for those claims. According to the EPA (http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html) the bulk of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and not methane. In addition the volclano claim is false:
From the USGS: (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#CO2)


Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

[LittleGrizzly]

Wouldn't the cow issue be related to our interference. Im fairly sure we made them bigger and beefier, combined with the fact we have made more than there were to being with....

Im pretty sure trees do actually take in some C02 (mostly in but occasionally they release some) and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing I don't think this too much harm planting a few, we have cut down counltess numbers over the years so I wouldn't say its a bad thing. Trees are quite nice also....

[Aemilius Paulus]

Do you have a source for those claims. According to the EPA (http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usgginventory.html) the bulk of the greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide and not methane. In addition the volclano claim is false:
From the USGS: (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php#CO2)
I am not certain about volcanoes, although I tend to lean on Beskar's side (volcanoes have always been the decisive factor in climate shifts), but I will have to point out that CH4 is precisely twenty times more potent grenhouse gas than CO2. In addition to CO2, volcanoes likewise produce a plethora of other gases. Which are generally more pivotal than the CO2, as carbon dioxide is a relatively light compound, quite weak as a "greenhouse gas".

EDIT:


Im pretty sure trees do actually take in some C02 (mostly in but occasionally they release some) and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing I don't think this too much harm planting a few, we have cut down counltess numbers over the years so I wouldn't say its a bad thing. Trees are quite nice also....
Plant as many as you wish, but you are wasting your time, effort, and funds, climatologically speaking. I repeat: while they take in some CO2, counting on them to lower the planet's temperature is akin to trusting a single maggot to digest a bull, isntead of letting a tiger loose. Dump ground iron in the oceans, and that is a quite sure bet to cool down the Earth as well as increase its oxygen supply. But that coupled with global dimming and the possibility of an impending natural Ice Age will turn our planet into a snowball one. I would rather let global warming do its job, if it is still in force.

[Beskar]

As for sources, it is standard science at a GCSE level (actually, even lower too) in Britain. In otherwords, common knowledge domain.

Also, Aemilius Paulus raised the other point. It isn't just CO2, there are many others such as methane, which as he said, are twenty times more potent.

[Lord Winter]

I am not certain about volcanoes, although I tend to lean on Beskar's side (volcanoes have always been the decisive factor in climate shifts), but I will have to point out that CH4 is precisely twenty times more potent grenhouse gas than CO2. In addition to CO2, volcanoes likewise produce a plethora of other gases. Which are generally more pivotal than the CO2, as carbon dioxide is a relatively light compound, quite weak as a "greenhouse gas".

EDIT:

Plant as many as you wish, but you are wasting your time, effort, and funds, climatologically speaking. Dump ground iron in the oceans, and that is a quite sure bet to cool down the Earth as well as increase its oxygen supply. But that coupled with global dimming and the possibility of an impending natural Ice Age will turn our planet into a snowball one. I would rather let global warming do its job, if it is still in force.

The EPA figures were adjusted for the effect of the gas on global warming. While it's true Volcano's have been a factor in global climate change isn't it true that we're not experiencing the same level of volcanic activity that has occurred in the past? I've also heard from my geology teacher that CO2 levels are raising faster today then they were during those extinction events although I'm having trouble finding a source for that.

EDIT: All the sources I'm seeing are conflicting with what your saying Beskar. You're going to need sources to back up your assertions. I've provided mine.

[LittleGrizzly]

and whilst planting trees may not be the most effective thing

so I wouldn't say its a bad thing.

Two important parts of my post AP. I wasn't aruging that planting trees to combat CO2 is a good idea (although they take in small amounts) I was arguing that planting trees is a bad thing, thier pretty, do some small work towards converting CO2 to O, and are a good supply of wood....

But I do agree as a strategy for stopping global warming not great...

I wouldn't want something to drastic done about global warming as you said we could go to far the other way (or just mess up something else) I would rather we reduced (or somewhat nuetralised) our effect. Only if we are in serious trouble should we go to dratic measures (if were dead if we dont) otherwise we could just makes things worse...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8299079.stm)

I am a complete sucker for sensationalist media. First of all I watched 'An Inconvenient Truth', and I was sure global warming was happening and it was going to be serious. But sometimes I see things like this and I'm not so sure. I just don't have the core knowledge to make a serious decision, and I suspect 99% of the population are the same.

But what do the fine, educated minds of the Backroom think?One can try to replace an inductive method by a deductive method. That is, to try not to discover global warming from temperature recordings, but from simple principles.

The amount of CO2 in the atmposphere is a constituant of the earth's climate.
So any decrease or increase of CO2 has a climatological result.

Few scientists would dispute this.

From there, it is really simple. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so releasing it has an effect. And not just on earth, for really spectacular global warming effects, try Venus:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm


A hot year, or ten cold years, neither prove nor disprove global warming anymore than a particular cold day in July does. What matters is that one constituent of the earth's climate is drastically changed through human working, in a particularly short amount of time.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When a tree dies, the carbon that is stored in it is released again. Otherwise known as rotting. What would help, is dead trees sinking in the mud instead of rotting away. Then they can slowly turn themselves into oil and gas again.

However, I'd say that humanity's ability to burn the carbon locked in oil and gas is much greater than nature's capacity to form oil over millions of years again. So no, trees are not the solution.



There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding (http://climatechange.110mb.com/nations-iron-seeding-oceans.htm) and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event)Fascinating reads.

Give me an unlimited budget and a few decades, and I'll give you any climate you want on earth. From tropical paradise or iceworld.

Bizzarly, it isn't all that expensive or difficult to remove any amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that we want. I think this ought to be the focus of climate change debate.

We are not victims of nature's wrath. We are in the process of becoming its master. The question is not how to stop climate change, but how to work towards the climate we desire.

[Fragony]

ask yourself this, why is there doubt, in your heart? you are not invited to my party

the screamers here EVEN FASTER turned out to 'accidently' meassure higher temperatures much to the amazement of serious scientists who got different results. Faulty equipment, oops. Yeah that can happen, didn't the ipcc miss an icemass the size of texas. oops?

[Samurai Waki]

I kind of realized that when we were hit by a massive snow storm, and twenty degree weather all last week. I'm ready for warm again! and summer ended only a couple weeks ago... :wall:

[InsaneApache]

Well the eco nutjobs didn't help their cause with the 'hockey stick', did they?

Then there's Lords Melchitt and Porrit who want to limit/reduce the human population to sustainable levels.

So I say, let's bring it on. Pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can manage. Paint the poles jet black. Get your electric fire outside and on full bore. Get that temperature up guys.

Then when the ice cap melts and releases all that water, drowning a significant amount of people, we can reduce our carbon footprint for those that are left. The greens will be happy and so will I. I live atop a mountain.

Jobs a good 'un.

[Furunculus]

The amount of anthropogenic warming has been overstated.
The amount of anthropogenic warming from CO2 has been greatly overstated.

This directly results from Louis's deductive method when applied to a complex system where the record is uncertain, and the model is poorly understood.

The computer model looks at x amount of past warming, along with y concentration of CO2, and extrapolates z amount of future warming, and yet people are surprised when the model doesn't work because they refuse to recognise the contribution of a, b, and c to natural climate variation.

none of which means that i do not believe their could be catastrophic climate change in our near future, but it does mean that i believe spending trillions worrying about CO2 is an utter waste.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Paint the poles jet black.

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?
Wrong, our population is falling too quickly, whereas the Poles are falling at a slower rate. :laugh4:

As for the apparent growing scepticism of global warming in .Org, I will however have to point out that the Arctic icecap is melting, and that is highly abnormal, as it has never done so for millions of years, not since the time before the First Ice Age.

[Furunculus]

my skepticism has been on the IPCC4 'consensus' and it has remained pretty consistant.

the only firm opinion on polar icecaps, is that we've had one for 700,000 years, and maybe longer...............

whereas the number of glacial/interglacial periods is huge, even over the tiny period of 5.5m years as covered by the sediment record.

[Hooahguy]

the graphs, charts and predictions regarding global warming are a farce. there are so many factors regarding the climate change that even if there was a .0001 change in one factor it would drastically change the graph.
or so says my calc professor.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure we predict stuff with close to as many variable as global warming in other areas too... I bet the other one hasn't got a well funded campaign denying it either..

I think Louis put it quite well earlier....

The world is getting warmer...

more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer (by letting less heat escape)

We pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere...

Man made acceleration of global warming proven at grade school level ~;)

[rvg]

Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.

However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Global warming *is* happening.

[Lord Winter]

As I see it, even if global warming is overstated there are still other benifits from fighting it besides a lower amount of CO2. Lowering emmissions will increase air quality, public transportation will also do the same as well as being a massive convienence to the population. I think everyone also agrees that we should move away from fossial fuels even if global warming wasn't happening. I don't see how one could argue against any of these as worthy goals.

@Hooah I wouldn't call a calc professor a reliable source on global warming. Complelty different subjects.

[Hooahguy]

@Hooah I wouldn't call a calc professor a reliable source on global warming. Complelty different subjects.
not necessarily about climate change, but on the validity of the predictions. the fact is, you cant predict these things.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Well, friend, I live in Minnesota.

At this very moment, I am looking out a window and watching snow fall.

Which, by the way, is just WRONG because we shouldn't get snow for another month. :furious3: At least, I don't remember snow in early October happening very often. In fact, I remember the last couple years when you could see grass in January and February.

We're already hitting temps of 30 and 20 during daytime, no doubt quite a way below zero at night. (Last year we fell below -50F).

So suffice it to say that we are NOT suffering from global warming up here.

(By the way, if you have any, you're welcome to send it up here.)

[LittleGrizzly]

the fact is, you cant predict these things.

Well time to stop watching the weather then... do you now how many variables there are even in short term forecasting ?

Are you saying we can't predict them to a good enough degree of accuracy or are you saying we cannot predict them at all...?

Edit: the ironic thing about global warming is us poor sods in Britian are actually going to get colder because of it. Stop global warming, save Britians summers!

[Hooahguy]

the fact is, you cant predict these things.

Well time to stop watching the weather then... do you now how many variables there are even in short term forecasting ?

Are you saying we can't predict them to a good enough degree of accuracy or are you saying we cannot predict them at all...?

Edit: the ironic thing about global warming is us poor sods in Britian are actually going to get colder because of it. Stop global warming, save Britians summers!
youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.

[Furunculus]

Im sure we predict stuff with close to as many variable as global warming in other areas too... I bet the other one hasn't got a well funded campaign denying it either..

I think Louis put it quite well earlier....
The world is getting warmer...
more CO2 in the atmosphere makes it warmer (by letting less heat escape)
We pump loads of CO2 into the atmosphere...

Man made acceleration of global warming proven at grade school level ~;)

you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.

and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.

that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.

[Furunculus]

Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.

However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Global warming *is* happening.
frankly, at the rate in advancement of the understanding of climate science any news article from 2006 is going to get short shrift from me.

[LittleGrizzly]

youre right. i should. they predicted no rain today and whatya know. rain.

Yeah good thinking, also laugh at those fools paying attention to those silly hurricane warnings and other such nonsense. You should calmly stop someone rushing around panicing and tell them that the variables are far too many so it is pointless to prepare...

If you are really unhappy with the accuracy of short term forecasting then you are quite frankly impossible to please, no we cannot predict these things with complete accuracy but to a very high success rate, obviously with longer term the margin for error grows but they do not get these numbers from the lottery or some other random process, the models could be said to be our best possible educated guess...

[LittleGrizzly]

you are obviously no geologist, climate is the archtype of the complex system.

and most of the problems that have been identified thus far with the IPCC are precisely because mechanisms that have previously been not understood were understandably ignored when when using computers to model potential outputs from the known inputs.

that's the problem with the AGW fanbase, too many of them are obviously grade school.

Im assuming you didn't disagree with the we pumps loads of CO2 part... so does CO2 in the atmosphere not help the Earth retain more of the sun's heat ? or is the world not getting warmer ?

Im not saying the Earth temprature rely's solely on CO2 or is some simplistic thing, what I am saying is if the world is getting warmer and CO2 helps make the world warmer and were pumping loads of extra CO2 into the atmosphere... maybe we should try to cut down....

[rvg]

frankly, at the rate in advancement of the understanding of climate science any news article from 2006 is going to get short shrift from me.

short shrift or not, Greenland is rapidly warming up and its ice cap is melting.

[Furunculus]

Im assuming you didn't disagree with the we pumps loads of CO2 part...
so does CO2 in the atmosphere not help the Earth retain more of the sun's heat ?
or is the world not getting warmer ?

Im not saying the Earth temprature rely's solely on CO2 or is some simplistic thing, what I am saying is if the world is getting warmer and CO2 helps make the world warmer and were pumping loads of extra CO2 into the atmosphere... maybe we should try to cut down....
not at all, CO2 has risen as a percentage of atmosphere, and that increase is largely anthropogenic.
yes it is a greenhouse gas.
and yes, the earth did experience a significant warming trend in the second half of the 20th century.

i'm saying that climate science has been too poorly understood for scientists to start asking politicians to spend trillions on lowering CO2 emissions.

if it is anthropogenic, but not principally CO2 induced then we ware wasting money
if it is anthropogenic and CO2 induced, but not catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, then we are wasting our money
if it isn't principally anthropogenic, but is catastrophic then we are wasting our money
if there is no catastrophic change for whatever reason we are wasting our money

the principle green aim i hold to is maintaining a biosphere that enables and advances the human condition, that includes:
> reducing pollution
> providing clean water
> providing housing
> providing storm protection
> providing electricity and non-poisonous heat sources

the list could include reducing CO2, but it won't until i'm convinced the AGW is both catastrophic (i.e bad for the human race), principally anthopogenic (i.e. we won't buck natural cycles), and principally caused by CO2 (i.e. how much money should we spend on each anthropogenic cause).

[Strike For The South]

I'm not sure who to beilive. But I live 800 miles inland so it doesn't matter.

[Agent Miles]

Global warming is not science, it is a political issue. General Relativity is accepted the world over, and yet it is tested constantly. That is how the scientific method works. Anyone with the same data can get the same result using science. So, I can question Al Einstein, but I can’t question Al Gore?

Global warming is presented as beyond question to hide its many faults. People create the so called science of environmentalism and then when they generate results, it can only be peer reviewed by, you guessed it, other environmentalist people of like mind. Hence, phrases like, “most scientists agree”. If you read the U.N.‘s work on Global Warming, they even officially tiptoe around this problem by calling the work in progress as “vanguard science”. All that is known with certainty is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air has increased over about a century by about 100 parts per million parts (from approximately 287 to 380). There is no proof that these results are the sole reason for any changing of the climate, or that the data from the nineteenth century can even be trusted.

How do environmentalist/leftists get the rest of us to use huge mass transit systems, solar and wind power and “save the world”? Why, by indoctrinating our youth to vote for their agenda and no one else's. That’s the only science Al Gore understands.

[LittleGrizzly]

Im not going to get to into the science of it (out of my depth, why I try to avoid global warming topics...) but just to say I don't rule out that the earth is going through a natural warming trend atm and if it is that ins't great but theres not much we can do about it... what we can do however is remove our own acceleration of the process... CO2 undoubtedly has some effect on the atmosphere and considering at the very least we are in a natural warming atm and it takes a while for the effects of the CO2 we have released to fully take effect and with the rest of the world trying to catch our CO2 emitting levels...

Maybe just maybe we should try and cut down on it somewhat... TBH most money towards it is multi beneficial anyway the money doesn't just make us produce less CO2 it reduces pollution and the like...

Agent Miles yes those evil lefties just like they indocrinated the youth into believing we evolved from lower animals and other such nonsense ?

The reason there is a wide consesus is because alot of scientists who specialise in that field agree, make of that what you will but im convinced most scientists would love to trump someones theory with thier own... unfortunately they mostly agree be it some leftist conspiracy or based on scientific research... who knows...

[Agent Miles]

LittleGrizzly, I wasn’t aware that Darwin, who studied to be an Anglican parson and quoted the Bible, would qualify as an “evil leftie”?
The reason for the wide consensus among environmentalists is that they all share the same political goal of creating issues to sway public opinion. Science is the brutal guardian of what we can prove, not what someone agrees on. People who can’t tell you what the climate is going to do in 24 hours are not magically going to be able to tell you what the climate will do in 24 years. What if they are totally wrong? Well, thanks kiddies for voting liberal for a generation. Like your post, environmentalists make an emotional appeal with a “what if” and then add something like, “it’s better to be safe than sorry!” Well it’s not better to waste resources disproving something that can’t even be proven to begin with. Everyone wants efficient cars/homes /industry. That doesn’t mean that my grandchildren should elect a government that wants to destroy our economy so they can pretend to do that.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

That doesn’t mean that my grandchildren should elect a government that wants to destroy our economy so they can pretend to do that.


Exactly.

I'm all for moving in the direction of environmental friendliness. But not in such a way that we ruin ourselves to achieve it.

I'll buy a car that has good gas mileage. I couldn't care less if it emits less gas; I want to save money.

So, in short, I'm not exactly thrilled with hanicapping myself in order to save some trees.

I am not interested in conservation because I feel sorry for "mother earth." I'm interested in conservation because, if I act responsibly, I will be able to use nature longer. It's a purely logical, self-serving notion. If I (and we) don't waste it, we can use it longer. Nothing to do with sympathy for dirt and trees.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".

How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).

[Agent Miles]

In case you missed it, I gave you the facts. CO2 went from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts, if the people in the nineteenth century can be trusted. No one has proven that this caused the climate to change. This is not science. Realising this, make your own serious decision.

[drone]

For those too young to remember, we were told that a new ice age was on it's way back in the 70s. This is why some of us are pretty suspicious about the current clamoring of global warming. Newsweek's article about this in 1975. (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm) The boy has cried wolf already.

IMO, what we are seeing is the result of tons of data from more accurate modern global weather collection, collected and analyzed to death by people trying to assess and figure out why various isolated natural disasters happen. We don't have accurate/complete readings for a long enough timeframe to properly figure out what is going on, it's all guesswork at this point, combined with whatever political agenda people want to push. And all this work and fuss will mean nothing the next time some random volcano in the Pacific Rim blows it's top and spews enough ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the planet down by a couple of degrees.

Now I'm all for clean air and water. I think we should attempt to live in harmony with nature as much as possible. Are human responsible for climate change? Most likely. Is it as far-reaching as people say? Probably not. What to do about it? Not much. When the planet wants us gone, we will be gone, and it will continue on happily without us (since it already has the plastic ~;)).

[Rhyfelwyr]

In case you missed it, I gave you the facts. CO2 went from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts, if the people in the nineteenth century can be trusted. No one has proven that this caused the climate to change. This is not science. Realising this, make your own serious decision.

I'm sure people from both sides could throw a few facts around, it's getting the bigger picture that matters.

[PBI]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

This sums up people's understanding of the global warming issue from what I've seen in RL. Left-wingers say "omg stupid hillybilly christians can't accept basic facts because they just watch fox news", then right-wingers return "gah brainwashed marxists global warming must be a big-government conspiracy to tax us and fund the new world order".

How many on either side actually know enough to make a serious decision on this issue? It seems to me they can't (which is understandable since the scientists apparently can't either, or is this just one side's conspiracy???), so every left-winger automatically accepts global warming, and everyone on the right denies it (generally speaking).

This is pretty much what bugs me about this issue; that what is a highly technical debate about the finer points of an extremely complex, chaotic system seems to split so neatly along party lines, with both sides claiming the issue is "easy" and the other side is "obviously" wrong.

Either way, the political will is clearly not there to make anything more than cosmetic changes, so I guess we'll have the answer soon enough; and I can see a certain merit in settling the issue once and for all through direct experiment. Personally I feel it would be best if we can move to a more sustainable, low-carbon energy economy in our generation since it needs to be done eventually anyway; I certainly think it would be a better use of time, money and political will than further rearranging of the deckchairs in the Middle-East. However this has more to do with ensuring that the benefits of industrial society will outlast the supply of fossil fuels than with any effect it may have in curbing climate change.

[LittleGrizzly]

Already we've finished with the science and suddenly it's a left-right shootout that ends up talking about evolution and whether Darwin turned Christian or not.

Okay I apologise, my fault. Agent Miles post reminded me of so many conspiracy video's I have watched though....

Yes im sure Darwin was referred as an evil leftie (probably more recently) at the time I think godless Atheist may have been a more popular term... (which is an interchangable 'insult' to some these days)

Ill leave it at this, I generally accept the idea as there is seems to be a consesus amongst those with the relevant scientific education and I don't accept the idea they are lefties trying to trick us into doing what they want by making up science (I don't completely rule out the idea though.... which is why I enjoy watching conspiracy viedos...) EDIT that and most of the inititatives are multi beneficial anyway...

I have got to learn to stay out of the GW topics....

[Aemilius Paulus]

This is pretty much what bugs me about this issue; that what is a highly technical debate about the finer points of an extremely complex, chaotic system seems to split so neatly along party lines, with both sides claiming the issue is "easy" and the other side is "obviously" wrong.
Well, I do think I am done here, as Poor Bloody Infantry summed it up. None of us here are even close to being as much as slightly qualified to say anything about global warming as a general topic. Even the experts on the field are themselves lost. I myself posted a few responses on specific aspects of global warming, but to do anything more than quote singular statistics is beyond all my characteristics.

...Which is why I dislike with passion the categorical and self-sure statement, often imbued with great zeal, debating for either side of global warming.


On a final note, I will add to LittleGrizzly's end statement by pointing out once again that I generally attempt to stay away from all online science-related debates because of the plethora of problems with such endeavours. Mainly, unlike in politics, we are not entitled to an opinion as we are almsot always not qualified to debate science, which is not relative or down-to-earth as politics are comparatively.

But I am sure I am not stating anything new here... Most of the time, I simply grow frsutrated and quit in such debates, which is what I will do now. Not that the behaviour of posters is bad, it is just that this is pointless. Even mere discussion of this is pointless. None of us can operate with the tetrabytes of the summaries of climate change. This is like five-year olds debating on the validity of US Supreme Court ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden.

[CountArach]

Well, friend, I live in Minnesota.

At this very moment, I am looking out a window and watching snow fall.

Which, by the way, is just WRONG because we shouldn't get snow for another month. :furious3: At least, I don't remember snow in early October happening very often. In fact, I remember the last couple years when you could see grass in January and February.

We're already hitting temps of 30 and 20 during daytime, no doubt quite a way below zero at night. (Last year we fell below -50F).

So suffice it to say that we are NOT suffering from global warming up here.

(By the way, if you have any, you're welcome to send it up here.)
Sydney basically had no Winter this year.

[Agent Miles]

Rather than conspire with the rest of you to insult everyone’s intelligence, I am of the opinion that we actually can understand this.

Science starts with observation. We watch apples fall and somebody sees a fundamental truth in what they observed. After much consideration and the stringent application of math, a hypothesis emerges. Not a law or theory yet, just a suggestion for consideration. People who might understand such things, called peers, check the data, do the math and see if they can get the same result. Now biologists don’t peer review physics, or vice verse, but someone objective with the necessary expertise has to get the same result or its back to the drawing board. If everything is good to go, then it gets chiseled in stone…just kidding. Laws and theories are sitting ducks. The Big Bang is the most tested theory in history according to NASA, but it is still alive and well because it continues to pass every test.

Environmentalists observed that since the late nineteenth century the amount of carbon dioxide has risen from 287 to 380 parts per 1,000,000 parts in the atmosphere. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. They also observed that the mean average temperature of the world rose by about one degree centigrade over that period. They then made a hypothesis that the two were connected. Other environmentalists reviewed this conclusion and agreed. Without waiting for the testing part, politicians took the ball and ran with it. This was the reason that the ice caps were melting, that it rained too much or not enough. Polar bears were dying out and the induction current of the Atlantic was going to grind to a halt. However, the testing is part of the scientific method and it continued in spite of the politicians.

I suppose this is the complex part that we are not qualified to think about, so fasten your seat belts.

Data collection from the 1800’s is not good. Data collection from right now is not much better. Who observed it? How was it collected? If the data is off by a few tenths of a degree, then there might be no increase in mean temperature at all. Besides, maybe the “mean temperature of the world” went down two hundred years ago or two thousand. The temperature of the world is a moving target. It’s bad science to intentionally show data that only supports your conclusion.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. Yessiree, there is no way around that fact. People make a lot of it, too. As do volcanoes and cows and natural forest fires… and we really should do something about it.

My apologies, but now we must discuss the math. (Stop booing!) The environmentalists had a lot of math, so much that they used computers to crunch all of the weather effects that come from rising CO2. The math is actually so complex that the computers they had access to couldn’t do all the calculations for a world-wide weather system. Very few computers can do such complex system calculations. So they have several partial systems. They get results that are then combined to get an approximate overall picture. Results like the effect of rising CO2 in one system and rising temperatures in another and then stronger hurricanes in another system caused by the rising CO2 and temperature. The problem was that environmentalists may not have really great computers, but physicists do. The physicist’s computers did the math and rising CO2 with rising temperatures actually cause milder hurricanes. So how many other calculations are in doubt? Math has been referred to as the language of the universe. By some unknown trick of fate, math can simulate anything from the actions of atoms to super galaxy clusters. For a science, if you get the math wrong, you are doomed.

Now, of course, the environmentalists who performed the honest peer review of this hypothesis pointed out these problems right from the start…just kidding again. Along with knowledge of the subject, true stolid objectivity is required for a peer review. It’s not good police work if the police conspire as to who should be guilty.

All of this came out in testing by people who just wanted the truth to be known. Truth belongs in science; the alternative all too often belongs in politics.

[Vladimir]

the principle green aim i hold to is maintaining a biosphere that enables and advances the human condition, that includes:
> reducing pollution
> providing clean water
> providing housing
> providing storm protection
> providing electricity and non-poisonous heat sources

the list could include reducing CO2, but it won't until i'm convinced the AGW is both catastrophic (i.e bad for the human race), principally anthopogenic (i.e. we won't buck natural cycles), and principally caused by CO2 (i.e. how much money should we spend on each anthropogenic cause).

That's my point too but it's subject to individual interpretation. How important is biodiversity to the human condition? How do you track, maintain, and control all the influences? You experience the same problems as with global warming.

I still say we migrate. The technological advances and lessons learned along the way will go a long way to improving life here on Earth. This petri dish is getting crowded.

[Fragony]

For those too young to remember, we were told that a new ice age was on it's way back in the 70s.

Well I have been dead since 2000, acid rain finally did it.

these silly apocalyptoloco's.

[Centurion1]

There are a lot of respected scientists who say global warming is a crockpot. i think the world goes through natural cycles and that twenty years fom now people (probably al gores son) will be preaching the imminent ice age. The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

Gah, and al gore is an idiot. some of those scenes in an inconvenient truth of ice caps melting are from the day after tomorrow. That that man won the Nobel peace prize, it is empty for me........

[Sarmatian]

Caring about environment isn't a bad idea. Just because there is no consensus among scientists about what's really happening doesn't mean we should pump as much CO2 in the atmosphere, leave plastic waste in forests and dump oil into the ocean.

We're rich enough to afford spending some money on environment.

I'm no expert on the issue but according to my knowledge, there have been significant variations in temperature in some periods even during recorded history.

[Centurion1]

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

[Rhyfelwyr]

i agree of course that environmental change is needed, i just do not think we are going to single-handedly destroy the earth and melt all the ice. simply humans unable to accept that the world doesn't need us to survive or destroy itself (not that that is going to happen)

I never really understood that argument. My geography teacher used to always say it was arrogant of ourselves to think we could destroy the planet.

However, the thing is, we're not going to destroy it, but even a relatively small change in climatic conditions on the surface could leave us unable to inhabit it.

It won't make a big difference to the earth as a planet, but to us as a species it could.

[Ironside]

Well I have been dead since 2000, acid rain finally did it.

these silly apocalyptoloco's.

Don't you recall that tiny matter of acid rain being reduced due to heavy regulation and is still requireing calcinations of lakes and causes the destruction of lime stone, that was mentioned last time you brought the subject up?

Those side product streams of sulphuric acid isn't sold for profit you know.

Anyway cutting it fairly short.

Since oil depence is going to be needing a replacement fairly soon (the peak oil of cheap oil has already passed), a process that is going to take decades, would it be more prudent to start focusing on a replacement now instead of when the gasonline prices are cheap when they're twice as high as now? That this coincides with CO2 reductions and gives time to see the effects, instead of doing nothing, is just a boon. And in best case scenario, no man made increase in temperature. In worst, we have a developed system to counter it, without being forced to shut down the industry.

As for uncertain old data. Tree lines growing higher, melting polar ice, most glaciers shrinking, shorter winters and crops being able to grow further north are more physical signs of it becoming warmer. To add that it has been warmer before and that a warmer climate might actually support more biomass (exception is the sea and its critical 4 degree C zone), but a incread temperature means a weather shift. That in turns affect rainfall patterns that in turn affect agriculture negativly until proper adaption is done. Rapid changes makes it hard to adapt. That's not counting increasing water levels.

About uncertain models, in weather there's a difference between full accuracy and general trends that are much easier to predict. For example will 2010 be a warm year due to an El Nino forming. Warmer than this year for example (that will be a warm year).

[Aemilius Paulus]

The problem is how this unproven THEORY is being used to indoctrinate children into eco-freaks and how in us schools at least it is treated as scientific dogma.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Sorry, you made a valid point, but in an exceedingly and humorously hypocritical manner. Remember, a theory is something that has been observed countless times, something that is backed up by immense amounts of data and general scientific consensus.

A theory is a couple of steps away from a natural law. The only distinction between a theory and a law is generally the fact that a law must be capable of being observed directly. If something is not capable of that, then it must forever remain branded as "theory" until it is observed directly.

Thus, to call something in science an "unproven theory" is no different from saying "pleasurable torture" or 'harmonious annoyance". Do not mix the popular definition of the noun "theory" with the proper scientific one. Otherwise you just made a serious miscalculation. Such as those people who dismiss evolution on the grounds "it is just a theory - the evolutionists themselves say so". How false. Evolution on a large scale has not been well-observed, but no serious scientist doubts for even a nanosecond the validity of the "theory" of evolution. A scientist regards a theory as equal to fact for all practical purposes.

Thus, the global warming is a hypothesis, meaning someone came up with a suggestion, a wild idea, it was already brought up in a community of scientists, then thoroughly researched, and only after that was a hypothesis formed, or a very well-educated guess. Now we are in the long period of experimentation, in hopes of proving or disproving the hypothesis. However, let no one tell you global warming is a "theory". No, it is a long way from that.

[Centurion1]

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.

Of course thank you for your correction, you are indeed right.

Most importantly my point got across

[Aemilius Paulus]

i understand the difference between a theory and law. I was typing this really quickly as i often do and wasn't really thinking. I do not have the luxury of time today to type long well thought out papers.
Ahh, I see :beam:. Good thing you do know. Most do not.

[Centurion1]

Sorry i was at school.


You do no AP that while you and i may not consider it a theory, many people do. I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sorry i was at school.
So was I, at the Uni library :yes:, when I posted then.


I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.
:skull:
Well, I have long lost the last vestiges of respect I had for those news corporations... Every day I see Internet videos highlighting the latest blunders. Especially CNN and Fox. I have never seen MSNBC. As a matter of fact, I never actually saw any of the news channels on the telly - I was just watching Internet videos of their farce.

[Centurion1]

Lol but i was in a class, supposed to be taking a political compass quiz for ap government (i thought it foolish to do what i have already done, twice....)

Nah MSNBC is simply the far left of the three with cnn sort of middle but leaning more towards left. and fox the only right wing network. Seen all together you get the full picture.....

and the worst part about this was one. The man had a phd and two the news anchor just nodded their head and said so true.

[Furunculus]

Data collection from the 1800’s is not good. Data collection from right now is not much better. Who observed it? How was it collected? If the data is off by a few tenths of a degree, then there might be no increase in mean temperature at all. Besides, maybe the “mean temperature of the world” went down two hundred years ago or two thousand. The temperature of the world is a moving target. It’s bad science to intentionally show data that only supports your conclusion.


the data is about to get a whole lot better; they are in the process of recovering the archive of 350 years of royal navy ships logs.

300 plus datapoints that involve worldwide scientific measurements three times a day for the previous three centuries!

[Agent Miles]

Not really and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the excellent men of the Royal Navy. However, the sailors who collected this data 350 years ago were expert meteorologists and went to exacting lengths to be absolutely precise in their measurements and had equipment that was above reproach, right? You see, if you ask an average person how long a given meter stick is, they will naturally answer that it is one meter long. A scientist will break out the laser and give you a response like “one meter plus or minus .1 mm”, or something like that. It’s the inexactness of ancient measuring devices and the level of experience of the person measuring that come into play in arriving at a scientific result. If the mean temperature of the world went up one degree, give or take one degree due to slipshod methods, then you can see that the results are worthless, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).

[Fragony]

Don't you recall that tiny matter of acid rain being reduced due to heavy regulation and is still requireing calcinations of lakes and causes the destruction of lime stone, that was mentioned last time you brought the subject up?


I do remember that it were in fact bugs that caused trees to lose leaves. I remember the hysteria, the doomsday scenario's, having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about acid rain?' OMG DEAD LAKES

but that was then and things have changed.

Now we see hysteria, doomsday scenario's, kids being dragged to the cinema to watch Al Gore's lies, kids having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about global warming?' SAVE THE POLAR BEARS

flyingspagettimonsterlolclever

[Louis VI the Fat]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

Go geo-engineering! If CO2 is a problem, then remove it from the atmosphere and store it underground, back to where it came before it was burned as fossilised fuel. If warming is a problem, than cool the planet. Far more efficient than bankrupting the economy because alarmists fear the wrath of nature for man's sins.


As much as Caldeira disliked the concept, his model backed up Wood’s claims that geoengineering could stabilise the climate even in the face of a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide — and he wrote a paper saying so. Caldeira, the most reluctant geoengineer imaginable, became a convert — willing, at least, to explore the idea.

Which is how it comes to pass that Caldeira, Wood and Myhrvold are huddled together in the former Harley-Davidson repair shop showing off their scheme to stop global warming.
IT wasn’t just the cooling potential of stratospheric sulphur dioxide that surprised Caldeira. It was how little was needed to do the job: about 34 gallons per minute, not much more than the amount of water that comes out of a heavy-duty garden hose.

Warming is largely a polar phenomenon, which means that high latitude areas are four times more sensitive to climate change than the equator. By IV’s estimations, 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year would effectively reverse warming in the high Arctic and reduce it in much of the northern hemisphere.

[...]

IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.

Nicholas Stern, the economist who prepared an encyclopedic report on global warming for the British government, suggested we spend 1.5% of global GDP each year — that would be a $1.2 trillion bill today — to attack the problem.

By comparison, IV’s idea is practically free. It would cost $50m less to stop global warming than Gore’s foundation is paying just to increase public awareness about global warming.
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.

In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.

[Beskar]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

Go geo-engineering! If CO2 is a problem, then remove it from the atmosphere and store it underground, back to where it came before it was burned as fossilised fuel. If warming is a problem, than cool the planet. Far more efficient than bankrupting the economy because alarmists fear the wrath of nature for man's sins.


[spoil] As much as Caldeira disliked the concept, his model backed up Wood’s claims that geoengineering could stabilise the climate even in the face of a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide — and he wrote a paper saying so. Caldeira, the most reluctant geoengineer imaginable, became a convert — willing, at least, to explore the idea.

Which is how it comes to pass that Caldeira, Wood and Myhrvold are huddled together in the former Harley-Davidson repair shop showing off their scheme to stop global warming.
IT wasn’t just the cooling potential of stratospheric sulphur dioxide that surprised Caldeira. It was how little was needed to do the job: about 34 gallons per minute, not much more than the amount of water that comes out of a heavy-duty garden hose.

Warming is largely a polar phenomenon, which means that high latitude areas are four times more sensitive to climate change than the equator. By IV’s estimations, 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year would effectively reverse warming in the high Arctic and reduce it in much of the northern hemisphere.

[...]

IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.

Nicholas Stern, the economist who prepared an encyclopedic report on global warming for the British government, suggested we spend 1.5% of global GDP each year — that would be a $1.2 trillion bill today — to attack the problem.

By comparison, IV’s idea is practically free. It would cost $50m less to stop global warming than Gore’s foundation is paying just to increase public awareness about global warming.
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.

In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.

That sounds really awesome.

[Furunculus]

aha, a useful solution that won't bankrupt the western world to no useful effect.

at this rate there is a chance that copenhagen might produce a sensible result rather than the epic retardation that was kyoto.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is built on the fallacious assumption that global warming would be a constant trend. It is not.


Right. Global warming fears were born in 1994. Since then NO year has beaten the highs of 1994.

When you stat developing trends, I'm pretty sure there needs to be a trend.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece

.[/spoil]


I don't believe in Human driven climate change, but 250 million is such a short price tag that I would support it just for kicks. And to shut people up about the issue.

[Beskar]

I was tempted to send it to the Eco-stormtroopers on University campus, just to frill their feathers. I think we have one of the only Green led councils in Britain.

[Vladimir]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.

[Fragony]

In 100 years global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees celcius, measured with 100 year old equipment. No serious scientist would ever take that seriously if this wasn't all fear and piety. Apocalyptoloco's, every generation has them, they need the notion that everything is going to hell, clever businessmen like Al Gore feed on their fear and grow fat. It's always good business to feed on fear.

Famous quote from Dutch Bishop to a feudal lord: 'Ýou keep them poor, I'll keep them stupid'.

[rory_20_uk]

Famous quote from Dutch Bishop to a feudal lord: 'Ýou keep them poor, I'll keep them stupid'.

:inquisitive:

I thought that was Blair to Brown...

~:smoking:

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.

I think he has a point.

This type of thing has happened before, although not in such a big way.

For instance, California's massive wildfires this year were in part attributed to the way that they have instantly extinguished fires in the past.

This meant that the forests never burned, which meant that the natural "cleaning" process never took place, which meant that lots of debris gathered on the forest floor, which built up kindling until they weren't able to stop the fires any more because they grew so fast!

I think perhaps that the unintended consequences of playing with nature on that scale may be very dangerous.

But then I'm no nobel-laureate expert. :D

[Furunculus]

nobel laureates are a devalued currency at present.

[drone]

Releasing large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is exactly what volcanoes do in large eruptions. So, like I said before:

And all this work and fuss will mean nothing the next time some random volcano in the Pacific Rim blows it's top and spews enough ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the planet down by a couple of degrees.

Of course, the downside of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is acid rain, but beggars can't be choosy. :beam:

[Vladimir]

Of course, the downside of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is acid rain, but beggars can't be choosy. :beam:

Exactly! You can't make this dumb :daisy: up. Who would of thought of polluting the upper atmosphere with this stuff 20 years ago?

[Xiahou]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.I think an ice age might lead to some crop failures too. Probably a few more than warming would, actually. :yes;

According to new polling (http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming) less people think there is strong evidence of warming and just over a third think any warming is man-made. Also, people who think it a serious problem have dropped by 9%, with people who think it's no problem at all gaining 6%.

[Fragony]

Good thing for these lemmings that there's an ice age is comming up, they can be absolutely terrified again. How are you going to educate your parents about the ice age? AND DON'T YOU BUY THAT.

forgive me Gaia for I have consumed, god help us all.

[Furunculus]

Global Fools Day:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/30/climate_fools_day/

[Fragony]

Hehe oh really http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-nicholson-climate-change-belief

Kudo´s for this secular judge

[Furunculus]

oh god, yet more evidence that CO2 isn't having the impact it has been accused of previously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

does this mean that computer models predicting catastrophic climate change could be wrong, or that spending trillions controlling anthropogenic CO2 would be a complete waste of money.............................?

[Beskar]

oh god, yet more evidence that CO2 isn't having the impact it has been accused of previously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

does this mean that computer models predicting catastrophic climate change could be wrong, or that spending trillions controlling anthropogenic CO2 would be a complete waste of money.............................?

It will take them twenty years of todays computer processing to accurately forecast the weather in twenty years time.

Make of that as you will.

[Fragony]

I personally feel the earth warming up is a factor of great importance in the CO2 and consequent global warming debate, but earth isn't warming up, so what are we talking about. Common carrotmunchers you have been hoaxed and you fell for it, no shame in that they are good at it.

fear this :balloon2:

[Beskar]

Actually, being honest, there are many issues which are important which is getting thrown under the "Global Warming".

It is as if Global Warming became the bandwagon to actually start doing things we need to be doing. We are running out of resources such as oil, there are land-fill problems, there is excess energy demand and we need more efficiency, etc. We should be recycling and other things.

All these things came under the Global Warming bandwagon to actually get people doing things, because in short, they are dumb and need a bandwagon to do it.

[Vladimir]

It’s not because people are stupid but that people usually get to a point where they’re comfortable and don’t advance much if not forced. Compare the development of Western Europe to that of China. Oddly enough those two directly relate to this modern problem.

[Agent Miles]

Exactly, Global Warming is an issue, not a science. Here are the real issues.

Except for the material in the space probes, all of the resources that were on the Earth for the last 4.7 billion years are still right here and we have used very little of them. All of the iron, copper, lead etc. that was ever here are still somewhere on Earth. The cheap, easy to mine resources are being used up, but that doesn’t mean that future generations will look back on our time with envy. Salt was once a resource that men killed for, now we have the technology to manufacture it by the ton.

Likewise, the carbon atoms in the oil are not destroyed and the energy it releases when burned can be gained from other chemicals, which the carbon from the oil becomes after it rains back on to the Earth. We didn’t have a shortage of lamp oil in the 1800’s, we just invented electric lights. There are plenty of ways to power our civilization; oil is just the cheapest way at present. If oil were 500 USD per barrel, then something else would displace it. We haven’t switched to that something else, because we still have relatively cheap oil and OPEC knows there is a limit to what they can demand.

People who want to spend the next 20, 50 or 100 years conserving supposedly meager resources, limiting growth and inventing technologies to do this ignore the fact that in the next 20, 50 and 100 years technologies that are currently under development (fusion power, smart materials, carbon nanotubes) can continue to permit growth and expansion of resource use. We have to choose which technologies, and issues, to pursue.

Recycling isn’t a good idea if it costs more to do than it is worth. Jobs in recycling are not good for the economy if they don’t pay for themselves and subsidizing them just makes this worse. Wind and solar power supplement the conventional power grid, but they do nothing when the wind is not blowing or the sun has set. For that you need a steady production of power. The U.S. has built over a hundred nuclear power units since the Three Mile Island incident that have worked just fine. However, none of them provided one single watt to the commercial grid because they were on submarines and aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy. If we had a thousand commercial nuclear power plants instead of a hundred, we wouldn’t need any other energy source and we wouldn’t contribute to Global Warming.

Some people aren’t dumb.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Your post, Agent Miles, has a lorry-load of inaccuracies as well as frightening generalisations that any scientists will ardently debate and that I myself lack the time to address. However, your overall spirit may be correct IMO. Oh well...

[Megas Methuselah]

I'm not sure who to beilive. But I live 800 miles inland so it doesn't matter.

Right on, brotha! A little more sun this far north can only be a good thing.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Actually, being honest, there are many issues which are important which is getting thrown under the "Global Warming".

It is as if Global Warming became the bandwagon to actually start doing things we need to be doing. We are running out of resources such as oil, there are land-fill problems, there is excess energy demand and we need more efficiency, etc. We should be recycling and other things.

All these things came under the Global Warming bandwagon to actually get people doing things, because in short, they are dumb and need a bandwagon to do it.Arr...a man to me heart. :pirate:

(But not because people are dumb. People need mobilisation, an overarching term, a name andf a narative.
The trouble is, just like the term 'War on Teror', that people mistake the rousing term for the reality. And that everything below the overarching term is made subordinate to this term, rather than the term trying to encompass the manifold reality. In effect, putting the relationship between words and reality upside down.
(Meh, I find myself distinclty lacking in semantic clarity lately :shame: )

[Strike For The South]

Does anyone here even have the credentials to debate these science topics?

We like to fancy ourselves as learned but I pretty sure we don't know jack diddly when it comes to the subtle nuances of these things.

Really I don't think we should listen to anyone whom doesn't has at least a masters, a peer reveiwed study, and a scraggly beard.

[Beskar]

Really I don't think we should listen to anyone whom doesn't has at least a masters, a peer reveiwed study, and a scraggly beard.

Currently during a masters, already have my BSc. It's not in biology. I just shaved 10 minutes ago, so no scraggly beard.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does anyone here even have the credentials to debate these science topics?

We like to fancy ourselves as learned but I pretty sure we don't know jack diddly when it comes to the subtle nuances of these things.

Really I don't think we should listen to anyone whom doesn't has at least a masters, a peer reveiwed study, and a scraggly beard.

These are pretty much exactly my sentiments on the global warming issue. It's not like I'm qualified to form my own opinion on it, so it's just a case of who I believe. And I've no idea who I should, especially when the science on the topic is so blurred along left-right lines.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Does anyone here even have the credentials to debate these science topics?

That is a splendid point, but you have to be the twentieth person who had said this already in this thread. I said it too, in a few posts :juggle2:.

[Strike For The South]

Currently during a masters, already have my BSc. It's not in biology. I just shaved 10 minutes ago, so no scraggly beard.

I wasn't calling you or anyone else out I'm just saying this is a big intircate issue wrapped in vested interests.

[Beskar]

I wasn't calling you or anyone else out I'm just saying this is a big intircate issue wrapped in vested interests.

It's fine, I was jokingly replying. But you are correct, the number 1 issue is vested interests.

A quick mention to Agent Miles:

You statements are partially correct, but very inaccurate. It might be a case there are millions of tonnes of resources, the number one issue is actually getting to them. The thing with miles, they dig in high concentration spots to retrieve the resources and these mines are not unlimited, nor are they all accessible. Britain for incidence was known for its high concentrations of Tin. Could the Romans gone elsewhere for Tin? Yes, but Britain had the highest concentrations with it highly accessible, thus it was far easier and cheaper to get it here than elsewhere. Think about how Maggie Thatcher closed the Coal Mines. We still had plenty of coal, but the thing is, it wasn't affordable to actually get at the resource in some of the pits, compared to getting it elsewhere. So your blanket statement is true that there is a lot of resources about, however, it is very inaccurate in the practicability of retrieving those resources.

Also in cases such as aluminium, it is actually far cheaper to recycle it, opposed to getting it from new.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Does anyone here even have the credentials to debate these science topics? No, none of these bloody amateurs here have a clue what they are talking about. Most annoying.
You shall need to listen to me, and to me only. Me, I've got a master in Climate Studies. And a Ph.D in heat transmission in oceanic waves. And I hold a chair in Paris I in Geology, and another chair at Oxford in Sustainable Economics and


Edit: oh, and you already know which parts of me are shaven and which are not.

[Furunculus]

Does anyone here even have the credentials to debate these science topics?

We like to fancy ourselves as learned but I pretty sure we don't know jack diddly when it comes to the subtle nuances of these things.

Really I don't think we should listen to anyone whom doesn't has at least a masters, a peer reveiwed study, and a scraggly beard.

i have a BSc in Geology, and a MSc in Business.

sadly i have no peer reviewed study or beard, (which is more important than you might believe as all serious Geologists have beards).

[Furunculus]

re my previous comment regarding climate data from the royal navy:

accurate climate data prior to Hadley?
http://www.corral.org.uk/

by 1684 was a professionally trained force with access to temperature instrumentation standardised by the royal society twenty years previously.

east anglia university takes it seriously enough:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e76867q12842270m/

though corral are using data from 1760 onwards with results due early 2010:
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/06oct09.pdf

and data to be found here:
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/corral/index.html

[Agent Miles]

Aemilius Paulus-It is a total generalization to post that what I have said is inaccurate or frightening, without any specifics or counter statements. You had the time to articulate a comment, but not enough to articulate an argument in support of your comment. It’s been five days.

Beskar-All of the oil we now pump out of the ocean floor was too expensive to extract…in the past. Every resource comes with a price tag and always has. I am pointing out that all of the resources that ever were here are still here, so we are not running out of resources. As the cheap, easy to extract resources are used up, we will invent technologies to get to the other resources, just as we have done in the past. Do you find this statement also to be in any way inaccurate?

Just to be accurate, aluminum cans can be recycled for a profit, but not items that have aluminum intermixed with other metals. Also, recycling aluminum repeatedly decreases its quality. Sorting is time consuming and most often the personal cost in time and effort to the individual is not factored into the overall cost of recycling.

We are told that technological advances will make recycling, wind and solar power work, but somehow similar technological advances that will make alternatives just as workable and safe should be ignored as unthinkable. We won’t run out of resources or energy as long as we explore all ideas. Science isn’t voodoo that only the witch doctors of any given sect can comprehend. Anyone who tells you that they alone have the ability to comprehend a solution is a con artist, not a scientist.

[gaelic cowboy]

Beskar-All of the oil we now pump out of the ocean floor was too expensive to extract…in the past. Every resource comes with a price tag and always has. I am pointing out that all of the resources that ever were here are still here, so we are not running out of resources. As the cheap, easy to extract resources are used up, we will invent technologies to get to the other resources, just as we have done in the past. Do you find this statement also to be in any way inaccurate?

There come's a point when the energy needed to extract any material is greater than the benefit of the material in question at this point no matter if its oil or gas if it take's more than a barrel to get a barrel out than any industry even the oil industry is over.



We are told that technological advances will make recycling, wind and solar power work, but somehow similar technological advances that will make alternatives just as workable and safe should be ignored as unthinkable. We won’t run out of resources or energy as long as we explore all ideas. Science isn’t voodoo that only the witch doctors of any given sect can comprehend. Anyone who tells you that they alone have the ability to comprehend a solution is a con artist, not a scientist.

We can easily run out of resources because the earth is a sphere and all sphere's are finite consequently all the resources inside the sphere are finite even wind and solar energy.

While saying solar energy is finite is technically not incorrect the real limit is the fact we can only harvest the amount we get on earth at the moment on its surface. Fanciful notions of harvesting space resources are just that fanciful the huge amount of energy required for orbit would be prohibitive in giving us resources we could meaningfully use.

[gaelic cowboy]

In 100 years global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees celcius, measured with 100 year old equipment.

I think you will find that 0.6 degrees is a lot when you take something as large as the Atlantic ocean or planet earth

[Aemilius Paulus]

I think you will find that 0.6 degrees is a lot when you take something as large as the Atlantic ocean or planet earth
Heh, do not worry about Fragony. He is a good ol' loyal chap. Jest stickin' to the party line. Ain't that right, Frag?

I would honestly be surprised if he dared to push the border separating far-right and centre-right at least on a single issue. He is at the former place of course...

But yes, you are correct. Even a half a degree change is rather drastic, considering it is a century average. Also, the global temperature can be measured by modern equipment through the analysis of ice cores. Quite reliable.



Look, I know the statistics are difficult to trust, Frag, and most, if not all conservatives loathe as well as distrust anyone of higher intelligence than them (e.g. scientists, professors, other "intellectuals"), but how does the near-melted Arctic fit in the puzzle of "there is no such thing as the global warming"? After all, when was the last time the Arctic melted so much? Palaeogene? Cretaceous? And seriously, by now, most Young-Earth, creationist, Southern Baptist fundamentalist (my parents go there - the church is not fundamentalist, but the people are) rednecks in my city (Pensacola) accept the fact that global warming is real. Now, they deny it is caused by humans, but I give them credit for their indeed commendable improvement.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Screw graphs, they don't show anything tangible.

However, this does: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Global warming *is* happening.


People being able to farm in greenland sounds like a good thing :beam:

A lot of the polluting is being done by india and china as they industrialize right? Now show me a climate scientist who can say whether the increased quality of life that has resulted from that is worth the resulting pollution/global warming.

Having climate scientists make policy recommendations is like having neuroscientists counsel the mentally ill.

Most of the left would rather argue that global warming is occuring than about whether cash for clunkers was the best use of the money as far as reducing global warming it seems.

I don't mind the feel good stuff the green movement does, although the moralizing can be annoying. I guess I have faith in technological progress and the fact that enough smart people are working on it.

[Furunculus]

Look, I know the statistics are difficult to trust, Frag, and most, if not all conservatives loathe as well as distrust anyone of higher intelligence than them (e.g. scientists, professors, other "intellectuals"), but how does the near-melted Arctic fit in the puzzle of "there is no such thing as the global warming"? After all, when was the last time the Arctic melted so much? Palaeogene? Cretaceous? And seriously, by now, most Young-Earth, creationist, Southern Baptist fundamentalist (my parents go there - the church is not fundamentalist, but the people are) rednecks in my city (Pensacola) accept the fact that global warming is real. Now, they deny it is caused by humans, but I give them credit for their indeed commendable improvement.

What a thoroughly worthless statement.

How completely trivial and demeaning.

An utterly inaccurate and baseless ad-hominen attack.

If I was in the habit of reporting posts, (which i have never done in six years here), I would report this for: sheer. rank. stupidity!

GaFL

[Furunculus]

an another note, here a glorious write up of some of the more revealing emails hacked from HadCRU:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

[Fragony]

Good, and now feel silly that's the least you can do.

[Vuk]

No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.

The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding (http://climatechange.110mb.com/nations-iron-seeding-oceans.htm) and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event).

The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.

AP, I find myself agreeing with you for the first time since you/I joined this forum. :bow: I don't think that 'global warming' is an issue either. Personally (As someone living in WI), I wouldn't really mind if it was a few degrees warmer. ~;)
(See, I knew you could not have been that bad of a bloke. ~;))

EDIT: This is interesting. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2Wy9199EuA&NR=1)

[Aemilius Paulus]

What a thoroughly worthless statement.

How completely trivial and demeaning.

An utterly inaccurate and baseless ad-hominen attack.

If I was in the habit of reporting posts, (which i have never done in six years here), I would report this for: sheer. rank. stupidity!

GaFL
It was not ad-hominem. I was criticising conservatives. You have to admit, most conservatives harbour a healthy amount of distrust for intellectuals. Why? Perhaps because a great deal of intellectuals are liberal. But surely their science is at least somewaht accurate. And is it a coincidence that so many intellectuals are liberal? Who knows, but you cannot entirely discount me, although it is quite apparent that my post was not entirely serious.

And was it really necessary to bold it all :clown:.

Gah, I miss Tribesman. Alright, he should have toned down his personal attacks, but you have to agree, balance is a precious thing. Both Frag and Tribsey must remain in the Backroom, otherwise the equilibrium is in shambles.


AP, I find myself agreeing with you for the first time since you/I joined this forum. I don't think that 'global warming' is an issue either. Personally (As someone living in WI), I wouldn't really mind if it was a few degrees warmer.
(See, I knew you could not have been that bad of a bloke. )
Well, that is nice to know :yes:. But I could swear my disagreements with you are only recent, mostly when religion comes in the debate.

[Vuk]

It was not ad-hominem. I was criticising conservatives. You have to admit, most conservatives harbour a healthy amount of distrust for intellectuals. Why? Perhaps because a great deal of intellectuals are liberal. But surely their science is at least somewaht accurate. And is it a coincidence that so many intellectuals are liberal? Who knows, but you cannot entirely discount me, although it is quite apparent that my post was not entirely serious.

And was it really necessary to bold it all :clown:.

Gah, I miss Tribesman. Alright, he should have toned down his personal attacks, but you have to agree, balance is a precious thing. Both Frag and Tribsey must remain in the Backroom, otherwise the equilibrium is in shambles.


Well, that is nice to know :yes:. But I could swear my disagreements with you are only recent, mostly when religion comes in the debate.

lol, didn't say I didn't like you, just that we never really agree. ~;)
I gotta agree that what you said about conservatives is extremely untrue. Yeah, I have met pea brained conservatives who do not care about science, fact, reason, or argument, but I have met at least as many liberals like that (many of them at college no less!). And BTW, a degree does not make you more intelligent than anyone. I have had some of the most mud-dumb professors you can imagine. Even my high-level history courses a baby could do with their eyes closed. A lot of conservative dislike many professors and intellectuals because they think the degree does make them smarter than other people (and I am sorry, a degree boosts neither the size of your intellect or any other asset...despite what many intellectuals think), and they use their position and authority to push their personal beliefs as fact. And seriously AP, so many of the truly are just so mud-dumb it is laughable. I don't agree with you on hardly a thing, I think you do not think through things well some times, etc; you know that. Still though, you know more, and are more intelligent I think than 90% of the professors I have had. I am one of those evil conservatives who do not have a high opinion of most professors (nothing against the profession). I have met some great ones (and brilliant ones). Some of them could not be more ideologically opposed to me, but they are good, smart people who do their best to teach their students and advance learning. I have great respect for good professors like that, no matter what their views are. Unfortunately they are few and far between. Most professors I know just use their position to push a point of view, and quite frankly, half of them are about as reasoning as the average junior high student!

And you ask is it a coincidence that most intellectuals are liberals? hhmmm...considering that majority of people attending college still come from the upper and upper-middle class, and that most people teaching them are trying to push a liberal point of view, nah, I do not think it is a coincidence. You know what I think is sad? The few conservative professors I know completely keep their ideology out of teaching (as they should), but almost all the liberals belittle conservatism when they can, and push their liberal point of view. Seriously, a lot of professors try to make you feel stupid if you are a conservative. No wonder parents worry about their kids being brainwashed. You still wonder why there is an imbalance?

[Furunculus]

You have to admit, most conservatives harbour a healthy amount of distrust for intellectuals. Why? Perhaps because a great deal of intellectuals are liberal. But surely their science is at least somewaht accurate. And is it a coincidence that so many intellectuals are liberal? Who knows, but you cannot entirely discount me, although it is quite apparent that my post was not entirely serious.

And was it really necessary to bold it all :clown:.

Gah, I miss Tribesman. Alright, he should have toned down his personal attacks, but you have to agree, balance is a precious thing. Both Frag and Tribsey must remain in the Backroom, otherwise the equilibrium is in shambles.


I disagree. I do not distrust intellectuals per-se, tho i admit to a healthy dose of benign contempt so social-science intellectuals who are always trying to engineer society into what they see as a better model. But i do entirely disagree with your notion that I distrust intellectuals as a broad sweep, perhaps because I am a UK Conservative (by inclination rather than affiliation) rather than a US conservative.

Yes, it was a stupid statement.

I am dimly aware of Tribemans ban-worthy tantrum, but it is not something I have ever followed with interest because the whole warning points system is something i have no interest in employing.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I gotta agree that what you said about conservatives is extremely untrue.
I am not subtle. There are bound to be inaccuracies. Yes, I will concede to your point.


Yeah, I have met pea brained conservatives who do not care about science, fact, reason, or argument,
Religion helps a lot, eh? :P Not that all religious people are like that, but more often than not, those people you described are religious


but I have met at least as many liberals like that (many of them at college no less!).
I agree, stupid people are everywhere. Everyone lacks something. But a college degree is a college degree. The person may have been 'stupid', but at the very least they passed college. Michael Moore is no less crazy than Limbaugh, but to call him 'stupid' is a bit inaccurate. Mr. Moore could have had good education. He may be intelligent in those subjects. But his world view is skewed as hell, and he is blind because of it. He is not wise. As much as I hate it, there is a difference between wisdom and overall intelligence. Your post confuses both, and that is my main objection.


And BTW, a degree does not make you more intelligent than anyone. I have had some of the most mud-dumb professors you can imagine. Even my high-level history courses a baby could do with their eyes closed.
Look, I share your sentiment, and it is certainly accurate, but the problem is that you cannot simply ignore ever societal convention. Any degree-holding person is on average smarter than a non-degree holder. You have to go through college to get the degree. They had to work their :daisy: at least once. Few colleges/universities are easy. Most are not (unless it is a community college). Exceptions lie on both sides, but in general, a degree is a degree. One cannot ignore that. This is what I dislike in conservatives.


A lot of conservative dislike many professors and intellectuals because they think the degree does make them smarter than other people (and I am sorry, a degree boosts neither the size of your intellect or any other asset...despite what many intellectuals think)
Again, you are but reinforcing my negative stereotype of conservatives. You cannot discount something like that. It is almost always impossible to go through college and not become at least a bit smarter. The system is flawed, but it works. If what you said was true, then we would have done away with education aeons ago.


and they use their position and authority to push their personal beliefs as fact.
I absolutely, 100% agree with that. Very few professors are neutral. But so what? Everyone has an opinion. Everyone pushes their point of view. Why do you think a conservative is a conservative? because he/she is quiet for their entire life? Of course not.


And seriously AP, so many of the truly are just so mud-dumb it is laughable.
Disagree. All of my professors are highly competent, even though I am dual enrolled in a medium-quality local university for a year, before I graduate from my HS. Some of the profs hold strong opinions that slant their world-view, just as a far-right individual, but that does not make them any less intelligent. Just not wise. And closed-minded to a certain degree. Still, any liberal is by default is more open minded, although not in politics, for sure.




I don't agree with you on hardly a thing, I think you do not think through things well some times, etc; you know that.
Indeed, I do know that. Just as the story with me and generalisations goes. But who here actually thinks through things well? Most simply stick to their point of view. While you have to give me credit for entering the Backroom as a conservative and morphing into first a moderate and then a liberal. At least I am not stuck on the same point.

If the Republicans abandon their religious ties to the South, then I will seriously consider voting for them. So far, they have not. I still like McCain as well, as his unwillingness to stick to a partisan mould was a splendid quality. At the same time, I found Obama looking at both sides in a rational manner more than any other politician. Audacity of Hope is a quite marvellous book, once you get past the sickly-compromising beginning. At least Obama tries. Other than McCain, I have not seen any conservative do the same.



Still though, you know more, and are more intelligent I think than 90% of the professors I have had.
I admire your willingness to patronise to persuade a person to concede on a point, as I often do that too, but in fact, I disagree. We are not more intelligent. Not at all. Not even a fraction. I can however, say with great conviction that both of us have overinflated egos :tongue::sweatdrop:.


I have great respect for good professors like that, no matter what their views are.
You may superficially respect them, but your post was deeply insulting to their profession, no matter what you say now. I think that religion is a joke, but I found all of my past pastors highly intelligent - just skewed, as most professors. I may detest what the pastors do, but I cannot argue with their credentials and intellect. The ones I met had plenty of both.




Unfortunately they are few and far between. Most professors I know just use their position to push a point of view, and quite frankly, half of them are about as reasoning as the average junior high student!
Yes, yes. That is your opinion, all I can say. Everyoen pushes positions, because everyone has positions, and everyone believes in those positions if they hold them. The universal truth.Let us not grow hypocritical.



The few conservative professors I know completely keep their ideology out of teaching (as they should), but almost all the liberals belittle conservatism when they can, and push their liberal point of view.
Lol, they keep it because they are in a hostile environment, and not because they are so fair and balanced (no pun intended) :laugh4:. Do not think I will swallow such an unfounded generalisation. There has never been anything made to support this. I can say "blacks are more often than not uneducated" (and I did once, only to get infracted for the exact same statement), but I can support my position with statistics, which no sane person disagrees with. It is no secret that in their poverty it is difficult to find good education, especially when they have little of it from their birth.



Seriously, a lot of professors try to make you feel stupid if you are a conservative. No wonder parents worry about their kids being brainwashed. You still wonder why there is an imbalance?
You seriously think an average church-going far-right conservative is more intelligent than an average far-left professor? I could swallow that the church-going conservative is wiser, but to say that professors are stupider than a you-know-who strikes me as amusingly, partisanly, inaccurate.






P.S. Hehe, please use paragraphs - do not make a poor liberal suffer more than he must :tongue::clown::laugh4:.







I disagree. I do not distrust intellectuals per-se, tho i admit to a healthy dose of benign contempt so social-science intellectuals who are always trying to engineer society into what they see as a better model. But i do entirely disagree with your notion that I distrust intellectuals as a broad sweep, perhaps because I am a UK Conservative (by inclination rather than affiliation) rather than a US conservative.

Well, we should not disagree that much, as I generally like or at least tolerate most of what the Tories push. The US Republicans are my problem. But what is wrong with the underlined part? Surely they know better than us. Your sentiment is a strikingly human one (I know, it is 'duh', but still, read on) as it is only natural to feel antagonistic towards persons of higher rank, especially when they meddle so much. But you think a liberal does not have to deal with that? I know the scientists are exponentially smarter than me, yet I accept their actions.

[Furunculus]

i admit to a healthy dose of benign contempt so social-science intellectuals who are always trying to engineer society into what they see as a better model.
what is wrong with the underlined part? Surely they know better than us. Your sentiment is a strikingly human one (I know, it is 'duh', but still, read on) as it is only natural to feel antagonistic towards persons of higher rank, especially when they meddle so much. But you think a liberal does not have to deal with that? I know the scientists are exponentially smarter than me, yet I accept their actions.
because 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.

[Vuk]

I am not subtle. There are bound to be inaccuracies. Yes, I will concede to your point.


Religion helps a lot, eh? :P Not that all religious people are like that, but more often than not, those people you described are religious

No, not really. Yeah, I have more dumb Christian conservatives than dumb non-Christian conservatives, but if anything, I think that is attributable to most people in the area being Christian. Where I study and most people aren't Christian though, there certainly aren't any less dumb people.


I agree, stupid people are everywhere. Everyone lacks something. But a college degree is a college degree. The person may have been 'stupid', but at the very least they passed college. Michael Moore is no less crazy than Limbaugh, but to call him 'stupid' is a bit inaccurate. Mr. Moore could have had good education. He may be intelligent in those subjects. But his world view is skewed as hell, and he is blind because of it. He is not wise. As much as I hate it, there is a difference between wisdom and overall intelligence. Your post confuses both, and that is my main objection.

I think we are having terminology issues here. There is a big difference between intelligence (your biological reasoning capacity), wisdom (your willingness to use it), and knowledge (Information stored in your brain, which by itself is useless). (or at least, that is the way I view it) College certainly increases most peoples knowledge, but it surely does not increase their intelligence, and by enforcing standard ways of thinking, I think often decreases people's wisdom.
And you are forgetting an important thing: There are ways to gain as much and far greater knowledge than college. Seriously, I was home-schooled and never did that well in math (though I made it through calculus) or English, and honestly did not do that well in History either. When I came to college and had to do placement tests, I tested out of having to do English, and tested into very high-level math classes. I have learned literally almost nothing at all from any of my History classes. With self-study I was able to learn more knowledge than most people I know in college, and did not have a professor telling me how to think, so I was free to make my own decisions.
A college degree only means that you have went through some college courses (most of which are an insult to your intelligence), gained some knowledge, and have become educated on the standardized ways of doing things. (and of course I am talking mostly about liberal arts and stuff, not most science and math) The average person could have learned a lot more studying by themselves on their own time and still not have a degree. And when the great college student graduates, they will have an abnormally aged liver and a trivial amount of real world knowledge, but think that they are so much smarter than everyone else.


Look, I share your sentiment, and it is certainly accurate, but the problem is that you cannot simply ignore ever societal convention. Any degree-holding person is on average smarter than a non-degree holder. You have to go through college to get the degree. They had to work their :daisy: at least once. Few colleges/universities are easy. Most are not (unless it is a community college). Exceptions lie on both sides, but in general, a degree is a degree. One cannot ignore that. This is what I dislike in conservatives.

I disagree that a degree holding person is smarter than a non-degree holding person. As I said, all a degree means is that you have went through a bunch of BS courses (which most people can go through doing minimal work, learning minimal amounts of knowledge, and then forgetting it in a year), have a bit more knowledge than before you went in, and a pretty big ego. And seriously, I have met a lot of people without degrees who are a lot smarter than most people I have met with them. Yeah, ambitious people (who are usually smarter) are drawn to degrees, so what you say is somewhat true for the younger generation, but it is not the merit of the degree, but the person. They go through the BS that is college so that they can succeed.

Again, you are but reinforcing my negative stereotype of conservatives. You cannot discount something like that. It is almost always impossible to go through college and not become at least a bit smarter. The system is flawed, but it works. If what you said was true, then we would have done away with education aeons ago.

It works...but not how it is supposed to. Yeah, you are right, they learn a bit, but that does not make them more intelligent. And they could have learned much more if they studied by themselves. Still though, knowledge does not reflect intelligence. Going through college does not make them any smarter. It gives them more data that they won't be able to correctly process. It is better to have less data and be able to process it correctly, and even better to have more and be able to process it correctly.

I absolutely, 100% agree with that. Very few professors are neutral. But so what? Everyone has an opinion. Everyone pushes their point of view. Why do you think a conservative is a conservative? because he/she is quiet for their entire life? Of course not.

Yeah, everyone has an opinion and should be able to express it. When they equate their opinion with the absolute truth and teach kids that if they do not agree with them they are stupid though, that is a crime. That is brainwashing. That is what most professors I know are guilty of. That is why conservatives dislike professors. Yeah, it is a stereotype, so what? It does not make it any less true.

Disagree. All of my professors are highly competent, even though I am dual enrolled in a medium-quality local university for a year, before I graduate from my HS. Some of the profs hold strong opinions that slant their world-view, just as a far-right individual, but that does not make them any less intelligent. Just not wise. And closed-minded to a certain degree. Still, any liberal is by default is more open minded, although not in politics, for sure.


Yeah, professors are usually very knowledgable, but most I have met are not incredibly intelligent. (Some not even a bit :P) As far as a liberal being more open minded, I think individual people are open minded or not, and that it has nothing to do with their political opinions. I think that saying conservatives are more likely to be closed minded is pretty closed minded in fact. :P


Indeed, I do know that. Just as the story with me and generalisations goes. But who here actually thinks through things well? Most simply stick to their point of view. While you have to give me credit for entering the Backroom as a conservative and morphing into first a moderate and then a liberal. At least I am not stuck on the same point.

I don't agree with you, but yeah, I can respect someone who is open minded. But hey, guess what, you were a conservative open minded enough to change his opinion! lol, like I said, it is about the person, not the affiliation.

If the Republicans abandon their religious ties to the South, then I will seriously consider voting for them. So far, they have not. I still like McCain as well, as his unwillingness to stick to a partisan mould was a splendid quality. At the same time, I found Obama looking at both sides in a rational manner more than any other politician. Audacity of Hope is a quite marvellous book, once you get past the sickly-compromising beginning. At least Obama tries. Other than McCain, I have not seen any conservative do the same.

I know that you really dislike religion, but I do not agree with you. Nor do I agree with McCain. I think he has no idea what he is doing. He really just comes across as having no idea about important issues, which is why he flips and flops so much. Being open minded is fine, but something is right or wrong. You gotta have someone who can fairly look at both sides and decide for himself, not someone who is pulled back and forth between the two.

I admire your willingness to patronise to persuade a person to concede on a point, as I often do that too, but in fact, I disagree. We are not more intelligent. Not at all. Not even a fraction. I can however, say with great conviction that both of us have overinflated egos :tongue::sweatdrop:.

Hardly a patronization, I was using you as a low standard. ~;) We have inflated egos? Yeah, I am sure of. I try to be humble, honestly, but always fall into the trap of thinking I know it all. To my credit though, if I find out I am wrong, at least I will change my opinion. And don't be to hard on yourself, everyone has an inflated ego, just some more than others.
And yeah, I have met some people in the liberal arts who are quite intelligent (some, I will admit quite a bit smarter than myself), but most people I know in the liberal arts are quite a bit below average intelligence (or at least are just not willing to think). When I was going in for CIS, a lot of the people I met were extremely intelligent, but after I switched from science to the humanities, my opinion of the average type of person attracted to the humanities went down incredibly. As I said though, I blame the professors. A lot of people do not want to think, or to work, or to do anything more than they have to. It is the professor's job to teach them TO think, and to make sure that they do.


You may superficially respect them, but your post was deeply insulting to their profession, no matter what you say now. I think that religion is a joke, but I found all of my past pastors highly intelligent - just skewed, as most professors. I may detest what the pastors do, but I cannot argue with their credentials and intellect. The ones I met had plenty of both.

No, you are wrong. I certainly do (and quite sincerely) respect them, just not majority of the people in their profession. In fact, I respect them even more for breaking the mold.


Yes, yes. That is your opinion, all I can say. Everyoen pushes positions, because everyone has positions, and everyone believes in those positions if they hold them. The universal truth.Let us not grow hypocritical.

I am not being hypocritical. I am going to be a professor of history in 5 years or so. When I am, I am not going to push my views on other people. Yeah I will have them, but I will have the integrity not to make other people feel stupid if they do not agree with me. There is nothing wrong with having or stating opinions. What is wrong (and in fact, intellectually criminal) is that they push them down people's throats and create a feeling of guilt for whoever does not agree with them.

Lol, they keep it because they are in a hostile environment, and not because they are so fair and balanced (no pun intended) :laugh4:. Do not think I will swallow such an unfounded generalisation. There has never been anything made to support this. I can say "blacks are more often than not uneducated" (and I did once, only to get infracted for the exact same statement), but I can support my position with statistics, which no sane person disagrees with. It is no secret that in their poverty it is difficult to find good education, especially when they have little of it from their birth.

I was speaking of my own experiences with liberal professors, as well as the experience of my family and some of my friends.

You seriously think an average church-going far-right conservative is more intelligent than an average far-left professor? I could swallow that the church-going conservative is wiser, but to say that professors are stupider than a you-know-who strikes me as amusingly, partisanly, inaccurate.


No, I did not say that. (and what does church going have to do with anything? Some of my professors got to church everyday) I have met some incredible intelligent people without degrees, and some incredibly intelligent people with 8 year degrees, but by the same token I have met a lot of mud dumb people without degrees, and a lot of mud dumb people with degrees. I am not saying that people with degrees are dumber, just that a degree does not make them smarter.



P.S. Hehe, please use paragraphs - do not make a poor liberal suffer more than the must :tongue::clown::laugh4:.
lol, I enjoy making them there liberals suffer. :beam:






Well, we should not disagree that much, as I generally like or at least tolerate most of what the Tories push. The US Republicans are my problem. But what is wrong with the underlined part? Surely they know better than us. Your sentiment is a strikingly human one (I know, it is 'duh', but still, read on) as it is only natural to feel antagonistic towards persons of higher rank, especially when they meddle so much. But you think a liberal does not have to deal with that? I know the scientists are exponentially smarter than me, yet I accept their actions.

Smarter? Not necessarily all of them. And even if they were, they are still human, subject to error (even grievous error), and history shows not above distorting the truth for money, position, or to push their own political agenda.
They are not a level better than the common person, and even always smarter, they just have a different profession and the knowledge and training that goes with it. The fact that there are almost no issues where these Uberhumans do not disagree should make their humanity all the clearer. At some point, the average person has to look at the arguments and decide for themselves. Otherwise it will be untrained, ignorant politicians accepting the view point of whichever scientist who will further their political agenda.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Yeah, whatever...

[gaelic cowboy]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.:thumbsdown:

[Vuk]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.:thumbsdown:

Tribesy banned? Oh dear me, what a shame. :beam:
Pardon me while I got get a six pack, order pizza and mourn. :beam:

:birthday2:

[Aemilius Paulus]

He is not perma-banned AFAIK, and he will come back with vengeance, that is certain. And I shall be his apprentice, if he deems me worthy enough of his immaculate liberal presence. :2thumbsup::egypt:

[Vuk]

He is not perma-banned AFAIK, and he will come back with vengeance, that is certain. And I shall be his apprentice, if he deems me worthy enough of his immaculate liberal presence. :2thumbsup::egypt:

Hey, don't rain on my parade. ~;)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hey, don't rain on my parade. ~;)
Hmph, perhaps you are correct. I will let you dance for now, but the bitter realisation in the back of your brain will take a satisfactory toll that will surely dampen your momentarily-high spirits.

[Furunculus]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.:thumbsdown:

i hope he comes back, for all that we disagree he is always sharp enough to immediately pick holes in faulty reasoning that i didn't spend enough time making watertight.

i like that challenge.

[Fragony]

What happened Tribesman I didn't realise he was banned. Only Mayomen are really allowed to jibe a Tribesman thats because our two counties have been natural enemies for centuries long before the English decided they needed to annoy us in our real hatreds. Noooooo I am diminished my Herring Choker insults are now completely irrelevant.:thumbsdown:

That is kinda on me, hope he comes back, odd as it may sound I actually like the guy and can deal with the insults. I also think he only occasionally hates my guts.

[CountArach]

an another note, here a glorious write up of some of the more revealing emails hacked from HadCRU:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
You'll have to try harder than that...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
...
No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

[Furunculus]

try harder than what?

did i make any claims about the link...................?

[Fragony]

Should be obvious, should have been obvious in the first place. The lolspaghettimontser-crowd turned out to be truly pious when another thing to pray to is introduced, CO22222222222222, fear it.

those leftist lemmings, and the power they have over us

[Beskar]

I like how the right blame the left yet it is the right which is the most vocal. Also they link to sources as left when they are centre and they aren't even left.

Also, on many issues, what is left and what is right?

In the enviroment, is the welfare of the people left, while oil oligarchs who just want profit, the right?

[Furunculus]

I like how the right blame the left yet it is the right which is the most vocal. Also they link to sources as left when they are centre and they aren't even left.


oddly enough, i find it is mainly the left whingeing about how skepticism is funded by big-oil and the like, as a right-wing conspiracy or some such rubbish.

[Fragony]

Also, on many issues, what is left and what is right?


What does it matter when scaring the crap out of people is your tactic?

Must be my birthday by the way, two of my theories proven to be true in just one month. bye economic considerations for mass immigration, bye global warming.

anything left?

[Beskar]

oddly enough, i find it is mainly the left whingeing about how skepticism is funded by big-oil and the like, as a right-wing conspiracy or some such rubbish.

I agree, if the 'right' were smart enough, they would appear to be on the 'left' and fund "alternative projects" which pander to public opinion and con the public and politicians alike for a huge profit.

But there is another big point "skepticism" is funded by oil companies and the biggest polluters in the industry, that is a fact.

So you have to question the motives behind people. There are those who would simply exploit the situation for their own pockets.

[Furunculus]

I agree, if the 'right' were smart enough, they would appear to be on the 'left' and fund "alternative projects" which pander to public opinion and con the public and politicians alike for a huge profit.

But there is another big point "skepticism" is funded by oil companies and the biggest polluters in the industry, that is a fact.

So you have to question the motives behind people. There are those who would simply exploit the situation for their own pockets.

speaking as an >individual< on the right; maybe i am just too principled to erect a cow-manure smokescreen to disguise my dastardly plot to help big-oil to make a few more dollars?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Is it just me, or has Fragony grown even more far-right after Tribesman left? That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

[Vuk]

Is it just me, or has Fragony grown even more far-right after Tribesman left? That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

lol, good for him. ~;)
Have a balloon Frag! :balloon2:

[Aemilius Paulus]

lol, good for him. ~;)
Have a balloon Frag! :balloon2:
Huh? :inquisitive: Since when was far- anything good? I hope you are joking...

First evolution, now this. Is there anything else I should know about you, Vuk? :tongue:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What does it matter when scaring the crap out of people is your tactic?

Must be my birthday by the way, two of my theories proven to be true in just one month. bye economic considerations for mass immigration, bye global warming.

anything left?

That's far-right? No, Fragony is something like the Tribesman of the right. He isn't an extremist, he just calls it exactly how he sees it, whether he is right or wrong or both or neither. The other side tends not to like that very much. I personally prefer Fragony though, partially because he posts links more often. ~;)

[Beskar]

speaking as an >individual< on the right; maybe i am just too principled to erect a cow-manure smokescreen to disguise my dastardly plot to help big-oil to make a few more dollars?

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?

Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?


When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:

[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)

[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)



Is left and right even being applied correctly? This is a tricky issues, as many people have tried to make it a left and right issue, and as the victims (aka, billionaires) usually fall in the right-stereotype category of the mad profiteering and usually vote for Republican/Conservative policies (as it allows them more money at expense of those below them) and how those concerned for the environment are generally on the left (aka hippies), you can see that there might be a slight left-right bias for certain sides.

Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?

By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.

So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.


So where are the issues?

Clarification on definitions. Who are the 'Right' and 'Left'.

Definitions in regards to positions. Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?

Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"


Could go on and on....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Allow me to throw a hurdle (http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/) in your path, Beskar.

[Vuk]

Huh? :inquisitive: Since when was far- anything good? I hope you are joking...

First evolution, now this. Is there anything else I should know about you, Vuk? :tongue:

lol, I don't believe that life was created by chance in the form of a one celled organism that then evolved into everything today, darn I must be stupid. ~;)
Nah, I was joking. Thing is, some times people call regular conservative Americans the 'far-right', other times that is used to refer to dangerous extremists or lunatics. No one seems to be able to agree on exactly what that is. I consider being 'to the right' to be conservative, which is a good thing. I don't think there is any such things as degrees, you are or you aren't. Thus far right means the same to me as right. It is just a smart position to have. What do you mean by far-right? I don't know.

EDIT: don't forget AP, Americans and Europeans mean different things by far-right, as do liberals and conservatives. It could be a good thing (which is how I classify it), or a bad thing, depending on what you classify as far-right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?

Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?

The left cares about baby seals more.

[Vuk]

The left cares about baby seals more.

Yeah, they care, they are just mud dumb and arrogant ~;), which is why they paint them bright colours so that polar bears will eat them!

[Aemilius Paulus]

lol, I don't believe that life was created by chance in the form of a one celled organism that then evolved into everything today, darn I must be stupid. ~;)
If you keep on simplifying, then you are :sweatdrop:. But of course, you said that out of convenience, you simplified it intentionally.

That said, life does not start as a single cell. Life began much simpler - a single cell is in itself was a momentous achievement. We have no idea how life came to Earth, but it is not unlikely either that it came from space.

Countless microbes can withstand extreme temperatures (thrive at +310C and survive as low as -190C - boiling point of liquid nitrogen - or thrive at -50C, as in the case of Colwellia 34H) obscene radiation (Micrococcus radiodurans can tolerate 6,500,000 roentgens - 10,000 times the fatal dose for a Homo Sapiens), space vacuum as well as millions of of years of dormancy (250 million years for Bacillus permians - in salt; 40 million years for Bacillus sphaericus - in amber). Or this for an all-round record holder Deinococcus-radiodurans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans).

What all that suggests, evolutionary speaking, is that our life could have came from space. Evolution keeps only the most necessary, discarding the rest, the "luxuries". Evolution is not prescient. Evolution is a process of adaptation, albeit indirect - as the weak die, only the strongest survive, thus creating a new breed of hardier lifeforms. But enough of the obvious. It makes no sense for life to be tough enough to survive such preposterous conditions, almost all of them never found on this planet (except for most notably, the high temperatures, which are found on Earth). Such traits could have likely been acquired as a result of past adaptation.

[Vuk]

If you keep on simplifying, then you are :sweatdrop:. But of course, you said that out of convenience, you simplified it intentionally.

That said, life does not start as a single cell. Life began much simpler - a single cell is in itself was a momentous achievement. We have no idea how life came to Earth, but it is not unlikely either that it came from space.

Countless microbes can withstand extreme temperatures (thrive at +310C and survive as low as -190C - boiling point of liquid nitrogen - or thrive at -50C, as in the case of Colwellia 34H) obscene radiation (Micrococcus radiodurans can tolerate 6,500,000 roentgens - 10,000 times the fatal dose for a Homo Sapiens), space vacuum as well as millions of of years of dormancy (250 million years for Bacillus permians - in salt; 40 million years for Bacillus sphaericus - in amber). Or this for an all-round record holder Deinococcus-radiodurans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans).

What all that suggests, evolutionary speaking, is that our life could have came from space. Evolution keeps only the most necessary, discarding the rest, the "luxuries". Evolution is not prescient. Evolution is a process of adaptation, albeit indirect - as the weak die, only the strongest survive, thus creating a new breed of hardier lifeforms. But enough of the obvious. It makes no sense for life to be tough enough to survive such preposterous conditions, almost all of them never found on this planet (except for most notably, the high temperatures, which are found on Earth). Such traits could have likely been acquired as a result of past adaptation.

You see though AP, what we can observe, test, and/or replicate is science. I do not argue the way that things work on earth, because I can see them myself and verify them. Anything else though goes beyond science and has to be taken on faith. We have to look at the physical world around us, and use what we know to think up a likely explanation, based on what we know for how it could have began. Unfortunately though, there is no way to prove it, or to test it, so it must be take on faith, even if there is supporting evidence from stuff we can observe.
As such, I do not claim to be 100% sure that I know the answer, or that I can prove it. I do know though that based on science (and I mean real science, not speculation about life's beginnings passed off as science) and my understanding thereof, the theory of life's beginnings that you put forth and that is commonly taught in schools does not, and cannot make sense or be true. Yeah, I cannot prove it, but from what I know (or think I know), God creating the universe and the life on it is the most reasonable explanation. Sure, you may think it is hocus pocus, but I have yet to see a 'scientific' (ei. atheistic) theory that real science does not contradict. I think that historical, literary, and scientific evidence supports the creation story from the Bible. That does not mean that I am denying science (heck, Christians invented science for heaven's sakes. They took the base work of Greek Natural Philosophy, and carried it forth into modern science), as science has nothing to do with the creation of life 1000s-1,000,000s of years ago which cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Science has to do with what we can observe now, and I think that that supports the creation story more than the evolution story.
I say this because you have in past threads (and I think alluded to it in this thread) accused creationists of denying science. That is not through. It is why I said that the round earth and evolution example could not work. The earth being round can be observed and measured, and is science, musing over how we may have got here is not. (which doesn't make it bad, just means that it does not belong to that field)
Please don't use not believing in evolution against me, as if it makes me stupid or blind. I simply disagree with you. (and keep in mind AP, that just I do not know just what scientific evidence and discussion you have seen and heard that has led you to your belief, you do not know what has led me to mine, and if you did, you just may be convinced) I am not going to explain why I believe what I do, as this thread is not for it, I just wanted you to know that I (and others) have reasons that are logical, and are not ignorance, blind faith, escapism, laziness, etc. You cut people down for not believing in evolution, why? No one is cutting you down for believing in it. I don't think any the less of you to believe in it, I think it is a very swaying argument that smart people can easily be made to believe. Why do you have to assume that anyone who does not believe in it is stupid or primitive?

[Fragony]

lol, good for him. ~;)
Have a balloon Frag! :balloon2:

Gracias!

That is it. I am taking this to Tosa.

Good luck, Tosa doesn't care about opinions only about behaviour

Why can't people be more like Horetore and CountArach by the way, we can violently disagree and still have a ball when it's not about politics. Only a psychopath wants to inflict harm on another person. We just see things differently on what why and how.

[Furunculus]

Which goes back to my question, what is left and right on the issue?
Is left welfare of the people while the right profiteering for their own gain?

When you look at the primarily motivations using the above, you get this insight:
[Left] There is a great potentional danger to the planet which can endanger our lives and those of future generations. (Obviously very sinister motivations.)
[Right] Hey, you are stopping us from making money. I don't care about the planet, I only care for number one. We will heavily fund anti-environmental lobbies, use the media to attempt to spread doubt and uncertainity, at least delaying policies while we attempt to make as much money as possible. (Obviously a mistaken case.)

Then comes for the vital issue. Why is an >individual< taking up such as position?
By identifying yourself as a skeptic and the on right, you will automatically get thrown with the above situation. You would be seen as a person who has stocks and shares in oil corperations or simply some one who is foolish and dancing to the tune of the Right-Wing Pied Piper. Most likely to make this even worse, you might start suggesting that trying to prevent the horrid possible outcome might cost the poor starving oligarchs money in the disguise of "bad for the economy", which wouldn't help your situation at all.
So simply by saying "Hello, my name is Furuculus and I am a rightwing skeptic" you suddenly been thrown into a situation where your whole entire background and history has instantly been invented for you on the spot, following the stereotypical behaviour and examples of fellow "rightwing skeptic" classifications.


I'm not sure i'm overly concerned by the question, if people choose to interpret issues that way then that is their right, for all that it lacks any intellectual rigour.

I am right wing, and yes i happen to be a skeptic*, if you choose to conflate the two positions then that is your business, i will make no compromises on my personal beliefs that result from long consideration and testing, in order to stroke the expectations of other people. You may note that I have zero friends listed in my profile, not that i don't like and respect a lot of you, but this is a debating club to me, not friends re-united.



* I am as yet skeptical of the IPCC consensus that catastrophic climate change is primarily driven by anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This is a fairly nuanced opinion, and yet even people who are not eco-activists by any means, somehow sum this up with the statement; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!"

I am by training a geologist, of course i believe in climate change, i spent three years studying it on and off.

I also know, from study, that it has frequently in the past been catastrophic in impact to the flora and fauna of the time.

I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept that it is within the realms of possibility that it is the driving factor of recent recorded climate change.

I am also fully aware that there are a multitude of other anthropogenic sources of green house gas, and that their action in combination can bring about feedback mechanisms that amplify the individual effects.

And yet this nuance is written off by; "but you don't believe in climate change, do you!" This to me is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith.

My skepticism is not immovable, as that would not be a scientific position to hold, but it will require a great weight more evidence alongside a great deal more confidence in simulated climate models before I am convinced that spending trillions worrying about anthropogenic CO2 is a sane policy.

Because if this bout isn't 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 may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.

[Fragony]

lolololol nice try

that'sashame

Do I really need to explain that there are no polar bears on Antartica christallmighty on a mother :daisy: plane

awwwwww they woke up, link removed

[Fragony]

The plot thickens, speculation about a serious scientist who could no longer live the life of a liar blowing the wistle.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Who-leaked-the-Hadley-CRU-files-and-why

//grabs nuts

[Louis VI the Fat]

You'll have to try harder than that...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/


More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.Yes, I too am still waiting for shocking revelations to emerge from those hacked/leaked correspondence.

The most shocking thing to emerge is that those who belive in a vast conspiracy managed to get their hands on 161 MB of internal memo's and not find any smoking guns.

'Polarization', and not conspiracy is at the root of politicised science in Climate Studies. Scientists and pressure groups will want to prove 'their side' right, instead of calmly exploring the facts and expanding our understanding.

Most falsification, funding and politicised science is to be found on the side arguing that there is no climate implications of human behaviour.
Hardly any economic activity goes without some suspiciously funded scienctific report that conclusively proves that the activity will have no lasting impact on the environment.

Former communist East Europe meanwhile showed what happens to the environment if short-term economic gain is the sole overriding consideration.
In the West too, usually, for decades detrimental activities go unchecked. Claims abound that they are 'scientifically proven to have little to no impact'. Then a few simple measures adopted at long last finally makes fish return to the Seine, solves the smog in London, reduces acid rain, solves health problems. It is very frustrating how the financial gain of a few manage to override the financial gain of the many for decades, every single time, usually when a few simple measures at no great cost at all could've prevented the problem in the first place.




The sub-discussion:


Fragony is very moderate nowadays. He hasn't been far right for ages.

Tribesy is sorely missed, but from what I gather he was asked to stop the personal crusade against Frags, which he couldn't let go so Tribesy left.


Bah, the Backroom has been boring ever since.

[Furunculus]

Former communist East Europe meanwhile showed what happens to the environment if short-term economic gain is the sole overriding consideration.

Tribesy is sorely missed, but from what I gather he was asked to stop the personal crusade against Frags, which he couldn't let go so Tribesy left.

Bah, the Backroom has been boring ever since.
No, the environmental disasters of former eastern europe show what happens when there is no representative government that is forced to acquiesce to the demands of the demos.

His treatment of Frag was down-right rude.

Agreed, backroom does have a little less zest without Tribeman.

[Fragony]

I can deal with insult I hope he comes back no problem in getting nasty to me, comes with the position can't always be easy-going when presented with a very unsympathatic view I can understand that so I do not take offense. If I would be what he believes me to be he would be right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The most shocking thing to emerge is that those who belive in a vast conspiracy managed to get their hands on 161 MB of internal memo's and not find any smoking guns.

'Polarization', and not conspiracy is at the root of politicised science in Climate Studies. Scientists and pressure groups will want to prove 'their side' right, instead of calmly exploring the facts and expanding our understanding.

Well, I don't think it's shocking that there was no smoking gun, but it's worthwhile to prove that scientists are not free from being politicized.

[Furunculus]

agreed, it is important to recognise that scientists are just human beings after all, with all the attendant prejudices and failings that the rest of us suffer from.


The mighty moon-bat makes his apology:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/monbiot-issues-an-unprecedented-apology/

"It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

I apologise. I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely."

[Vuk]

No, the environmental disasters of former eastern europe show what happens when there is no representative government that is forced to acquiesce to the demands of the demos.

His treatment of Frag was down-right rude.

Agreed, backroom does have a little less zest without Tribeman.

Less zest and more civility. :P I say it is a worthwhile trade-off. :beam:

[Fragony]

The scope of the greatest scientific hoax in human history is becoming greater with each revelation, apparently not only was the data falsified, serious scientists who work with scientific date were intimidated, peer reviews were manipulated, reputations were destroyed, inquisitive journalists who take their jobs seriously fired.

toldyouso, glad I am so very very cynical can't fool me

[Papewaio]

You see though AP, what we can observe, test, and/or replicate is science. I do not argue the way that things work on earth, because I can see them myself and verify them. Anything else though goes beyond science and has to be taken on faith. We have to look at the physical world around us, and use what we know to think up a likely explanation, based on what we know for how it could have began. Unfortunately though, there is no way to prove it, or to test it, so it must be take on faith, even if there is supporting evidence from stuff we can observe.
As such, I do not claim to be 100% sure that I know the answer, or that I can prove it. I do know though that based on science (and I mean real science, not speculation about life's beginnings passed off as science) and my understanding thereof, the theory of life's beginnings that you put forth and that is commonly taught in schools does not, and cannot make sense or be true. Yeah, I cannot prove it, but from what I know (or think I know), God creating the universe and the life on it is the most reasonable explanation. Sure, you may think it is hocus pocus, but I have yet to see a 'scientific' (ei. atheistic) theory that real science does not contradict. I think that historical, literary, and scientific evidence supports the creation story from the Bible. That does not mean that I am denying science (heck, Christians invented science for heaven's sakes. They took the base work of Greek Natural Philosophy, and carried it forth into modern science), as science has nothing to do with the creation of life 1000s-1,000,000s of years ago which cannot be observed, measured, or tested. Science has to do with what we can observe now, and I think that that supports the creation story more than the evolution story.

Science can easily observe things from millions of years ago. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel from one side of our galaxy to the other. We can see stars that are milllons of years away. We can see galaxies billions of years away. The Big Bang Theory neatly explains why we have so much hydrogen and the ratio of first generation elements in the universe, the ratio of neutrons to protons, and background radiation.

Stellar evolution (based on the easily observed main sequence of stars which are billions of years old). Explains neatly second & third generation of elements, essentially why we have uranium on this planet as it is beyond the iron valley.

We can observe, measure and test rocks that are millions of years old on our planet. Some of these even have fossils in them.

We can observe, measure and test DNA. DNA is like a library of past changes. We can make estimates of time base on rate of mutation.

So we have multiple branches of science that can easily deal with dates that go back billions of years. And a few of these deal with life.

Astrophysics for the Big Bang, astronomy for main sequence stars, astrophysics for stellar evolution, geology for rocks and fossils, geophysics for radiometric dating of rocks in the billions of years, biology for evolution, microbiology for DNA. All these are competing spheres with scientists within and without these areas who love to debunk each other. Yet they all have science that goes beyond thousands and millions of years based on observable data that can be used to measure and test ideas.



I say this because you have in past threads (and I think alluded to it in this thread) accused creationists of denying science. That is not through. It is why I said that the round earth and evolution example could not work. The earth being round can be observed and measured, and is science, musing over how we may have got here is not. (which doesn't make it bad, just means that it does not belong to that field)
Please don't use not believing in evolution against me, as if it makes me stupid or blind. I simply disagree with you. (and keep in mind AP, that just I do not know just what scientific evidence and discussion you have seen and heard that has led you to your belief, you do not know what has led me to mine, and if you did, you just may be convinced) I am not going to explain why I believe what I do, as this thread is not for it, I just wanted you to know that I (and others) have reasons that are logical, and are not ignorance, blind faith, escapism, laziness, etc. You cut people down for not believing in evolution, why? No one is cutting you down for believing in it. I don't think any the less of you to believe in it, I think it is a very swaying argument that smart people can easily be made to believe. Why do you have to assume that anyone who does not believe in it is stupid or primitive?

I for one would like to see your sources. My understanding of evolution is that it is a meta-principle. And that unlike chemisty, gravity and the other fundamental forces , evolution would be applicable in other parallel universes.

[Furunculus]

Is the bi-choice situation causing more problems than it is worth? Is there space at all for a Middle-Ground/Third/Alternative options?

Priorities on Issues. Many people have never actually said their priority, as part of their line with their view. For instance "Follower - Value of Human Life" "Skeptic - My Bank Account", are there room for options like "Follower - I can make a profit" "Skeptic - Money could be better spent on Universal Health Care*"

there already is a middle ground; skeptic.

i am skeptical* of the IPCC 'consensus', i neither affirm or deny it, thus i am a skeptic.







* skep·ti·cal also scep·ti·cal Pronunciation (skpt-kl)
adj.
1. Marked by or given to doubt; questioning: a skeptical attitude; skeptical of political promises.
2. Relating to or characteristic of skeptics or skepticism.

[Furunculus]

what is wrong with the underlined part? Surely they know better than us. Your sentiment is a strikingly human one (I know, it is 'duh', but still, read on) as it is only natural to feel antagonistic towards persons of higher rank, especially when they meddle so much. But you think a liberal does not have to deal with that? I know the scientists are exponentially smarter than me, yet I accept their actions.because 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.

Re my comment about the misplaced trust in social science theory, and its implemented methodology known as social engineering:
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 intelligensia 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 proprotion of the inadequate rebels-in-need-of-a-cause.

[InsaneApache]

It's a brave man who links to Guidos blog. Whatever you do, don't read the comments. I said, don't read them! :sweatdrop:

[Furunculus]

apparently Congress has taken an interest in Climategate:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100017954/us-congress-investigates-climategate-e-mails-this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-agw/



is australia going wobbly now too?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/ripples-of-climategate-being-felt-worldwide-liberal-mps-desert-turnbull-in-australia-over-emissions-trading-scheme/




plus: it's not just the emails, take a gander at the code comments too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/
yes i know, we don't know the context of the comments, but it should be more than enough to persuade you that these peerless individuals are not disinterested transcendent beings.

[Fragony]

apparently Congress has taken an interest in Climategate:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100017954/us-congress-investigates-climategate-e-mails-this-could-be-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-agw/

good, here they are still waiting for the dust to settle but this isn't going to go away, former activist and current minister of enviroment is furious, 'this is criminal' she screamed. Of course she didn't mean the hoax but the fact that it came out, she refuses to answer any questions regarding the e-mails she just waved it of. What an inconvenient inconvenience.

[gaelic cowboy]

Hmm I just wonder is there an actual link to the emails all of them I mean not just the ones posted to show climate change is bunk.

I mean if these were hacked from a computer then a crime has been committed and last time I checked a criminals word for anything was pretty much zero plus I am sure if he/she can hack Uni computers then they can also falsify the emails too.

I would say no comment yay or nay till the cops are finished.

[Furunculus]

Hmm I just wonder is there an actual link to the emails all of them I mean not just the ones posted to show climate change is bunk.

I mean if these were hacked from a computer then a crime has been committed and last time I checked a criminals word for anything was pretty much zero plus I am sure if he/she can hack Uni computers then they can also falsify the emails too.

I would say no comment yay or nay till the cops are finished.

that reminds of JAG's slightly hysterical denial of why labour voters are now drifting to the BNP; "its got nothing to do with immigration policy, and it's not working class labour voters doing this, it's all a reaction to societal breakdown caused by Thatcher!"

so i'll reply to you as I replied to him; if you are so deluded as to believe what you state above then you are going to get a hell of a shock when you catch up with the rest of the world in realising that these guys really are only human beings, with all the same failings and petty agendas that the rest of us harbour, they are not gods, and do not deserve your uncritical faith.

[gaelic cowboy]

that reminds of JAG's slightly hysterical denial of why labour voters are now drifting to the BNP; "its got nothing to do with immigration policy, and it's not working class labour voters doing this, it's all a reaction to societal breakdown caused by Thatcher!"

so i'll reply to you as I replied to him; if you are so deluded as to believe what you state above then you are going to get a hell of a shock when you catch up with the rest of the world in realising that these guys really are only human beings, with all the same failings and petty agendas that the rest of us harbour, they are not gods, and do not deserve your uncritical faith.

Whoa there man deluded I think you will find I never said it was anything in my post I only said I won't comment on this till I know more unlike yourself of course who has already assigned a position and everything on me.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Everyones world is going to end one day anyway, global warming or not. Nothing to worry about. Roll with the punches; longer summers, more pool parties, less snow to shovel - or not.

[gaelic cowboy]

Everyones world is going to end one day anyway, global warming or not. Nothing to worry about. Roll with the punches; longer summers, more pool parties, less snow to shovel - or not.
:laugh4::laugh4:

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks line about how non smokers die everyday

[Furunculus]

Whoa there man deluded I think you will find I never said it was anything in my post I only said I won't comment on this till I know more unlike yourself of course who has already assigned a position and everything on me.

my views on global warming are plainly stated:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2384113&postcount=144

but if i read more into your post than you intended should be there, then you have my apology. :)

[Idaho]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.html)

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

[drone]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.html)

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

Well, that's a good thing. Shorter trip, less fuel used, less carbon emitted. :thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

Meanwhile out in the Arctic Oceans commercial ships are busy plying the North East Passage for the first time as there is less ice:

German Ships Sailing Through North East Passage (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/6176989/German-ships-sailing-through-North-East-Passage.html)

Nothing to see, move along now. All a hoax.

NE passage, open since 1934:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/

Ice was pretty thin in the fifties too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

[Fragony]

Ah even moarrrrrrr political scientists manipulating results to scare money out of your wallets.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html

[Fragony]

Oh could it be any more obvious, who is the EU sending to Copenhagen as the sceptic? That's right Nick Griffin (BNP). End he goes the idiot. Way to link doubt to the extreme right but the lemmings will probably fall for it.

[Furunculus]

Hannan has finally come out on record with his views of Climate Change:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018669/climate-change-the-case-for-scepticism


Climate change: the case for scepticism

James Delingpole keeps needling me about climate change. Can’t I see that it’s the biggest swindle of our era? Aren’t I bothered about being ruled by a global eco-technocracy? Haven’t the leaked emails put the issue beyond all doubt?

James has certainly had a spectacular couple of weeks. I’ve argued many times before that the Internet pulverises media monopolies, and James’s blog neatly proves the thesis. A story that was ignored by most environment correspondents blew up online until, grudgingly, the MSM were forced to limp along behind.

Oddly enough, though, I don’t believe that “warmergate” has altered things very much. I always assumed that some of the research on both sides was likely to be results-driven. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. We all tend, unconsciously, to press new data into our existing Weltanschauung. There’s a fancy phrase for it (fancier even than Weltanschauung): “cognitive dissonance”. Scientists don’t stop being human beings when they enter their research centres. You would expect those whose grants depend on the Kyoto apparatus to have a different take on climate change from those who are funded by energy companies. Not always; but sometimes.

It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity. Having formed this view, they instinctively dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit it. We are genetically programmed to behave this way.

The case for anthropogenic global warming was, as far as I can understand, slightly more convincing a decade ago than it is today, with global temperatures having recently dropped. Having reached sincere and considered opinions in the 1990s, and having built careers on that basis, some of the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen crowd understandably find it awkward to re-examine their assumptions.

Does this happen among on the other side, too? Yes, undoubtedly. Just as those who already believed in more regulation, more government, supra-nationalism and higher taxes honestly think that carbon emissions are overheating the planet, so libertarians and small government types honestly think that the whole thing is a crock. Each faction, convinced of its own sincerity, distrusts the motives of the other.

All of which makes it almost impossible for the layman to reach a confident view. It’s not just the interpretation of the facts that is disputed, but the facts themselves. Leave aside the argument over CO2: there isn’t even any agreement over how much the world is heating.

So where do I stand? With Peter Lilley, I suppose. I think the world is warming (I especially dislike the phase “climate change denial”: no one, as far as I’m aware, is positing climate stasis). And it may well be that human activity is playing some part in the process, although probably not to the degree claimed by some climate change professionals.

I also tend to agree with Nigel Lawson that adaptation would be more effective and cheaper than a programme of greenhouse gas reductions which, even according to its proponents, would slow global warming by only around 0.2 degrees. In other words, it ought to be possible to accept the case for global warming – and, indeed, for an anthropogenic component therein – while still believing that the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen agenda represents a misallocation of resources.

If this makes me a “sceptic”, in the literal sense of wanting to question things, fine. But I resent the notion that it somehow makes me anti-environment. I take the train to Brussels and Strasbourg, and don’t fly if I can avoid it. I drive only when absolutely necessary: no more than a dozen times a year. Mrs H is meticulous about reusing and recycling and sourcing our food locally and all the rest. Our children were brought up with washable nappies. I’m as keen as the next fellow on clean air and water, on whales and rainforests, and I have always thought it a pity that free market solutions are not more widely applied to environmental problems (see here). The natural world is too important to be left to the Left.

Not surprisingly, I believe it to be a very sensible view to take, given that is mirrors my own quite substantially.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oddly enough, though, I don’t believe that “warmergate” has altered things very much. I always assumed that some of the research on both sides was likely to be results-driven. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. We all tend, unconsciously, to press new data into our existing Weltanschauung. There’s a fancy phrase for it (fancier even than Weltanschauung): “cognitive dissonance”. Scientists don’t stop being human beings when they enter their research centres. You would expect those whose grants depend on the Kyoto apparatus to have a different take on climate change from those who are funded by energy companies. Not always; but sometimes.

It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity. Having formed this view, they instinctively dismiss evidence that doesn’t fit it. We are genetically programmed to behave this way.

Yes, this is what I thought as well. Peoples desires always influence things, and it isn't a dispassionate issue.


All of which makes it almost impossible for the layman to reach a confident view.

Which is my main frustration. The science itself is hugely complicated, but there is no expert I would be willing to trust completely.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hannan has finally come out on record with his views of Climate Change:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100018669/climate-change-the-case-for-scepticism:shocked2:


I...I...I agree with Hannan. What's more, I think that is a very well thought out article, a beacon of reason in a controversial and highly politicised subject.


Hannan for president of Europe!! :balloon2:

[Devastatin Dave]

LOL, now Al Gore, the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming (ChuGWarm) has cancelled his appearance at the meeting at Copenhagen. Me thinks there will be a lot of Gore's former carbon credit company's stock selling cheap in a week or two or perhaps a drowning polar bear ate his private jet?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Pajamas Media founder Roger L. Simon and independent filmmaker Lionel Chetwynd -- both members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Oscar nominees -- have called on the academy to rescind Mr. Gore's Oscars in light of the Climategate revelations.

:laugh4:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

:shocked2:


I...I...I agree with Hannan. What's more, I think that is a very well thought out article, a beacon of reason in a controversial and highly politicised subject.


Hannan for president of Europe!! :balloon2:

Agreed, he essentially echoed my own views in a very eloquent manner.

[Fragony]

LOL, now Al Gore, the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming (ChuGWarm) has cancelled his appearance at the meeting at Copenhagen. Me thinks there will be a lot of Gore's former carbon credit company's stock selling cheap in a week or two or perhaps a drowning polar bear ate his private jet?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/gore-cancels-personal-appearance-copenhagen/

owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, isn't going to stop any flaggalant from praying for salvation sadly the fear sits to deeply, they are absolutely terrified can't argue with terrified people

[Strike For The South]

Well, this changes the game a bit.

[Fisherking]

Well, this changes the game a bit.

Why would that be?

Just because we are now left with no reliable climate data for the last three decades or so?

It is most unfortunate. Now many will use it as an excuse for excess and it may make it difficult to stop wanton pollution.

It was also unfortunate that so many who saw the truth were shouted down...

I don’t think there are any winners in this fiasco.

:shame:

[Strike For The South]

Why would that be?

Just because we are now left with no reliable climate data for the last three decades or so?

It is most unfortunate. Now many will use it as an excuse for excess and it may make it difficult to stop wanton pollution.

It was also unfortunate that so many who saw the truth were shouted down...

I don’t think there are any winners in this fiasco.

:shame:

Well yes and the fact that scientists are supposed to be detachted from this sort of tom foolery.

This is an utterly disgusting mark on the science community as whole. :no:

[InsaneApache]

Never fear the Great Leader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8395691.stm) was waded in with the truth. That's it, it's all over for the global cooling deniers. :laugh4:

[Fisherking]

Oh, great!

These guys are the problem.

It has always been a political more than a scientific issue.

Create a problem and pretend to fix it.

I fear that 70% of the climate change issue is political hot air...

If it had not been political, would we have had falsified data?
:embarassed:

[Fragony]

Houston, we got a problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8eSPmAu3Jo&feature=player_embedded

[Furunculus]

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC, said it was possible Russian hackers had been paid as part of a global conspiracy to cast doubt on the science of global warming. "I do not think this is a coincidence," he added.

ROFLMAO! :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

i bet it was the neo-cons. trying to revive the agenda for global subjugation, working under orders from the Bilderburg group and the milititary industrial complex, which includes the real masterminds; BIG OIL!

[Fragony]

I need to confess something I haven't been honest with you guys, it was me soz invested money in palmtrees the truth could not get out :shame:

[Furunculus]

there was a poll published today that shows that the number of people in the UK who accept catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is down to one in two and falling.

is this really a mystery?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100019024/climategate-green-activist-attacks-half-the-electorate-as-lunatic-right-wing-conspiracy-theorists/


Climategate: Green activist attacks half the electorate as lunatic Right-wing conspiracy theorists

Want to know why most British voters are unconvinced by the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen crowd? Read this.

Joss Garman, who co-founded the pressure group Plane Stupid, rails at the “undiluted lunacy” of the conservative movement. We Rightists, he says, have concocted a conspiracy theory that is imperilling the planet. We apparently believe that scientists and governments are deliberately, maliciously and secretly falsifying climate change data.

“I find it extraordinary that the Conservatives Andrew Tyrie and Daniel Hannan, James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph and Fraser Nelson of The Spectator have gambled their reputations on a conspiracy theory supported by the flimsiest of evidence.”

The others he names will, no doubt, speak for themselves. My own views on climate change are summarised here. As you will see, far from alleging a conspiracy, I wrote the following:

“It isn’t a conspiracy. Reading the leaked emails, it seems pretty clear that their authors genuinely believe that the world is getting hotter as a result of human activity.”

I went on to say that I, too, thought that the world was warming, and that human activity might well be playing a part in the process. I simply wondered whether there were cheaper and more effective strategies than spending hundreds of billions of pounds on a scheme which, even according to its most evangelical supporters, will slow the heating process only slightly. “It ought to be possible,” I concluded, “to accept the case for global warming – and, indeed, for an anthropogenic component therein – while still believing that the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen agenda represents a misallocation of resources.”

This, in Garman’s eyes, makes me a “denier”, the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. You don’t think that’s his implication? Then read the next bit of his article: “The Daily Express front page last week, headlined ‘The Big Climate Change Fraud’… will appear in exhibitions in years to come alongside the Daily Mail headline of the Thirties – ‘Hurrah for the Blackshirts’”.

But what exactly am I supposed to be denying? That the world is warming? No. That we are over-dependent on fossil fuels? No. That we ought to reduce the pollutants we pump into the air – including carbon dioxide? No. All I deny is that supporters of the proposed emissions targets have a monopoly of wisdom.

If Garman’s purpose is simply to attack the Right, fair enough. But if he wants to win people over on the issue of climate change, he’s going about it in a very strange way. I mean, when I see that he’s fibbing about me, I’m commensurately less likley to believe what he says about, say, Arctic sea ice.

No wonder so few voters are persuaded: most people can spot self-serving, contradictory and hysterical arguments when they hear them. Attacking the unconvinced, rather than coming up with better arguments, isn’t just bad tactics; it’s plain stupid.


at a time, when the enironmental movement is trying to make the case for the IPCC consensus, when the UK is naturally becoming more Conservative as a result of 12 years of labour administration, this guy alienates Conservative leaning voters by branding them idiots and retards. WINNER!

[InsaneApache]

New Labour. New Britain.

[Meneldil]

NE passage, open since 1934:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/

Ice was pretty thin in the fifties too:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/

And that is yet another case of blogger pretending to know Teh Truht but who actually have no clues. The passage has been used since 1879, at least. Thing is, it is now possible to use it without a specially designed ship during the warmest part of the year.
Until now, all ships had to either be equiped to break the ice, or to go along with an ice-breaker (which, I remind you, have existed for more than a century). It is not the case anymore, at least during a few months.

So yeah, wattsupwiththat = fail.

[InsaneApache]

Is that the place where an icebreaker got stuck a month or so ago? :inquisitive:

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Fourteen days to seal history's judgment on this generation'



http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/12/6/1260124503563/Editorial-logo-001.jpg




Today 56 newspapers (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/newspapers) in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change) will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year's inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world's response has been feeble and half-hearted.


Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.


Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June's UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can't afford a replay."


At the deal's heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.


Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.


The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.


Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history's judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.


This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian.

[Fragony]

There is something rotten in Denmark

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Oh-no-Another-climate-scam-scandal-this-time-in-Denmark-78510842.html

And yet another hoaxer bites the dust, feeling silly already

It´s becoming unbearable that the dutch media is refusing to write about it, quality media huh see this is why I read blogs instead. This isn´t going to go away you lemmings. Former activist and current minister of hoax is still refusing to react even now and not a journalist who is willing to put the hurt on her, not a single one.

[Furunculus]

the good old british voter is being damned inconvenient right now, what with Copenhagen and all that:
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/climate_change_is_exaggerated_by_the_media_say_tory_voters.html

[Fragony]

Good, more to follow I hope, I have truly had enough of this why do I have to bother with religious believes of people in this century, just kill yourself and reduce your carbon footprint we don't need you anyway just bloody die if you don't want to live, cut vertically, horizontally will only hurt you a bit it won't kill you. Media is still in denial/hoaxing here, I hope more people will become inquisitive and look it up their selves we won't get that information from what some would honestly consider to be respectable news-sources.

[Beskar]

the good old british voter is being damned inconvenient right now, what with Copenhagen and all that:
http://page.politicshome.com/uk/climate_change_is_exaggerated_by_the_media_say_tory_voters.html

Funnily enough, it is pretty much just the Tories. You can obviously see the politicalisation of the issue, with the right-wing oil elite sowing skepticism within their ranks trying to force a right vs. left issue.

Also, look at the 2nd table, it looks like they basically asked a lot of tories, but only one labour guy, and one libdem guy, etc. (total is 16, even though the 3 other columns were 50+)

[Louis VI the Fat]

When the hacked mails were published, the blogosphere promised to meticulouslty sift through them in a search for any sort of proof of a smoking gun.

Several weeks and millions of man-hours later, we are still waiting. Apparently, there isn't anything of substance after all.



What we do have, is cold hard evidence of forgery and fraud by the Denial Industry, and corruption palling around of politicians and fossil fuel lobbyists to undermine and falsify science:


The Inside Track

When George W Bush was president, White House staffers collaborated with the oil industry to fix government policies on climate change.


In 2004, Harper's magazine published a leaked memo from Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to Phil Cooney, the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has been given more than $2m by Exxon (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2). Ebell's memo showed that the White House and the institute had been working together to discredit a report on climate change produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, whose head at the time was Christine Todd Whitman.


"Dear Phil,
Thanks for calling and asking for our help … As I said, we made the decision this morning to do as much as we could to deflect criticism by blaming EPA for freelancing. It seems to me that the folks at EPA are the obvious fall guys, and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible. I have done several interviews and have stressed that the President needs to get everyone rowing in the same direction. Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired[1]."


The New York Times later discovered (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html) that Phil Cooney, who is a lawyer with no scientific training, had been imported into the White House from the American Petroleum Institute to control the presentation of climate science. He edited scientific reports, striking out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserting phrases (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html) suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming. When the revelations were published he resigned and took up a post at Exxon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/16/environment.usa).
The oil company also had direct access to the White House. On 6 February 2001, 17 days after George W Bush was sworn in, AG (Randy) Randol, ExxonMobil's senior environmental adviser, sent a fax to John Howard, an environmental official at the White House[3]. It began by discussing the role of Bob Watson, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It suggested he had a "personal agenda" and asked: "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?"[4]
It went on to ask that the United States be represented at the panel's discussions by a Dr Harlan Watson[8]. Both requests were met. One Watson was sacked, the other was appointed, and went on to wreak havoc at international climate meetings.


[1] Letter from Myron Ebell to Phil Cooney. Published in the May 2004 edition of Harper's magazine: White House Effect.
[2] AG (Randy) Randol III, Senior Environmental Adviser, ExxonMobil, 6 February 2001. Memo to John Howard. Bush Team for IPCC negotiations. Facsimile, sent from tel no. (202) 8620268.
[3] ibid, p2
[4] ibid, p5

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm amazed at how quickly this has turned from "scientists not as objective as they should be" to either:

"climategate! Proof of fraud"
or
"The emails show no global conspiracy to defraud"

[Crazed Rabbit]

A smoking gun of 'massaging' the data in Australia, which resulted in turning data showing a cooling trend into data showing a warming trend:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/


This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian.

So I'm supposed to trust a bunch of English and Journalism majors simply because there's a lot of them?

Looking at the whole issue objectively, the hysteria is absurd. Earth's climate has changed and will change in the future, regardless of what humans do. Do humans effect it? Possibly. But we don't know how and we don't know how to stop it.

The earth has not warmed in the last decade. The reasonable thing to do is to ensure there's a problem before demanding a solution.

But that doesn't fit the goals of the environmentalists (and socialists) ; they want government control and less consumption, and what better way than to say we'll all die if we don't stop using a non-toxic, naturally produced gas, that isn't actually harming anybody, but according to their computer models and massaged data may result in a warmer earth in the future.

They don't have to provide any evidence of harm or link between CO2 and warming. That's why they call it 'climate change' instead of global warming. The climate has always changed, of course, which makes it very convenient for them.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

I see that Sasaki is claiming our motives are not strictly scientifically motivated, but politically.

Well let me tell you, I hacked Sasaki's PM account and have found proof he is paid by totalwar.com to discredit the .org:


"Dear Sasaki,


Please discredit the Backroom by suggesting that the posters are lazy thinkers, onlt interested in showing their point of view.

We are also most happy with your meta-discussion style in the 'Obama-thread'. Keep up exposing the dastardly deeds of Xiahou'.


thanks,

The .com's staff"

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's fear to gain control.

Look at those talking about climate change; all they do is try to instill fear in people, speaking of farcical disasters like increased hurricanes and drowned cities.

And what do they want? Control; over our lives and the economy.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I see that Sasaki is claiming our motives are not strictly scientifically motivated, but politically.

Well let me tell you, I hacked Sasaki's PM account and have found proof he is paid by totalwar.com to discredit the .org:


"Dear Sasaki,


Please discredit the Backroom by suggesting that the posters are lazy thinkers, onlt interested in showing their point of view.

We are also most happy with your meta-discussion style in the 'Obama-thread'. Keep up exposing the dastardly deeds of Xiahou'.


thanks,

The .com's staff"

You should see the email the sent Tosa, convincing him to use this unsightly "v-bulletin" while they continue to rake in the users with the cutting edge "ezboard" technology.


It's fear to gain control.

Look at those talking about climate change; all they do is try to instill fear in people, speaking of farcical disasters like increased hurricanes and drowned cities.

And what do they want? Control; over our lives and the economy.

CR

You don't think a simpler explanation is that they themselves are afraid?

[Louis VI the Fat]

all they do is try to instill fear in people, speaking of farcical disasters like increased hurricanes and drowned cities.

And what do they want? Control; over our lives and the economy.Wusn't that the Catholic church?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wusn't that the Catholic church?

So if the Catholic Church was doing this, you'd argue against it?


You don't think a simpler explanation is that they themselves are afraid?

Then why would the preachers like Al Gore continue to use such huge amounts of energy? I think a lot of the followers may be, but I think even the environmental leaders of hysteria see it as a way to push through environmental laws they wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

CR

[gaelic cowboy]

I dunno more and more this debate on climate depresses me It's almost got to the stage were some idiot eco-nuts thinks it's tantamount to murder if you fly to Spain for holidays.

However I find the camp on the denial side equally shrill and and depressing I feel both side's are probably right and wrong at the same time about differant things but apparently there is no middle ground here.

I consider myself a sceptic on the many of the carbon reducing and saving scheme's for example wind power. Wind power is nothing but a boondoggle to use a yank expression any child of five could do the maths on a wind turbine and tell you it's rubbish.

One solution of a couple others is Nuclear energy it must be increased to prepare for our looming future of less oil but its lost in the smoke of green piety from the left and rightwing shouting which in my view is religiously inspired in America.

I believe it's actually to late to do summit on this thing it probably happened in the seventies. If I drop an ice cube in hot tea it cools quicker than pouring in cold water the more ice breaks off the land and drops in the sea the colder it gets which may seem to cool the temperature but the increase in solar heat energy cos it's not being reflected back into space will eventually overtake the drop in the long run in my view.

Will driving an electric car stop global warming maybe but I suspect it won't then again who knows maybe it's all bunk. However one side claims we must become sustainable in our practices the other claims different that tends to lean me to that side with my eyes open. Anyone who claims we can continue gobbling resources at the rate we are is either a fool or worse is actively trying to convince people we can continue to increase of energy use.

One last point if we spend billions on this we may end up with a greener planet if we do nothing we end up with less for everybody and possibly a burnt cinder. If it's a toss for it I would have to go for reducing carbon output it definately won't kill us if science is wrong it wont matter but if we do nothing and science is correct on this were toast pun intended.

[Crazed Rabbit]

An example of why it's about control;
When famous authors propose a cheap geo-engineering solution (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate) (pumping SO2 into the atmosphere to cool it, like a huge volcano explosion did), the environmentalists freak out because it means they can't force people to lower their carbon footprint.

CR

[Beskar]

An example of why it's about control;
When famous authors propose a cheap geo-engineering solution (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate) (pumping SO2 into the atmosphere to cool it, like a huge volcano explosion did), the environmentalists freak out because it means they can't force people to lower their carbon footprint.

CR

You missed a post where I mentioned about that. There are other issues to contend, and that our focus should be on those with the garden hose pipe to the sky as an alternative.

[gaelic cowboy]

An example of why it's about control;
When famous authors propose a cheap geo-engineering solution (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate) (pumping SO2 into the atmosphere to cool it, like a huge volcano explosion did), the environmentalists freak out because it means they can't force people to lower their carbon footprint.

CR

Geo-Engineering is quite truly madness I am really sorry I have to stop you there on that. If climate change is caused by us then using a solution from the likes of Futurama where we dump an ice cube in the ocean is to be honest mental. Once we claim we need to Geo-Engineer then the debate is really over cos climate change must by definition be real.

Even our best and brightest cannot say 100% what the real effects of geo-engineering would be but once we interfere were locked in to it we must continue ad infinitum forever.

Again its safer and smarter to reduce the carbon cos what if were pumping SO2 up there and then we get an intense period of vulcanism were up the proverbial creek again.

Also I just checked the website there and those freakkonomics guys are economist's if anyone stock is low right now it's them.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

An example of why it's about control;
When famous authors propose a cheap geo-engineering solution (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/03/superfreaking-out-over-climate) (pumping SO2 into the atmosphere to cool it, like a huge volcano explosion did), the environmentalists freak out because it means they can't force people to lower their carbon footprint.

CR

This is the kind of thing I see as a casualty of the politicization of the global warming debate.

I would still bet that reducing emissions is preferable to pumping S02 into the atmosphere, even if it costs 5 times as much.

I don't doubt that climate researchers are properly using the scientific method. But the biggest effect of bias will be on what you choose to research. And I don't doubt that they are biased in some way, they don't seem to take an anthropocentric view, like I would.


These measures are known to be hugely expensive and their effect on global warming will be slow. Geoengineering could be seen by some as a potentially cheaper policy alternative. The moral hazard is that a decision to support geoengineering technologies could lessen efforts to reduce the global concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Moral hazard? :dizzy2:

I don't understand where the moral part comes from.

[Beskar]

Moral hazard? :dizzy2:

I don't understand where the moral part comes from.

Well, there is the hole in the Ozone layer, and while geoenginneering solution might benefit any global warming, it would impact the Ozone layer (however, if the radical solution is needed, the ozone problem is a less of a problem).

There is a whole moral environment field out there as well. This comes in relation to endangered species and other things. Should we just allow those species to die out? Should we just turn the environment into a resource to exploit? This also heads slightly in the biblical field where God appionted us as caretakers of the world, not the locus or the one to destroy it.

There are many other issues such as Genetically Modified crops. While in America, I believe all your wheat is GM'd amongst other things, while in Europe they banned the use of GM crops, and any products with them in, are clearly labelled as such.

There is a whole moral environmental conscience out there and this starts heading into a vastly different area.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, there is the hole in the Ozone layer, and while geoenginneering solution might benefit any global warming, it would impact the Ozone layer (however, if the radical solution is needed, the ozone problem is a less of a problem).

There is a whole moral environment field out there as well. This comes in relation to endangered species and other things. Should we just allow those species to die out? Should we just turn the environment into a resource to exploit? This also heads slightly in the biblical field where God appionted us as caretakers of the world, not the locus or the one to destroy it.

There are many other issues such as Genetically Modified crops. While in America, I believe all your wheat is GM'd amongst other things, while in Europe they banned the use of GM crops, and any products with them in, are clearly labelled as such.

There is a whole moral environmental conscience out there and this starts heading into a vastly different area.

Yes, well put.

I would really like it if the scientists weren't moral environmentalists though. I don't feel like someone is going to invest years of research into a solution they feel is morally wrong. And that could have a snowball effect--if all the research is in one direction, then that is the only direction that has scientific support.

But fortunately, I do partly agree with the environmentalist approach. I don't think nature is sacred, but our forests and parks are recreational resources. Clean air, clean water, all good things.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Geo-Engineering is quite truly madness I am really sorry I have to stop you there on that. If climate change is caused by us then using a solution from the likes of Futurama where we dump an ice cube in the ocean is to be honest mental. Once we claim we need to Geo-Engineer then the debate is really over cos climate change must by definition be real.

Why? Why is the argument over if warming is happening?

Should that not be where the real debate begins; on how to deal with the warming?


Even our best and brightest cannot say 100% what the real effects of geo-engineering would be but once we interfere were locked in to it we must continue ad infinitum forever.

Nor can they say what the effects of reducing CO2 gas would be with complete certainty. And there's nor reason we'd be locked into pumping SO2 into the atmosphere forever.


Again its safer and smarter to reduce the carbon cos what if were pumping SO2 up there and then we get an intense period of vulcanism were up the proverbial creek again.

Smarter? It's certainly cheaper, and would (theoretically) undo the (theoretic) effects of CO2.

Safer? I don't see why not. Both that and reducing CO2 plays with the law of unintended consequences.

But here's another solution, that wouldn't be geo-engineering and would significantly reduce CO2:
Nuclear Power. Again, the environmentalists go hysterical, because this still doesn't allow them to control people's lives.

Or, as Tony Abbott, Australian leader of the liberal party says:

“It’s hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they’re as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain.”

CR

[gaelic cowboy]

CR I agree totally on Nuclear energy it's the only sensible option fullstop. We can only go forward in or lives however some eco-whack jobs would have us throw out a century of inventions that have lifted us from poverty etc etc. The way I see it we reduce the carbon output but not by stupid wind turbine's or other silly fake renewable sources.

[Beskar]

CR I agree totally on Nuclear energy it's the only sensible option fullstop. We can only go forward in or lives however some eco-whack jobs would have us throw out a century of inventions that have lifted us from poverty etc etc. The way I see it we reduce the carbon output but not by stupid wind turbine's or other silly fake renewable sources.

Nah, nuclear fission energy is not the sensible option, but nuclear fusion is the sensible option.
http://www.iter.org/default.aspx
(or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fusion_power_technologies for full list)

[gaelic cowboy]

Nah, nuclear fission energy is not the sensible option, but nuclear fusion is the sensible option.
http://www.iter.org/default.aspx

In the short term it is a sensible option to use fission. It will take serious investment in research and development for fusion to be pulled off for commercial energy production.

Even fission is many times better than 99% of our current energy production systems. One other possible and I say possible is solar thermal energy which would drive a conventional turbine but I believe it is still only being researched and refined as of yet.

[Beskar]

In the short term it is a sensible option to use fission. It will take serious investment in research and development for fusion to be pulled off for commercial energy production.

Even fission is many times better than 99% of our current energy production systems. One other possible and I say possible is solar thermal energy which would drive a conventional turbine but I believe it is still only being researched and refined as of yet.

I believe there is meant to be a project involving the planets magnetical energies as well.

Biggest problem with Fission is the waste. Hydro-dams and lots of other methods are far less so. (Hydrodams are so under-used)

[gaelic cowboy]

I believe there is meant to be a project involving the planets magnetical energies as well.

Biggest problem with Fission is the waste. Hydro-dams and lots of other methods are far less so. (Hydrodams are so under-used)

I am a tiny but sceptical of dams to be honest the energy is not polluting but it does significantly affect a river's natural ecology. Plus we just recently had a crisis in Ireland with one in Cork city (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cork-city-left-under-water-as-esb-opens-floodgates-1950229.html)

Plus it only works at certain flow rate which if the greenies are right means the flow in rivers will increase due to increased water in the rivers from global warming. And then of course you have to have a river too obviously.

[Beskar]

I am a tiny but sceptical of dams to be honest the energy is not polluting but it does significantly affect a river's natural ecology. Plus we just recently had a crisis in Ireland with one in Cork city (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cork-city-left-under-water-as-esb-opens-floodgates-1950229.html)

Plus it only works at certain flow rate which if the greenies are right means the flow in rivers will increase due to increased water in the rivers from global warming. And then of course you have to have a river too obviously.

True, it would affect a river's natural ecology, but can't you artifically set the flow rate? and what about doing a bunch of dams in a line. Is it possible to gain a lot of energy from this? How about open river turbines, which would work similar to those tidal ones.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I believe there is meant to be a project involving the planets magnetical energies as well.

Biggest problem with Fission is the waste. Hydro-dams and lots of other methods are far less so. (Hydrodams are so under-used)

Fission is the best option right now. It can be made safe, and the waste securely stored.

Oh, and environmentalists hate dams as well. We have a lot in Washington, and recently we had a referendum forcing power companies to get a certain amount form renewable sources ... except dams were specifically not allowed as renewable. Plus they whine about how they hurt the fish and everything.

It seems the level of environmentalist support for a project is directly inverse to it's efficiency and ability to reduce the effects of CO2 without requiring people to actually cut down on CO2.

CR

[gaelic cowboy]

True, it would affect a river's natural ecology, but can't you artifically set the flow rate? and what about doing a bunch of dams in a line. Is it possible to gain a lot of energy from this? How about open river turbines, which would work similar to those tidal ones.

The tide is a definate feature of the earth which is why scientist and engineers are trying to harness it. Repeatability thats the key we need it when we need it or at the very least we need to know when it happens which in the case of tidal energy we do. However the flow rate of a river is not definite extra dams will only move the problem further up the river. You could try to deepen and shape the banks of a river but it would be costly and really only temporary as the river will eventually out.

[gaelic cowboy]

Oh, and environmentalists hate dams as well. We have a lot in Washington, and recently we had a referendum forcing power companies to get a certain amount form renewable sources ... except dams were specifically not allowed as renewable. Plus they whine about how they hurt the fish and everything.

It seems the level of environmentalist support for a project is directly inverse to it's efficiency and ability to reduce the effects of CO2 without requiring people to actually cut down on CO2.

CR

I believe there is summit to that on the greenies they are terrified of nuclear power.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Re: pumping SO2 into the air:

I have no need for some geo-engineer to throw sulphuric acid into my face. I can do that myself if I want to ruin my life; thank you very much. SO2 is exactly why CaCO3 filters are mandatory on conventional power plants and the like.

Blundering idiots.

[Ironside]

Nor can they say what the effects of reducing CO2 gas would be with complete certainty. And there's nor reason we'd be locked into pumping SO2 into the atmosphere forever.

Safer? I don't see why not. Both that and reducing CO2 plays with the law of unintended consequences.

Unless you're arguing that the CO2 increase is not man made, I can't see how CO2 reduction ends up in the law of unintended consequences. :inquisitive:
Besides, CO2 reduction is about slowing down the increase, not total reduction, for a long time forward.



But here's another solution, that wouldn't be geo-engineering and would significantly reduce CO2:
Nuclear Power. Again, the environmentalists go hysterical, because this still doesn't allow them to control people's lives.

CR

Indeed, having solar panels on your roof and be a energi producer will have you much more controlled, than being a buyer through that neighbouring nuclear power plant that you'll see for the next 40 years...

I suspect a lot of old nuclear resistance in general is also in the form of not being particullary familliar with breeder reactors, as the ones run on 235 aren't really a large scale, long term option.

And of course those environmentalists (old guard radical greens) would go hysterical, they have to be consistant. Why would a permanent outsider behave differently when coming into the warmth temporarly?
Or perhaps they are former marxists that hid their true agenda all this time, infiltrated the scientiffic community to spread their agenda through simple truths (that CO2 is a greenhouse gas) and by causing the heat in the first place, so that they could have a chance of setting the agenda, even if it will go poorly.

And for a few degrees, another increase as the one from 95 until now (about 0,2 degrees C) and white is what we dream of for christmas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vPfOjAw5Z0&feature=related). Currently, it's boderline. The first snow that stayed all winter has fallen within a week before Christmas, all winters except 1, since 2000. When the green winter comes (snow has been coming on Christmas eve twice), it will be the first one since they started with the data 1900. A small change for the average can have a large impact.

[Louis VI the Fat]

How much fraudulous science can the fossil fuel industry buy?



Dr Patrick Michaels is often used by the media on both sides of the Atlantic as one of the very few people who deny that manmade climate change is happening and who is also a practising climate scientist. Among many other outlets, he has written for the Guardian's website, which describes him as "a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/patrick-michaels)." But there's something Michaels doesn't want you to know: as far as I can tell, he has never voluntarily disclosed the following information.

In 2006 the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (Irea) circulated a memo (http://www.desmogblog.com/files/IREA-memo.pdf) to electricity generators, transmitters and distributors[2]. The memo explained that most of the electricity its members provided is generated by coal plants, and Irea was intending to engineer a "considerable shifting from gas-fired generation" to coal. But the profits from this enterprise were now under threat. "A carbon tax or a mandatory market-based greenhouse gas regulatory system would erode most, if not all, of the benefits of the coal-fired generation."

In the hope of averting this disaster, Irea had "decided to support Dr Patrick Michaels and his group (New Hope Environmental Services Inc). Dr Michaels has been supported by electric co-operatives in the past and also receives financial support from other sources ... In February of this year Irea alone contributed $100,000 to Dr Michaels. In addition we have contacted all of the G&Ts [generators and transmitters of electricity] in the United States and as of the writing of this letter, we have obtained additional contributions and pledges for Dr Michaels' group. We will be following up with the remaining G&Ts over the next several weeks."

[Beskar]

How much fraudulous science can the fossil fuel industry buy?

Louis, don't you know anything? Irea and their coal-fired powerplants are just there to debunk the myths, they are not doing it out of profit or attempting to hamper the process. They are protecting us Americans from tree-hugging hippies who will some how control the world... because... saving the planet means they become our communist overlords which we will have to bow down to and worship them.

It's all about control, it is my right in the constitution to destroy the environment as I see fit like a hissy toddler without getting told off.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How much fraudulous science can the fossil fuel industry buy?

Nice, but this is no more of a smoking gun than the climategate emails. If the science is correct, and bad for businesses, they will hire a PR company to dispute the science. If the science is incorrect, and bad for business, they will hire a PR company to dispute the science. For example, if the tobacco industry paid a scientist to do a study on how "snus" was less unhealthy than the official government documentation held it to be, they would be entirely incorrect, because the official government statement was and maybe still is very exaggerated.

It is still a scientific question in the end. If a biased and bribed person designs a model of the environment and makes a prediction about global warming, then their model should be inaccurate in a reportable way.

[Crazed Rabbit]

How much fraudulous science can the fossil fuel industry buy?

Ah, and all the climate research funded by governments who want to use findings of man made global warming to exert great control over their citizens - that's not suspicious?

What you've done is shown that companies are paying for research, not that any of it is fraudulent. What I've done is shown that alarmists have altered raw data showing a non-warming trend into data showing a warming trend.


Unless you're arguing that the CO2 increase is not man made, I can't see how CO2 reduction ends up in the law of unintended consequences.

That's assuming the CO2 increase from man is completely responsible for the previous global temperature increase. It's assuming we know all about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and all the cascading effects. We don't.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

governments who want to use findings of man made global warming to exert great control over their citizens I, for one, welcome my Marxist control bunnies.




It's assuming we know all about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, and all the cascading effects. We don't.We don't indeed. We also do not understand all aerodynamic effects of aeroplanes flying with wings broken in half. We just assume they crash and try to prevent it rather than waiting for the perfect all-encompassing model.

[Subotan]

Fission is the best option right now. It can be made safe, and the waste securely stored.
Agreed. The one problem with nuclear power is that it takes so long to build a nuclear power station, because stupid NIMBYs dobn't realise that you're more likely to get cancer from the sun than from living next to a nuclear power station.



Oh, and environmentalists hate dams as well. We have a lot in Washington, and recently we had a referendum forcing power companies to get a certain amount form renewable sources ... except dams were specifically not allowed as renewable. Plus they whine about how they hurt the fish and everything.

It seems the level of environmentalist support for a project is directly inverse to it's efficiency and ability to reduce the effects of CO2 without requiring people to actually cut down on CO2.

CR
Correction: Some environmentalists. Environmentalists are not a coherent goup, and many of those who call themselves "environmentalists" because they like trees and flowers and bunnies are nothing more than hippies in suits. I think hydroelectricity is fantastic, and certainly one of the ways forward. Sure, the fish die, but fish are just a resource to be exploited, and there's a probably the way the resevoirs caused by dams could be used to breed other types of fish. However, overexploitation is bad.

Re: pumping SO2 into the air:

I have no need for some geo-engineer to throw sulphuric acid into my face. I can do that myself if I want to ruin my life; thank you very much. SO2 is exactly why CaCO3 filters are mandatory on conventional power plants and the like.

Blundering idiots.
I find it totally bizarre that some people would rather resort to that than higher taxes for a decade or so, in return for clean air for eternity.

[Centurion1]

i recommend everyone check out the opening video of the brussels group. Simply uh how do i say this....... stupid.

reminds me of the daisy spot by lbj

[Fragony]

Ah, the dutch educational system at it's most unethical. We are getting at the bottom of this. I am a sceptic because I am a white male, only white males are sceptics after all, we suffer from an irrational lack of fear. And THERE IS CONCENSUS, sceptisch are payed by the oil industry, every one of them

what is it with lefties that they have the right to indoctrinate youth with nonsense? This is almost enough for criminal charges, not that we are going to we play fair

there are lies, gross lies, and leftist truths

[Subotan]

Very Related. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10)

[Furunculus]

I find it totally bizarre that some people would rather resort to that than higher taxes for a decade or so, in return for clean air for eternity.
just a few extra bob knocked off my pay packet.......... well that's all right then guv'nor, alrighty by me!

oh, no wait, it will cost twenty seven TRILLION Euro's a year and do more damage than the climate change itself?
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.


Very Related. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10)
Even More Related. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/)

[Subotan]

just a few extra bob knocked off my pay packet.......... well that's all right then guv'nor, alrighty by me!

oh, no wait, it will cost twenty seven TRILLION Euro's a year and do more damage than the climate change itself?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,665703,00.html

That's Twenty Seven Trillion Euros in 2100, which is going to be a lot less as a percentage of GDP than what it is now.


Even More Related. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/)
George Monbiot has on numerous occasions raised his objections to the enviornment section of the Guardian being sponsored in part by Shell. And how does supporting policies that will just happen to make some people money automaticaly discredit what he says?

...On the other hand, James Delingpole is a certified, tried and tested, blue in the wool opponent of the 'the “global warming” myth', the "European Socialist Superstate" etc.

[Furunculus]

That's Twenty Seven Trillion Euros in 2100, which is going to be a lot less as a percentage of GDP than what it is now.

George Monbiot has on numerous occasions raised his objections to the enviornment section of the Guardian being sponsored in part by Shell. And how does supporting policies that will just happen to make some people money automaticaly discredit what he says?
...On the other hand, James Delingpole is a certified, tried and tested, blue in the wool opponent of the 'the “global warming” myth', the "European Socialist Superstate" etc.

i think that not throwing away 12.9% of GDP growth could provide a lot of clean water, sanitation, food and basic healthcare to developing world, and provide a geo-engineering solution to non anthopogenic CO2 based warming, all whilst leaving some change in our pockets. and until i have a greater confidence in IPCC prognostications on the impact of anthropogenic CO2, that is the way my opinion will stay.

george monboit is a prize berk, who writes fatuous and emotional nonsense just like the article i criticised in the oil-sands thread.
delingpole on the other hand, represents the other end of the spectrum, and while i don't agree with him i absolutely giggle every time his blog gets another ten million hits because in sowing skepticism he is bringing some balance back to the debate, which will hopefully result in the science making a convincing case for itself before policy is enacted.

[Subotan]

i think that not throwing away 12.9% of GDP growth could provide a lot of clean water, sanitation, food and basic healthcare to developing world,

By that point, the majority of the world will likely be developed, should we take care of the environment. Compare the living standards of Western Europe now and in 1900 for evidence.


and provide a geo-engineering solution to non anthopogenic CO2 based warming,

You'd have to be mad to advocate geo-engineering. That's the absolute last resort.


all whilst leaving some change in our pockets. and until i have a greater confidence in IPCC prognostications on the impact of anthropogenic CO2, that is the way my opinion will stay./QUOTE]
Well it's not the opinion of meteorologists and climatologists who dedicate their entire lives to studying the climate, and that's the opinion which matters.

[QUOTE=Furunculus;2395397]
george monboit is a prize berk, who writes fatuous and emotional nonsense just like the article i criticised in the oil-sands thread.
:rolleyes:



delingpole on the other hand, represents the other end of the spectrum, and while i don't agree with him i absolutely giggle every time his blog gets another ten million hits because in sowing skepticism he is bringing some balance back to the debate, which will hopefully result in the science making a convincing case for itself before policy is enacted.
Climate science debate is totally meaningless at the level that you, I or Delingpole debate it at. He sows mistrust, fear and anti-intellectualism.

[General Appo]

Quite so. I have yet to see a really serious debunking of the "global warming myth". Then again, it's not like most "global warming myth-spreaders" are really serious either, so I guess it's understandable.

[Fragony]

Have yet to hear an argument of why I should be absolutely terrified of CO2.

Anyway, former activist and current minister of climate-lies and indoctrination has finally completely lost it, for some reason she claims that humanity will be extinct in2100, is no completely baseless claim too absurd for the fear-factory? Can't just decide that humanity will be extinct in 2100 like just setting out the party-line. Of course all the socalled quality-media is gobbing it up in spades.

Hitler understood, tell a lie great enough and people will believe it, and even if they don't they will become part of the lie because they are helpless against it, propaganda is about humiliation pure and simple.

[Beskar]

She is a fool, the last day is on the 20th of December, 2012, then the world ends as the poles reverse and North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice-versus causing massive environment shift and problems killing us all. It says so on my Mayan calender.

[Louis VI the Fat]

She is a fool, the last day is on the 20th of December, 2012:laugh4:


Gives us a link, Frag, love.

[Fragony]

:laugh4:


Gives us a link, Frag, love.

You will have to make due with google transate, link is in article but I thought I might as well humor you with some rightwing goodness, this is a very populist site, so you know.

edit, ah, there she is again, mentally blocking climategate, nothing to see here, move along.

http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/253040/Cramer-Niets-frauduleus-aan-gehackte-klimaatmails.htm

[Furunculus]

By that point, the majority of the world will likely be developed, should we take care of the environment. Compare the living standards of Western Europe now and in 1900 for evidence.

You'd have to be mad to advocate geo-engineering. That's the absolute last resort.

Well it's not the opinion of meteorologists and climatologists who dedicate their entire lives to studying the climate, and that's the opinion which matters.

:rolleyes: (re: The Great Moonbat)

Climate science debate is totally meaningless at the level that you, I or Delingpole debate it at. He sows mistrust, fear and anti-intellectualism.

the same way the trillion plus in western aid has alleviated the multitudinous afflictions of the third world?

i do not yet accept the IPCC consensus that global warming is principally driven by anthropogenic CO2, totally separate from my acceptance that there has been a warming trend in recent time, if the warming isn't principally anthropogenic and is catastrophic, then yes, geo-engineering will be the only way forward.

not even all the meteorologists, geologists, and climatologists agree on the IPCC consensus, and certainly not enough to convince me yet that wizzing trillions up the wall on suppressing anthropogenic CO2 is a good idea, when the same money left in the economy could not potentially do far more to alleviate the afflictions of the human condition.

he is an idiot. his writing is manure. he preaches faith. he is no better than delingpole.

it is also meaningless at the level the moonbat understands anything, and yet you are willing to take his rantings on faith, i am not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why, indeed. Page 25, 'By 2100, mankind will largely have vanished from the planet'.
http://www.clubofrome.at/2009/amsterdam/p/cramer1.pdf

Most peculiar.

But wait...the plot thickens:



Jacqueline Marian Cramer (born April 10, 1951 in Alkmaar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkmaar)) is Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Housing,_Spatial_Planning_and_the_Environment) in the Fourth Balkenende cabinet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Balkenende_cabinet) for the PvdA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Labour_Party).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Cramer#cite_note-0) Previously she was a professor of sustainable entrepreneurship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_business) at the Utrecht University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utrecht_University) and professor of environmental management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_management) at the Erasmus University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_University). She is member of the Board of directors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors) at Royal Dutch Shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell) and a member of the Social-Economic Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social-Economic_Council).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Cramer#cite_note-1)
Board of Directors at Shell? :laugh4:

[Fragony]

Board of Directors at Shell? :laugh4:

Standard practise, every big compony has a leftieloonie in the board of directors, easier to deal with unions and the eco-nostra that way. Leftieloonie can't resist the cold capitalist cash hen it comes down to it, it's bribing really, they get 400k for being, well on the board directors, and they are usually powerful figures in leftielalaland, it's a bargain really.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Standard practise, every big compony has a leftieloonie in the board of directors, easier to deal with unions and the eco-nostra that way. Leftieloonie can't resist the cold capitalist cash hen it comes down to it, it's bribing really, they get 400k for being, well on the board directors, and they are usually powerful figures in leftielalaland, it's a bargain really.Ah. Food for thought for Louis, and much to read up about.

Will the indomitable Fragony unravel a great lefty plot to Louis, again? :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

ololol she is going to make such a fool out of us an 8 year old speaks better English http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/736801/dc0b4468/dzjekkelin_kreemer.html

LOL what an inconvenient inconvenience, the weather map for next thursday, hey Rasoforos are you going to make snow-doll? You can http://climategate.nl/2009/12/10/krijgt-kopenhagen-gore-effect/

[Louis VI the Fat]

An internal memo obtained by Greenpeace USA details polluters’ plans to launch a nationwide Astroturf campaign, staging fake "grassroots" events to attack climate legislation during the final weeks of recess before the Senate returns to debate the issue in September.

The email memo (download a PDF copy (http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/GP%20API%20letter%20August%202009-1.pdf)), which appears to come from the desk of American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard, asks API’s member companies to recruit employees, retirees, vendors and contractors to attend “Energy Citizen” rallies in key Congressional districts nationwide. API is focusing on 21 states that have “a significant industry presence” or “assets on the ground.”



API Energy Rally The American Petroleum Institute is sponsoring a Grassroots rally focusing on energy related job security, adverse legislation, and high consumer prices currently under consideration in Washington. Anadarko will have 4 buses available for employees to attend during an extended lunch time. Additional buses may be provided based on the waiting list. Buses will begin loading at 10:15 with an 10:40 departure for downtown Houston.
Hot Dogs and sodas will be provided at the venue.
:laugh4:



Better link:

IREA memo header
Memo from Stanley Lewandowski, General Manager of IREA

On August 12, 2009, an American Petroleum Institute memo came to light. The memo, from API President Jack Gerard, details the API’s plans for an astroturfing campaign to oppose U.S. climate change legislation [1]. The memo was leaked to Greenpeace USA. It sets out a plan for a series of API-funded “Energy Citizen” rallies to be held in August ’09. The “Energy Citizen” rallies will be populated by oil company employees, and the API was hoping to keep the venues confidential:

Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies.
[...]
The list of tentative venues is attached. Please treat this information as sensitive and ask those in your company to do so as well, as some of these places may be subject to change, and we don’t want critics to know our game plan.
Jack N. Gerard,
Copy of API memo [1]

This most recent insight into the API’s activities is getting extensive coverage [2] [3], so I’ll use this post to look back a bit.

The API’s efforts to oppose climate change legislation go back more than a decade. Other oil and coal interests have been doing the same. Two earlier leaked memos, one from the API, and one from an electric distribution cooperative called IREA, provide some clear information about these organisations’ motives, methods, and funding arrangements.http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/pseudoscience-and-astroturfing-three-leaked-memos/

[Louis VI the Fat]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)




The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.


"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,"

[...]

A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism. :shame:

[gaelic cowboy]

You know they way things seem to be done these days I get the feeling no one will do sod all about this till we run out of oil and gas. Then when all the nuke plants get built we will by accident end up with carbon lite energy. I believe is it eighty percent of home emmisions will be cut due to carbon free electricity.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)




The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism. :shame:

You just took that out of context in a way a politician would be proud of. Firstly, that is an article from 2003. Secondly, here is the full quote:


The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".

"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

Luntz was talking about how the story of Bush supposedly adding arsenic to water was more emotionally compelling than the truth, which was that he wasn't.

[Furunculus]

Frightening is that the Rebublican Party outright knows that the science is against them. They are perfectly well aware that the facts are against them.

In an act of cynicism bordering on insanity, their strategy is to create doubt. To 'Teach the controversy, not the science' (where have we heard that strategy before...)




The world thanks the GOP very much for this act of depraved cynicism. :shame:

i thought it was crazy neo-con climate deniers that were the only ones capable of taking an email out of context?

[Louis VI the Fat]

You just took that out of context in a way a politician would be proud of. Firstly, that is an article from 2003. Secondly, here is the full quote:

Luntz was talking about how the story of Bush supposedly adding arsenic to water was more emotionally compelling than the truth, which was that he wasn't.Props for your critical eye and refusal to take information at face value. But alas, it's not true.


The full quote, in full context, can be found here, a photocopy of the leaked memo:
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf&date=2008-10-31
The page titled 'overview', third paragraph.

The quote is:
"Indeed it can be helpful to think of environmental and other issues in terms of 'story.' A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth... The facts are beside the point. It's all in how you frame your argument."