What is your opinion on Climate Change? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What is your opinion on Climate Change?

Pages : [1] 2

Jimnik
12-01-2009, 05:03 PM
Everybody has an opinion. No matter how well informed, please share.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen (7-18 December) is fast approaching.


Do you believe in global warming?

No, there's not enough hard evidence.
Maybe but I'm not so sure. Need more research.
Yes but it's a natural cycle. Will cool down later.
Yes but there's no proof it correlates to CO2 emissions.
Yes and it's definitely the result of human activity.
I really don't know. Let the experts decide for me.

How catastrophic will the potential consequences be? With the melting of the ice caps difficult to predict.

Iván
12-01-2009, 05:29 PM
the force that created earth, human or whatever knows the destiny of the earth and when it will die.

lets not forget everything that is ''damaging the earth'' was created by earth itself.

Stensland
12-01-2009, 05:35 PM
(x) yes, and while it might be part of some natural cycle, man-made emissions make it much worse.

i don't think the first world (europe, north america, japan) will be directly affected. to some extent we might even turn out to be winners. natural resources in the polar regions are gonna be available etc.

however, hundreds of millions of people from africa and south east asia will try desperately to reach the first world, so the indirect impact will be equally earth-shattering.

Bilbo
12-01-2009, 05:49 PM
however, hundreds of millions of people from africa and south east asia will try desperately to reach the first world, so the indirect impact will be equally earth-shattering.

that's one thing. the other one is the rising sea level because most big cities are built along the oceans. so big resettlements will be a major problem in the future which will take place for sure.

however, imo it doesn't matter because it will happen anyway sooner or later. to happen now would be better than in the future when the cities are even bigger. in the cretaceous the sea level was up to 300 m higher than today which means it can happen again.

many people think the situation as of now is bad but it will happen anyway sooner or later. people think if we "save the world" now we will have no problems.

LocoPorElTenis
12-01-2009, 06:19 PM
While I and you can have an opinion, as we are dealing with a very complicated scientific fact, our opinion has as much weight as our opinion on whether dark matter exists or whether the Riemann hypothesis is true - i.e. none at all.

This is a topic which huge political implications (unlike the validity of the Riemann hypothesis), so that scientists working on it have no doubt a large amount of pressure, but I will still defer to the smart and prepared people that devote their life to researching this topic. The current consensus among the vast majority of this community is "Yes and it's definitely the result of human activity.".

If you want the truth, this is the best approximation we currently have (like all of science, it can be perfected and even corrected as our understanding and evidence improves). If you want to continue destroying the planet without hurting your conscience, feel free to hold any of the other opinions :wavey:

PS. I am well aware that there are divergences within the scientific community. But the overwhelming consensus is that there is warming that is at least partly caused by human activity. There is no question also that "more research is needed" to get a better picture.

Stensland
12-01-2009, 06:20 PM
that's one thing. the other one is the rising sea level because most big cities are built along the oceans. so big resettlements will be a major problem in the future which will take place for sure.


rich nations will find a way to "defend" themselves, the dutch already invented quasi-swimming homes. it's banghladesh, the philippines or vanuatu that are gonna eventually pay the price.

Garson007
12-01-2009, 06:25 PM
The rising of sea levels will never be as drastic as a sudden 300m rise. At worst it will probably be half a meter a decade.

Bilbo
12-01-2009, 07:00 PM
At worst it will probably be half a meter a decade.

that would be huge

~*BGT*~
12-01-2009, 08:40 PM
I believe it is a mixture of cycle and human activity. It's inevitable that the earth cools and warms in uncontrollable cycles, but I believe human activity surely exacerbates that.

Jōris
12-01-2009, 08:40 PM
It's getting cold outside. We need more global warming and fast.

SpinLES
12-01-2009, 08:49 PM
the force that created earth, human or whatever knows the destiny of the earth and when it will die.

lets not forget everything that is ''damaging the earth'' was created by earth itself.

it's not about will earth "die"..it won't..at least for another 5 or 6 billion years til sun runs out of gas..it's about will our civilisation survive polution,overpopulation,nuclear wars or whatever..

SpinLES
12-01-2009, 08:53 PM
[QUOTE=LocoPorElTenis;9376004]

This is a topic which huge political implications (unlike the validity of the Riemann hypothesis), so that scientists working on it have no doubt a large amount of pressure, /QUOTE]

this..and it's about $$$$ and who finances their work

Bilbo
12-01-2009, 09:09 PM
it's not about will earth "die"..it won't..at least for another 5 or 6 billion years til sun runs out of gas..it's about will our civilisation survive polution,overpopulation,nuclear wars or whatever..

the first big problem will be when oil runs out followed by other important natural resources.

overpopulation will also be a bigger problem than any climate change.

also imagine when the sea level rises and cities get flooded which will lead to a major pollution of the oceans.

to make it short. it doesn't look good at all and talking about the climate really is just a minor problem out of all these.

the problems will be so huge that i can't even describe them in any words.

MalwareDie
12-01-2009, 09:40 PM
We are all doomed. It doesn't matter if climate change doesn't kill us.

Certinfy
12-01-2009, 09:43 PM
that would be huge
Exactly.

Garson007
12-01-2009, 10:53 PM
that would be huge
Indeed it would, yet it's still an over-exaggeration on my part. :shrug:

Garson007
12-01-2009, 10:59 PM
If there is something more important than AGW about our future, then it would have to be the Oil Peak, like pointed out by Bilbo. A decrease in oil supply will be an absolute monstrosity for humanity to face.

Mjau!
12-02-2009, 02:33 AM
It's most likely both. Even the IPCC says so and their goal is to establish man made global warming. I don't know how much we're affecting the climate but am very sceptical about the 6 degrees irreversible spiraling out of control scenarios the media like to blow up. I'm also sceptical of some of the positive feedback mechanisms that the models heavily rely on. Richard Lindzen's recent study seems like a crushing blow to the most important of these.

I definitely think peak oil is a very serious threat. There may be an abundance of oil, but most of it isn't easily accesible and requires lots of energy to extract which drives up costs and should affect production rate. When we start running low on conventional oil, it's gonna hit our standard of living right in the gut unless we have managed to develop a relatively cheap renewable alternative.

that would be huge

The sea level hasn't been rising at the predicted rate though and the warming of the ocean is roughly half of surface warming so even that might be an over-estimate. Either way, half a meter over a decade should be managable at least for developed countries should it not?

Jimnik
12-02-2009, 02:39 PM
that's one thing. the other one is the rising sea level because most big cities are built along the oceans. so big resettlements will be a major problem in the future which will take place for sure.
I'll be living in Munich when that happens. Safely and securely at a 500m altitude. ;)


overpopulation will also be a bigger problem than any climate change.

Agreed. Especially in Africa this is a much bigger issue. Population of Nigeria is doubling every 20 years.

scoobs
12-02-2009, 03:05 PM
What do I think?

I think that most scientists believe it is happening and that man is having an impact on it - how serious an impact seems to be ranging from pretty bad to appallingly frighteningly bad. There's still a few holdout scientists but the vast majority of the scientific community believe it as a fact.

I think, you're never going to get 100% agreement on it, but it's not like we're talking about a small-scale issue here, we're talking about nothing less than the future habitabilty and sustainability of the planet and its eco-system. This is not small beans. So it seems to me that, if there's even a *chance* we're doing serious damage to the planet, then we have to change our behaviour to try and reverse or mitigate that. It's not the sort of issue where doing nothing and later going "oops it was a big deal after all, my bad" should even be an option.

Which is why I find baffling these idiot politicians who say "we can't do anything about it, it will damage our economy." Newsflash - in a matter of decades your economy will probably go down the toilet anyway when the sea level rises, crucial species in the food chain become extinct, extreme weather events worsen dramatically, the planet's population is out of control, and the oil runs out. That's not a recipe for aggressive economic growth anyway.

R.Federer
12-02-2009, 03:21 PM
I think we're having an impact. I have no idea how severe.

This is a classic externality problem. The actions of one person alone are unlikely to affect the climate received by future generations. But of course, if we all do this, it will negatively affect. So without a proper market mechanism to disincentivize actions that cause harm to the climate, it is very difficult to have coordination on this issue. Everyone wants to cheat to make their own lives more comfortable, hoping that others will pick up the slack for them.

buddyholly
12-02-2009, 09:28 PM
Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Division at East Anglia has stepped down, because of emailgate. It is now clear that this group of scientists has been corrupting their data to convince governments of the effects of man-made climate change. And they also went out of their way to stop the data getting released to the public. Now we all know why.
Paul Mann, the guy responsible for the hockey stick graph that was the main force behind convincing the public of the danger of carbon dioxide, is being investigated by his university.

I think because of the dishonesty that has seeped through the climate change activists, it will now be necessary to start all over. Everything they have published is now suspect.

Copenhagen should be cancelled.

buddyholly
12-02-2009, 09:34 PM
your economy will probably go down the toilet anyway when the sea level rises, crucial species in the food chain become extinct, extreme weather events worsen dramatically, the planet's population is out of control, and the oil runs out. That's not a recipe for aggressive economic growth anyway. The drastic sea level changes are not happening. Probably all the alarmist data came out of the discredited University of East Anglia.

The problem on earth is overpopulation, something that can not be discussed because of the religious taboos. So instead it has been decided by ''scientists'' that all the blame will go on carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is to plants and forests what oxygen is to humans.

Henry Chinaski
12-03-2009, 12:11 AM
They say the reason they haven't released some data is that they don't own it. And Jones has only stepped down while the review is taking place.

SpinLES
12-03-2009, 01:48 AM
The drastic sea level changes are not happening. Probably all the alarmist data came out of the discredited University of East Anglia.

The problem on earth is overpopulation, something that can not be discussed because of the religious taboos. So instead it has been decided by ''scientists'' that all the blame will go on carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is to plants and forests what oxygen is to humans.

oxygen doesen't cose greenhouse effect ..and u think only thjey do reserch on this?:confused:

save ausdecline
12-03-2009, 01:59 AM
the reason people think climate change is not occuring is that it is normal for people to believe that their way of living is normal. But it has been drastically different if we compare it to millions years ago

safinafan
12-03-2009, 04:24 AM
the truth: we are all fucked up. in some years, the earth will be so hot that we'll gonna fry here, but no one is giving a damn about it. having kids right now is condemn them to an early death. let's continue acting as if nothing had happened,like a bunch of selfish assholes and soon as possible we are all dead. I think it's just 10 years till the end or not :wavey: make your prayers!

Chip_s_m
12-03-2009, 05:20 AM
the truth: we are all fucked up. in some years, the earth will be so hot that we'll gonna fry here, but no one is giving a damn about it. having kids right now is condemn them to an early death. let's continue acting as if nothing had happened,like a bunch of selfish assholes and soon as possible we are all dead. I think it's just 10 years till the end or not :wavey: make your prayers!

There's no way we're making it past 2012.

MalwareDie
12-03-2009, 06:53 AM
having kids right now is condemn them to an early death

Gotta worry about ourselves more. We should all commit suicide before we are scorched to death.

Getta
12-03-2009, 07:05 AM
There's no way we're making it past 2012.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3101/3163693653_2862db6f30.jpg

Garson007
12-03-2009, 10:56 AM
the truth: we are all fucked up. in some years, the earth will be so hot that we'll gonna fry here, but no one is giving a damn about it. having kids right now is condemn them to an early death. let's continue acting as if nothing had happened,like a bunch of selfish assholes and soon as possible we are all dead. I think it's just 10 years till the end or not :wavey: make your prayers!
:yeah: Now go back to sleep.

Jimnik
12-03-2009, 11:25 AM
Climate talk collapse better for planet: NASA's Hansen (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5B21BK20091203)

The planet would be better off if the forthcoming Copenhagen climate change talks ended in collapse, according to a leading U.S. scientist who helped alert the world to dangers of global warming.

rtgy
12-03-2009, 11:49 AM
my vote:
Yes and it's definitely the result of human activity!!!

Everko
12-03-2009, 02:15 PM
It's the result of American activity

buddyholly
12-03-2009, 07:06 PM
Professor Jones, the leading climate change activist has stepped down from his post because of the email scandal.
Michael Mann, the fabricator of Gore's hockey stick graph is being investigated by his own university, Penn State.

What I fear is that people fell for the man-made global warming fiasco so completely that they are finding it difficult to admit there is a big problem
My otherwise intelligent friend said, "I don't care if the science was bad as long as the global warming message was getting out." Sad logic, I fear.

buddyholly
12-03-2009, 07:11 PM
the reason people think climate change is not occuring is that it is normal for people to believe that their way of living is normal. But it has been drastically different if we compare it to millions years ago

This post clearly demonstrates that most young people expressing concern about climate change have no idea what they are talking about

Pfloyd
12-03-2009, 07:19 PM
Yes there have been cyclical patterns in the Earth's history that make some mention that it is only a result of Solar activity.

While some parts of this are true, it is also true that human beings are accelerating this process and quite likely messing the cycle up, making moments of peak heat hotter than they would be had it not been for c02 emissions.

Anyone who completely dismisses the harm humans are doing to the planet are missing the point and supporting the status quo and the current capitalist system.

I mean, let's take this argument to an extreme (which I do not agree with):

Suppose we are not contributing to this "global warming phenomena", we are clearly polluting and destroying the planet and all the creatures that live in it.

That much, is undeniable.

A cleaner Earth is better for all.

Garson007
12-03-2009, 08:16 PM
Suppose we are not contributing to this "global warming phenomena", we are clearly polluting and destroying the planet and all the creatures that live in it.

That much, is undeniable.

A cleaner Earth is better for all.
We are polluting yes, but destroying the planet and the creatures on it? LOL. What a completely unfounded "truth". If anything it will be the human race that saves the planet and its creatures.

Commander Data
12-03-2009, 08:23 PM
It's most likely both. Even the IPCC says so and their goal is to establish man made global warming. I don't know how much we're affecting the climate but am very sceptical about the 6 degrees irreversible spiraling out of control scenarios the media like to blow up. I'm also sceptical of some of the positive feedback mechanisms that the models heavily rely on. Richard Lindzen's recent study seems like a crushing blow to the most important of these.

I definitely think peak oil is a very serious threat. There may be an abundance of oil, but most of it isn't easily accesible and requires lots of energy to extract which drives up costs and should affect production rate. When we start running low on conventional oil, it's gonna hit our standard of living right in the gut unless we have managed to develop a relatively cheap renewable alternative.



The sea level hasn't been rising at the predicted rate though and the warming of the ocean is roughly half of surface warming so even that might be an over-estimate. Either way, half a meter over a decade should be managable at least for developed countries should it not?

The natural forcing is estimated to have been negative in the last 20-30 years. Hence, all warming is likely human induced.
Out of control scenarios are not based on hard facts. media BS.
Lindzen is one of the very few skeptics, neverless he coauthored the last IPCC Report and signed it.
Ocean is in fact raising twice as fast as predicted in the last 3 years. likely because models can not simulate the desintigration of large icesheets correctly, which seem to be more unstabel then assumed in the models. I don't think sea level will raise as fast as half a meter by a decade, though. developed countries my be able to deal with sea level raise (Although, I don't see how some big cities will deal with it. Build it giant wall around them or what?). But what about the poor countries that are like 1-2 meters above see level?
Do you suggest to be careless about them?

Jōris
12-03-2009, 09:29 PM
Change is good.

SpinLES
12-03-2009, 10:32 PM
We are polluting yes, but destroying the planet and the creatures on it? LOL. What a completely unfounded "truth". If anything it will be the human race that saves the planet and its creatures.

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/6512/original/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

Clydey
12-03-2009, 10:32 PM
I'm against it.

Garson007
12-03-2009, 11:22 PM
http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/6512/original/DoubleFacePalm.jpg
At least the Internet wins. :shrug:

Chip_s_m
12-04-2009, 01:23 AM
Yes there have been cyclical patterns in the Earth's history that make some mention that it is only a result of Solar activity.

While some parts of this are true, it is also true that human beings are accelerating this process and quite likely messing the cycle up, making moments of peak heat hotter than they would be had it not been for c02 emissions.

Anyone who completely dismisses the harm humans are doing to the planet are missing the point and supporting the status quo and the current capitalist system.

I mean, let's take this argument to an extreme (which I do not agree with):

Suppose we are not contributing to this "global warming phenomena", we are clearly polluting and destroying the planet and all the creatures that live in it.

That much, is undeniable.

A cleaner Earth is better for all.

That's strange. I thought the climate change debate was about climate change.

Maybe the climate change movement would have more supporters if it wasn't in reality a front to radically change the global economic and political systems.

buddyholly
12-04-2009, 02:49 PM
That's strange. I thought the climate change debate was about climate change.

Maybe the climate change movement would have more supporters if it wasn't in reality a front to radically change the global economic and political systems.

And that's the truth.

Climate changers don't care about old-style environmental causes. They want to make policy for the world and have a career in alarmism.

Less people is the simple answer. Which makes the Pope the biggest environmental threat of all.

buddyholly
12-04-2009, 02:57 PM
The natural forcing is estimated to have been negative in the last 20-30 years. Hence, all warming is likely human induced.
Out of control scenarios are not based on hard facts. media BS.
Lindzen is one of the very few skeptics, neverless he coauthored the last IPCC Report and signed it.
Ocean is in fact raising twice as fast as predicted in the last 3 years. likely because models can not simulate the desintigration of large icesheets correctly, which seem to be more unstabel then assumed in the models. I don't think sea level will raise as fast as half a meter by a decade, though. developed countries my be able to deal with sea level raise (Although, I don't see how some big cities will deal with it. Build it giant wall around them or what?). But what about the poor countries that are like 1-2 meters above see level?
Do you suggest to be careless about them?

How do you account for the president of the Maldives holding a press conference at the bottom of the sea in a bid to get monetary aid for his country "in peril".
Then the head of the group that did the sea level study writes an open letter to him saying he should be ashamed of his actions in lying totally about the results of the report, which showed there would be no significant sea level rise in the future.
It is all politics and lying now in the great climate change dash for dollars.

tangerine_dream
12-04-2009, 03:40 PM
Climate talk collapse better for planet: NASA's Hansen (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5B21BK20091203)

The planet would be better off if the forthcoming Copenhagen climate change talks ended in collapse, according to a leading U.S. scientist who helped alert the world to dangers of global warming.
I see your link and raise you another one. http://i18.tinypic.com/5yj7l7q.jpg

Here's an interesting read on how the Bush administration went out of its way to deny global warming, courtesy of Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605).

buddyholly
12-04-2009, 04:29 PM
Over $3million dollars worth of tickets sold for Gore's lecture in Copenhagen - and last night he announces he won't be able to attend.

munZe konZa
12-04-2009, 06:57 PM
oil will run out in 50 years and all the carbon dioxide will fall onto the rocks so how can anyone be bothered with it? Carbon Dioxide is pretty good because without it entire planet would be cold as ice or like Mars. Carbon Dioxide also helps many plants and by extension food to grow.

Aloimeh
12-05-2009, 04:10 AM
Speaking of Climategate, what people fail to understand is that "science" is a job. It is subject to the same pressures any other job is. Sure, it has an intellectual component. But, by far, politics, money, and power outweigh truth. One of the worst thing that happens is a scientific fad or a bandwagon. Stem cells for instance. Or string theory. Whole slews of people make their PhDs, postdocs, tenure track work - entire scientific careers - on a particular topic which is generally cast as a _____ (insert: cure, catalyst, theory, what have you) of everything.

The worst part of it is peer review. The mechanism meant to prevent falsehoods or unsubstantiated speculations from entering "the literature" is abused to screen out data that is perceived as unfavorable to the fad idea/topic/goal. All this does is create an almost insurmountably high burden of proof for the sceptic. Any experiment must have every potential control, and then some, and even with the controls confounders will be invoked and used to merciless blast away the sceptic. These are all complex systems, that is, life, the universe, or the earth.

After 5 or 10 or 30 years the fad fizzles out when it becomes clear that other, perhaps more interesting, topics, have been neglected and that what was promised did not fulfill. New blood must approach the problem, perhaps after more years and decades, and must attack it from a fresh perspective.

Climate change is just another fad, another bandwagon. A bunch of scientists craving for grants, promotions, and fame, are pushing AGW roughshod over evidence that contradicts the theory. What is most dangerous is that unlike string theory, which has little impact on daily life, or stem cell research, which has a low impact on the world (the use of human embryonic stem cells being the most controversial part), the climate change theories are being implemented into a political agenda, one that will affect economies of whole countries, overall production, the use of fuel and disposal of waste on a massive scale, agriculture, and the lives of hundreds of millions of people. We are being asked to "save the earth" and to "make the sacrifice" with hardly any evidence that we are responsible for changes in the earth's climate.

Resist the temptation to bow to "science." Read the papers yourself - any intelligent person can comprehend them - and read what the sceptics have to say. Inform yourself before you allow your government to reorganize your life entirely to suit a bunch of fraudsters and hysterics.

Garson007
12-05-2009, 08:23 AM
OT: I hate you MTF mods. I just posted a reply to a moved thread and now my reply has disappeared, well done. I can't be arsed to write it again.

Commander Data
12-06-2009, 02:57 PM
How do you account for the president of the Maldives holding a press conference at the bottom of the sea in a bid to get monetary aid for his country "in peril".
Then the head of the group that did the sea level study writes an open letter to him saying he should be ashamed of his actions in lying totally about the results of the report, which showed there would be no significant sea level rise in the future.
It is all politics and lying now in the great climate change dash for dollars.

Would be helpful if you had provided the letter. I doubt that they said there won't be any significant sea level rise. They probably just complained about the Maldives giving a wrong picture about the amount of sea level rise that is to be expected in order to get money.
Sea level are predicted to rise 0.5-1 meter by the end of this century (although that might be to little, because of the iceshields showing non-linear behaviour. As I said, the scientists can not very well simulate the desintegration of large icesheets, because we have never observed such a thing). So, if the maledives give a press conference under the sea they evoke the image that we are facing a sea level rise of a couple meters in the near future, which is not the case. As there is already much confession about the whole climate change issue, giving suc wrong impressions does certainly not make the scientists happy. sea level is extimated to need 500 years to rise 5 meter. One must keep in mind though, that the ocean-sea-ice-system reacs very slow, it takes a very long time to get into a new equilibrium state. Hence, even if we stop CO2-Emissions within the next 50 years, sea level will continue to rise for about another 1000 years.

BTW: I suspect that a sea level rise of 50 cm within the next 50 years is not harmless. I think some pretty populated areas need to be cleared.

buddyholly
12-06-2009, 06:33 PM
I can't find the letter, which I read in my local paper. But googling ''Nils-Axel Morner'' will turn up tons of info. The guy has many critics and is a proponent of dowsing, so is open to doubt. But all the stuff on the Maldives seems believable, especially the evidence on the shores of falling sea levels.

And I liked the references to how the warmers ignore isostatic rise and fall of the earth's surface, which could be more than any sea level changes due to melting ice.

I also liked his story of how a very old tree on the shore should no longer be there if the sea level is rising. And how a group of Australian warmers came and uprooted it.

Aloimeh
12-06-2009, 06:45 PM
University of East Anglia emails:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
.

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

See attached note.

Comments?

Tom

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

From: Phil Jones
To: mann@vxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004

From: Timo H‰meranta
To:
Subject: John L. Daly dead
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510
Importance: Normal

Mike,
In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just found another email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

Cheers
Phil

“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of John Daly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (daly@XXXX)

Reported with great sadness

At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:

thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence.

any other thoughts team?

Options appear to be:

Send them the data

Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Here are some gems. “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly.”

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

Stensland
12-06-2009, 07:47 PM
as much as i "accept" people who see themselves as skeptics here (and have every right to be that way as well, no doubt) - i don't like your particular background, aloimeh. you're a good guy but somehow i feel like you're being misled by the "faith over facts" crowd.

at least buddyholly doesn't believe in anything and isn't trying to topple science in favor of an even more hilarious belief. you on the other hand, i'm afraid, would have hardly any problem with such a swap of mindsets, judging from your bible thread answers.

Aloimeh
12-06-2009, 09:36 PM
as much as i "accept" people who see themselves as skeptics here (and have every right to be that way as well, no doubt) - i don't like your particular background, aloimeh. you're a good guy but somehow i feel like you're being misled by the "faith over facts" crowd.

at least buddyholly doesn't believe in anything and isn't trying to topple science in favor of an even more hilarious belief. you on the other hand, i'm afraid, would have hardly any problem with such a swap of mindsets, judging from your bible thread answers.

Rrainer: you seem to be suggesting that my views on global warming are not derived from the science?

It is true that my skepticism is engendered by the arrogant AGW hysteria, which resembles a religion more than science. A religion that embraces human beings as creatures capable of destroying or saving the earth entirely on their own. Which reflects a complete lack of appreciation of the scale of the earth - or the universe - as compare to human beings and their capabilities. I reject that thinking, for religious reasons I needn't go into here.

On the other hand, I can look at science with a critical eye and I do have some background in science (currently pursuing MD and PhD degrees). While I have not examined the GW data in detail, that means that I looked at confounders and alternative explanations: geothermal activity, solar activity, non-human-generated greenhouse gases, etc. The AGW promoters are focused on one thing and one thing only: human CO2 production.

There are many scientists much more qualified than I to critically appraise the data, i.e. geophysicists, who have examined the evidence and are not convinced. There is no definitive conclusion as to whether human activity is the primary cause of recent increases in global temperatures, and I see no reason to support one party over another on scientific grounds, at this moment.

Again, as someone who studies biology, I can say that (as Bilbo mentioned) organisms, the earth, and the universe are incredibly complex systems with hundreds of variables often interacting in a chaotic manner, that are impossibly difficult to model accurately at the moment.

buddyholly
12-06-2009, 11:18 PM
at least buddyholly doesn't believe in anything

Thanks for that, but I would rather be called positively atheist.

And I feel a little bit gloaty over climategate. Once High Priest Gore and his priests told us the debate was over and no more discussion was allowed, I had a gut feeling they didn't want outsiders scrutinising their methods.

But I think I will rest for 10 days, just to see if they are going to tell us to continue to have faith in AGW, even if our faith is strongly tested by the infidels. Although Gordon Clown apparently is going to any length to save British face and has already told us not to go wobbly on the East Anglia datamanglers.

buddyholly
12-06-2009, 11:23 PM
Rrainer: you seem to be suggesting that my views on global warming are not derived from the science?



Why should your views on AGW be derived from science when no other views are? Are you really a ''scientist'' who rejects radiometric dating? From your posts here and in other threads you seem to be saying that science is good, unless it contradicts a literal translation of the bible, and then it is bad.

Stensland
12-07-2009, 06:56 PM
Thanks for that, but I would rather be called positively atheist.


it wasn't meant in any derogatory way anyways. i understand your point of view, even though i don't share it.

There is no definitive conclusion as to whether human activity is the primary cause of recent increases in global temperatures, and I see no reason to support one party over another on scientific grounds, at this moment.

well, as many have mentioned before: the vast majority is on one side here. there's a saying here that goes "if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and swims like a duck, chances are it is a duck."

something like a "definitve conclusion" won't ever be reached on such a hot button issue, now that's guaranteed. way too many parties take part in a totally international debate for that to happen.

you have every right to disagree with the pro-climate change fraction but as a layman (which we probably can agree on, we all are at this point) i don't get why anyone would purposely go against the well-educated masses - unless one can personally argue against the scientific evidence the majority has brought to the table.

buddyholly
12-07-2009, 09:56 PM
unless one can personally argue against the scientific evidence the majority has brought to the table.

It seems clear to me that the East Anglia group was willing to suppress data they didn't like, tweak data to meet their predictions (hide the decline using a trick), close ranks to keep ''unacceptable'' papers being published, keep their data files hidden from scrutiny, threaten a boycott of publications that permitted dissent and generally put making the data fit their plan a more important goal than real science. And maybe what we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended).

I don't buy into the East Anglia group being an insignificant part of the weight of evidence; they are the heavy hitters and their suspect data files were used by others to reach scientific conclusions.

I enjoyed seeing Senator Boxer of California saying, you may call it ''climategate'', but I call it ''emailgate'', trying to make the hacking the issue. But the people screaming foul about the publication of the emails are the same ones who were screaming hooray for the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

Stensland
12-07-2009, 10:02 PM
i don't scream foul at all. neither do i condone their behaviour btw. but although i have no proof whatsoever i feel like the other side is bullshitting much more, on a much larger scale with potentially much greater ramifications.

if this "scandal" gets you going, what's your opinion on the fact that exxon sponsors sceptics?

Tommy_Vercetti
12-07-2009, 11:52 PM
What relevance does that have at all? You are saying that scientists lying and manipulating data is the same thing as Exxon's alleged support for some skeptic somewhere? I don't see the connection.

Aloimeh
12-08-2009, 01:13 AM
it wasn't meant in any derogatory way anyways. i understand your point of view, even though i don't share it.



well, as many have mentioned before: the vast majority is on one side here. there's a saying here that goes "if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck and swims like a duck, chances are it is a duck."

something like a "definitve conclusion" won't ever be reached on such a hot button issue, now that's guaranteed. way too many parties take part in a totally international debate for that to happen.

you have every right to disagree with the pro-climate change fraction but as a layman (which we probably can agree on, we all are at this point) i don't get why anyone would purposely go against the well-educated masses - unless one can personally argue against the scientific evidence the majority has brought to the table.

You mock my religious beliefs yet you blindly accept what some "scientist" says just because there's a "consensus." That's the definition of faith.

Ever heard of collusion? Ever heard of conspiracy? Ever heard of conflict of interest?

Regarding science, I don't particularly care either way. String theory may be true and it may not be. It matters little to me because it doesn't affect politics, society, economies, etc.

This global warming hoopla is unfortunately going to cripple Western production, destroy yet more jobs in the US industrial sector, and help China. It won't "save the planet" at all.

The moronic ideas coming out of the GW kitchen are just mind-numbing. That's right: take corn away from our agricultural sector, deprive livestock and people of a staple crop, jack up the cost of meat and milk, and use it to make ethanol. Never mind the fact that in using a partially oxidized organic compound (ethanol has a hydroxyl vs. ethane having none), you are getting LESS energy per CO2 molecule produced than if you used a clean hydrocarbon of the same chain length.

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed that someone so intelligent as you would stoop to this GW religion, with Gore as high priest. At least I don't cast a veneer of "science" on my faith.

These GW people are a joke and ten years from now you will be laughing at them and yourself, and/or ruing the day you bought into their claptrap and allowed these scoundrels to inflict more pain on the humanity.

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 01:45 AM
i don't scream foul at all.

I wasn't thinking of you. I don't think you were around for the Pentagon Papers. I was thinking of the people of my generation who hailed the theft of the Pentagon papers as a heroic act. Now they hail the theft of the emails as a scurrilous crime.

Aloimeh
12-08-2009, 01:53 AM
Boxer's righteous outrage

QQEdPrkM9Mc

Tommy_Vercetti
12-08-2009, 02:16 AM
Yeah, Boxer certainly made it clear that that she didn't care about false and manipulated data on such a big issue and was trying to make the entire issue about the hackers. She was only mad that their lies were made public. It pisses me off that no one in the Senate will confront her about it. It also makes me wonder how much people like her and Al Gore actually know about this kind of scientific fraud.

LocoPorElTenis
12-08-2009, 10:15 AM
While climate change "skeptics" are wanking off to the leaked e-mails from the East Anglia group, you have to keep in mind that:

a) This is just one group, the evidence for man-made climate change comes from consistent research among many scientists working in many groups in many countries.

b) The point of science is that it works, even if the scientists themselves are human and often fail. Aloimeh may say whatever he wants about science, but he still uses the results of science everyday, from the internet to health care. By all accounts Newton was an asshole, doesn't make his law of gravitation any less true. Even then, there is no clear evidence from those e-mails at all that the East Anglia group was actually manipulating the science, though an investigation should take place.

c) While both sides of the debate on climate change may have an agenda, the "skeptic" side has MUCH more powerful backers and MUCH more incentive to distort the science. If some scientist is in it for the money, he would surely serve the skeptic interest. Believe me, Al Gore may be popular in some circles, but it is Exxon Mobile that has the deep pockets.

By far, a) is the main factor you should keep in mind.

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 01:21 PM
a) This is just one group, the evidence for man-made climate change comes from consistent research among many scientists working in many groups in many countries.

By far, a) is the main factor you should keep in mind.

I am not sure on the details, but I think the East Anglia data was used by other groups. If the East Anglia data was tweaked it hurts everyone who accepted their database.

Nice surprise, as an outspoken skeptic, my monthly Exxon cheque was doubled this month.

Jimnik
12-08-2009, 02:24 PM
Exxon Mobil is pouring billions of dollars into research for alternative and renewable sources of energy. The "greedy profit-seeking" organization finds practical solutions while morons like Gore and Obama do nothing but preach.

Even if man-made global warming does exist, you can't fight it with speeches. Yet judging by the destination of Nobel Peace Prizes, people seem much more impressed with words than action.

Stensland
12-08-2009, 05:38 PM
You mock my religious beliefs yet you blindly accept what some "scientist" says just because there's a "consensus." That's the definition of faith.

how is that faith at all? :confused:

unlike you i believe in facts. science delivers pretty well, religion doesn't. there's no consensus on the existence of the yeti either. obviously the vast majority of scientists deny it - yet there are some who claim to have seen the thing even personally. should i go "hmmm, so maybe he DOES exist" rather than go with the example with the ducks i mentioned before?

Honestly, I'm a bit disappointed that someone so intelligent as you would stoop to this GW religion, with Gore as high priest.

what is it with gore anyways? you guys mention him 24/7, is he such a big deal in the states? he doesn't get any attention by the media over here. i don't think i've heard his name over the last couple of weeks in any report about climate change and he's certainly not my priest. as you might have noticed, just like you, i'm not a scientist. all i can do is trust those people in the know. it turns out most of them have quite a similar opinion - and as a scientific numbnut i naturally go with that bunch because who am i to challenge them? who are YOU to challenge them, aloimeh?

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 06:14 PM
i naturally go with that bunch because who am i to challenge them? who are YOU to challenge them,

Is this the much-discussed German desire to follow orders at work here?

I don't much go with that line of logic. I remember my family asking who was I to challenge the superior knowledge of my church minister. I can think of many other examples where the collective failure to challenge the status quo was fatal. But that was last century and you have already told me to get over that period.

Stensland
12-08-2009, 07:01 PM
so you think despite what scientists (=highly-educated people) say everybody (=joe the plumber) should just go and believe whatever they want, no matter how ludicrous it is? that way you're just gonna palinize the world.

interesting that you note the alleged german mindset here. there's been an article about blogs and why they're basically non-existent in germany in the paper last week. the commentator's opinion was that germans hardly trust anybody on important issues unless they know the person's educational background and experience. when you decide to write a blog about something, you better make sure that you can prove an okay track record in your cv. americans (canadians as well?) tend to be open-minded though about lots of stuff (he did criticize though that many people are gullible and naive to an almost dangerous degree). another point was that americans don't believe the u.s. media anymore due to all the spin doctors and try to find the truth on the web while state television is still the leitmedium over here and the most trusted news source. but that's another topic.

Bilbo
12-08-2009, 07:08 PM
good that i have access to the data about climate change so i can make my own mind. it's funny though how many people in here try to have a clue about the topic even though they have no connection at all and just read from newspapers etc. i can at least say i know something about the topic because of my job even though i'm no climatologist. but it's part of geology.

Stensland
12-08-2009, 07:23 PM
so bilbo AND buddyholly are both geologists. interesting. i see some bonding in the near future. :D

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 07:41 PM
I always feared that would get out.

(Time out to watch Bayern stuff Juve)

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 09:41 PM
(Time out to watch Bayern stuff Juve):eek:

Stensland
12-08-2009, 09:46 PM
yeah nice going. didn't even think they'd be able pull off a draw. england goes "5:1, even heskey scored", from now on we go "4:1, even tymoshchuk scored." :D

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 09:57 PM
It was easy actually. I just want the English teams to meet crap teams in the knockout stage.:angel:

Stensland
12-08-2009, 09:58 PM
aren't you irish? the only other irish guy i know doesn't really root for english teams, to put it very mildly.

buddyholly
12-08-2009, 10:12 PM
I never bought into that. I am Northern Irish, I grew up watching English football on TV. There are very few English players on the teams anyway. (Naturally I would root for an Irish team over an English team, but those matches never happen.)

And there was not much joy in rooting for Glasgow rangers.

Aloimeh
12-09-2009, 12:01 PM
how is that faith at all? :confused:

unlike you i believe in facts. science delivers pretty well, religion doesn't. there's no consensus on the existence of the yeti either. obviously the vast majority of scientists deny it - yet there are some who claim to have seen the thing even personally. should i go "hmmm, so maybe he DOES exist" rather than go with the example with the ducks i mentioned before?



what is it with gore anyways? you guys mention him 24/7, is he such a big deal in the states? he doesn't get any attention by the media over here. i don't think i've heard his name over the last couple of weeks in any report about climate change and he's certainly not my priest. as you might have noticed, just like you, i'm not a scientist. all i can do is trust those people in the know. it turns out most of them have quite a similar opinion - and as a scientific numbnut i naturally go with that bunch because who am i to challenge them? who are YOU to challenge them, aloimeh?

Rrrainer: faith is whenever you believe something that you personally have not sensed. If you believe what your mother tells you about what she saw (but you personally didn't), you are having faith in her truthfulness if you accept that that actually did happen.

When you practice the scientific method, you look at alternative explanations and confounders. You probe whether your hypothesis is true on all points. If it isn't, it must either be modified or outright discarded. What a theory should do is predict things that we can then determine experimentally. That is what makes a theory truly strong. If it just reproduces the data, it is nothing.

What these East Anglia people have done is engineer things backward. They have a fixed theory: humans are the main factor behind global warming, and they will manipulate the data in any which way to make out that CO2 or other human-made greenhouse gases are the main or even only factor behind recent increases in earth's temperature. They will cut data points, add constants to the data points, hide data, etc. They will suppress publication by people who hold alternative viewpoints. This is not science at all.

As for who am I to challenge them, do you realize that without challenging established dogma, science would never move forward? Some science is about acquiring new data and putting it in context with known theories and paradigms. It is incremental and essential. But other science uses difficult-to-explain data and, rather than suppressing it, challenges the actual theories and paradigms currently in use and develops new ones to incorporate the difficult data.

I am not so arrogant as to claim that I am that person, or that I even know the science in the GW/AGW debate. I do, however, dismiss the notion that we have no right to challenge what scientists say. Of course we do, and we should. Science should be strong enough to resist the criticisms of those who are wrong. Let the AGW people do so, and not with fraudulent data sets, as they have done in the past.

buddyholly
12-09-2009, 04:16 PM
what is it with gore anyways? you guys mention him 24/7, is he such a big deal in the states? he doesn't get any attention by the media over here.

Then you are probably not aware that he got a Nobel Prize for peace.

Bilbo
12-09-2009, 04:18 PM
Then you are probably not aware that he got a Nobel Prize for peace.

so did obama

as of now we can say gore did a better job with it

buddyholly
12-09-2009, 04:22 PM
Like what? Buy jet fuel for his globetrotting fundraising?

Stensland
12-09-2009, 06:48 PM
Rrrainer: faith is whenever you believe something that you personally have not sensed.

no, faith is basically nothing but trust. i trust the roundabout 95% of climatologists, you trust the remaining 5% - and i don't get why. there are tons of facts out there supporting the notion that man has quite an impact on the planet's climate. even though i'm not a scientist, i understand the issue to some extent. when i combine these facts with the opinions of leading climatoligists i think i'm getting a fairly clear picture, no need to resort to blind faith.

Then you are probably not aware that he got a Nobel Prize for peace.

that was pretty much the last time i heard of him in the media over here. the papers are full of copenhagen coverage yet his lecture you mentioned has never come up anywhere.

buddyholly
12-09-2009, 08:51 PM
that was pretty much the last time i heard of him in the media over here. the papers are full of copenhagen coverage yet his lecture you mentioned has never come up anywhere.

You don't think the ass-kissing media are going to cover the fact that after selling $3 million worth of tickets (only $1200 each) he cancelled the lecture, do you? You seem to be saying that if the European media doesn't mention it, then it can't be true. What does the European media cover? Every time I mention something you seem to reply that your papers failed to mention it.
He cancelled just as climategate hit the back pages of the European press.

Stensland
12-09-2009, 09:27 PM
You don't think the ass-kissing media are going to cover the fact that after selling $3 million worth of tickets (only $1200 each) he cancelled the lecture, do you? You seem to be saying that if the European media doesn't mention it, then it can't be true. What does the European media cover? Every time I mention something you seem to reply that your papers failed to mention it.

and you seem to take pretty much every post differing from your opinion very personally, often even racially (the german "mindset of following orders, the comment vs. garson re his south african background etc.), so you generally might wanna tone it down a notch.

all i was trying to point out was that he's pretty much a nobody around here. since you obviously thought he was one of the main "idols" of the man-made-fraction on mtf - well, he's not, now you know. i was just getting bored with your daily rants against him as if you were desperately trying to stir up the pot with his name.

now, german papers these days mostly cover the "entscheider-runde", where the wealthiest countries meet in private to discuss their influence and possible goals. today's headlines were about third-world countries demanding financial aid to cope with probable ramifications. eu countries and the u.s. wanna help out but according to an african diplomat the billions they're likely to offer would only "help to buy the coffins we're going to need for the dead bodies." that quote has been one of the major headlines in tonight's news (i think it was some sudanese minister).

buddyholly
12-09-2009, 09:51 PM
and you seem to take pretty much every post differing from your opinion very personally, often even racially (the german "mindset of following orders, the comment vs. garson re his south african background etc.), so you generally might wanna tone it down a notch.

all i was trying to point out was that he's pretty much a nobody around here. since you obviously thought he was one of the main "idols" of the man-made-fraction on mtf - well, he's not, now you know. i was just getting bored with your daily rants against him as if you were desperately trying to stir up the pot with his name.

now, german papers these days mostly cover the "entscheider-runde", where the wealthiest countries meet in private to discuss their influence and possible goals. today's headlines were about third-world countries demanding financial aid to cope with probable ramifications. eu countries and the u.s. wanna help out but according to an african diplomat the billions they're likely to offer would only "help to buy the coffins we're going to need for the dead bodies." that quote has been one of the major headlines in tonight's news (i think it was some sudanese minister).

Daily rant on Gore? Come on. Anyway, I am glad to learn that he is out of favour.

Your last paragraph is scary. This is where the politics of global warming seems to be heading. I heard Gore (sorry) on TV just now talk about the millions of climate change refugees. Where are they? Northeast Africa has been suffering famines for millenia.
I see Bangladesh is demanding 15% of all aid because of damaging cyclones. Hello? There have always been cyclones in bangladesh.
More and more, global warming seems to be the vehicle for getting handouts.

buddyholly
12-09-2009, 09:57 PM
Ooops, you mentioned race in your posts. That is ridiculous. Maybe it will surprise you, but Germans belong to a nation, not a race. And I did not decide that it would be a running joke around the world that Germans are good at taking orders. I'm Irish and fully entitled to make all the jokes I want about other nationalities.

What was the comment about garson and South Africa?

Stensland
12-10-2009, 12:14 AM
Your last paragraph is scary. This is where the politics of global warming seems to be heading. I heard Gore (sorry) on TV just now talk about the millions of climate change refugees. Where are they? Northeast Africa has been suffering famines for millenia.
I see Bangladesh is demanding 15% of all aid because of damaging cyclones. Hello? There have always been cyclones in bangladesh.
More and more, global warming seems to be the vehicle for getting handouts.

while that might be true, what's your solution here? man-made climate change or not: we will face huge amounts of "climate-refugees" trying to get to the first world. i've heard on a program we should take the current amount and roughly double it - these folks wanna come to us, to your home country, to my home country. now, i understand what we're likely to face are civil wars due to regional conflicts (water/food) and western countries are gonna take a step back and "let it be" - but then again, there will still be dozens of millions making their way up north.

i take it most think tanks in brussels and washington fully realise that the cash these countries are demanding these days might be necessary to keep at least some of the potential emigrants in their home countries. it's probably not meant to be a present at all, like you make it sound. obviously the western countries as usual will have to make sure the cash will eventually be distributed.

if we do nothing, they will come to our shores. you go.

re the racial thing, yeah i meant nations, not races (wouldn't have made sense in garson's case anyways). i don't know what that particular comment was anymore, garson came up with an opinion you didn't like and you reacted like "what am i to expect from a guy coming from a country that did this and that" or something along those lines. so you seemed pretty fond of clichés or at least breaking opinions down to heritage. lots of your posts are trenched in hilarious irony but that one seemed strangely straight-forward.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 12:21 AM
while that might be true, what's your solution here? man-made climate change or not: we will face huge amounts of "climate-refugees" trying to get to the first world. i've heard on a program we should take the current amount and roughly double it - these folks wanna come to us, to your home country, to my home country. now, i understand what we're likely to face are civil wars due to regional conflicts (water/food) and western countries are gonna take a step back and "let it be" - but then again, there will still be dozens of millions making their way up north.

i take it most think tanks in brussels and washington fully realise that the cash these countries are demanding these days might be necessary to keep at least some of the potential emigrants in their home countries. it's probably not meant to be a present at all, like you make it sound. obviously the western countries as usual will have to make sure the cash will eventually be distributed.

if we do nothing, they will come to our shores. you go.

re the racial thing, yeah i meant nations, not races (wouldn't have made sense in garson's case anyways). i don't know what that particular comment was anymore, garson came up with an opinion you didn't like and you reacted like "what am i to expect from a guy coming from a country that did this and that" or something along those lines. so you seemed pretty fond of clichés or at least breaking opinions down to heritage. lots of your posts are trenched in hilarious irony but that one seemed strangely straight-forward.
there'll probably be quite a few wars started as territories that are losing a lot of land to rising ocean levels seek to gain new territory from their neighbours.

Ilovetheblues_86
12-10-2009, 01:11 AM
Its raining a lot in Sao Paulo this year, a lot more than previous year standards.

Stensland
12-10-2009, 01:19 AM
there'll probably be quite a few wars started as territories that are losing a lot of land to rising ocean levels seek to gain new territory from their neighbours.

actually i was thinking of desertification. we'll probably have hunger-wars, no "who's boss"-wars like in the 70s.

Vida
12-10-2009, 01:22 AM
frankly I cant see the clear difference there.

Chip_s_m
12-10-2009, 01:25 AM
Its raining a lot in Sao Paulo this year, a lot more than previous year standards.

It's also abnormally cold in Texas. Houston had its first snowfall earlier than in any other winter since records started being kept. In fact much of the US is getting pounded by bigass snowstorms right now.

Stensland
12-10-2009, 01:28 AM
for the victims there's hardly any difference, that's true. scooby thinks countries will start wars to take over parts of other countries due to the rising sea level though, to compensate basically. i think they'll start wars because of water shortages -> nutrition shortage.

Vida
12-10-2009, 01:30 AM
here its abnormally warm. no snow at all and none expected. some rain these days, but not much really. it was like 20 degrees C ten days age. which is all incredibly warm for this part of Europe.

buddyholly
12-10-2009, 03:05 AM
while that might be true, what's your solution here? man-made climate change or not: we will face huge amounts of "climate-refugees" trying to get to the first world. i've heard on a program we should take the current amount and roughly double it - these folks wanna come to us, to your home country, to my home country. now, i understand what we're likely to face are civil wars due to regional conflicts (water/food) and western countries are gonna take a step back and "let it be" - but then again, there will still be dozens of millions making their way up north.

i take it most think tanks in brussels and washington fully realise that the cash these countries are demanding these days might be necessary to keep at least some of the potential emigrants in their home countries. it's probably not meant to be a present at all, like you make it sound. obviously the western countries as usual will have to make sure the cash will eventually be distributed.

if we do nothing, they will come to our shores. you go.

re the racial thing, yeah i meant nations, not races (wouldn't have made sense in garson's case anyways). i don't know what that particular comment was anymore, garson came up with an opinion you didn't like and you reacted like "what am i to expect from a guy coming from a country that did this and that" or something along those lines. so you seemed pretty fond of clichés or at least breaking opinions down to heritage. lots of your posts are trenched in hilarious irony but that one seemed strangely straight-forward.

I think you start by saying that whether climate change is man-made or not we will face huge amounts of climate refugees. Does this mean you accept that one way or the other the planet will keep getting warmer? What if there is no drastic climate change? Temperature variations today are well within the variations that have for millions of years been due to nature.
All the proposed remedies are being proposed for what will happen if computer models are true. So far they are not true. There has been no warming for the past 10 years apparently, in total contradiction of the computer models. Sorry to bring up Gore again but I just heard him say that the Arctic ice will be gone in 10 years. This, I think, is alarmist. He used to say the seas were going to rise 20 feet this century. I don't think anyone believes that now. (Don't berate me for always going on about Gore. Remember, he won the Nobel with the IPCC, he is the spokesman for their agenda.)

I suspect that most people think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It is not, it is the gas feeds the world's plant life. The geological record shows that there have been periods when the atmospheric carbon dioxide was many times higher than today - and the globe did not overheat.

garson and I have agreed that he worded his post badly. He seemed to say that Ugandans really fear western cultural imports to their country, one of which just happened to be homosexuality. So yes, my reply was straightforward outrage, because I thought it was behaviour similar to the incidents in South Africa where lesbians have been ***** to ''cure'' them.

On a lighter note, that Stanford professor, Schneider, in the 70's claimed that the ''science'' clearly showed that sulphur gases from burning coal were about to trigger a new ice age. Today he is a top warmer, claiming that carbon gases from burning oil are causing catastrophic warming. Is it not possible that if we continue to use oil and re-introduce coal then they will balance each other out and the temperature will steady itself? Just a thought. I smell Nobel.

buddyholly
12-10-2009, 03:11 AM
actually i was thinking of desertification. we'll probably have hunger-wars, no "who's boss"-wars like in the 70s.

I think current theory is that global warming means more ocean evaporation and more rain. Desertification is maybe not a problem. Who knows, maybe happy days are nearly here again. I think Scotland was a major wine producer during the Medieval Warming Period. I prefer wine to scotch.

buddyholly
12-10-2009, 03:19 AM
there'll probably be quite a few wars started as territories that are losing a lot of land to rising ocean levels seek to gain new territory from their neighbours.

Who is going to lose a lot of land because of rising sea levels caused by global warming?

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 04:26 AM
there'll probably be quite a few wars started as territories that are losing a lot of land to rising ocean levels seek to gain new territory from their neighbours.

Yawn. It'll happen when God decides and how He decides.

Massive flood is the LEAST likely thing to happen, actually.

buddyholly
12-10-2009, 04:29 AM
Yawn. It'll happen when God decides and how He decides.

Massive flood is the LEAST likely thing to happen, actually.

He did it once, no reason he couldn't do it again.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 04:37 AM
He did it once, no reason he couldn't do it again.

You don't know your Bible.

As for this GW stuff, it's sheer nonsense. I recently attended a lecture on mathematical modeling of biological processes and the presenter explained how in a chaotic non-linear system, tweaking just one of dozens of variables throws everything off.

I asked him if his rate constants used in his equations were based on experiments, or the result of fitting the data to a kinetic scheme. He was evasive, but it appears the latter.

If you cannot determine how many variables you actually have, if you have no way of measuring them exactly, of gauging how they are interrelated and what the real experimentally-determined rate constants are, you have absolutely no way of calculating a "final number." It is so complex that missing one variable from your scheme or messing up one rate constant throws everything off, potentially.

The GW stuff is the same. The hockey-stick curve has been discredited. Now it looks like we'll be going back to coal...oops, I guess we need a "greener" way of dumping sulfur in the atmosphere. Could we use bombs to blast open some volcanos?

Stensland
12-10-2009, 05:02 PM
I think you start by saying that whether climate change is man-made or not we will face huge amounts of climate refugees. Does this mean you accept that one way or the other the planet will keep getting warmer?

pretty much. as of now, that's the scientific consensus. again, i don't see why non-scientists would purposely identify with the remaining 5%.


What if there is no drastic climate change?

then we're doing good things for our planet nonetheless. will certain industry sectors get shattered? sure. will new industry sectors emerge? sure.

Sorry to bring up Gore again but I just heard him say that the Arctic ice will be gone in 10 years. This, I think, is alarmist. He used to say the seas were going to rise 20 feet this century.

i fully agree with you. maybe our opinions on the whole subject don't differ as much as i thought. i've been reading up on gore's statements yesterday - he's been saying some weird things over the last years, things that even the german media (sorry to bring it up again) has ignored. as usual i get the feeling that the debate itself is all about fringes overseas. gore is a loon just as the guys who completely deny any climate change at all - yet these two poles apparently play the biggest role in the states. both parties are ignored to a large extent over here. again bill maher put it best: "america can't even agree on what reality is anymore."

Desertification is maybe not a problem.

according to most analysts desertification will be affecting africa's economy the most.


Who knows, maybe happy days are nearly here again. I think Scotland was a major wine producer during the Medieval Warming Period. I prefer wine to scotch.

you're onto something there: naturally there are some states who (not openly, but still) couldn't care less about global warming: saudi-arabia for example. they aren't really fond of all the new energy proposals, killing off their oil services. the same goes for russia. if the computer models are any right russians could tap into huge amounts of natural resources north of the arctic circle once temperatures rise just slightly. an article in a german paper today outlined their tactics in copenhagen: voting against every initiative, boycotting debates, flat out striking.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:20 PM
Who is going to lose a lot of land because of rising sea levels caused by global warming?
depends how far the sea levels rise - if it rises more than a couple of metres in the next century, bearing in mind that nearly half the world's population leaves fairly close to the current coastline, that's an awful lot of human migration with all the intendant consequences.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:23 PM
For me, this jamboree is a complete waste of time. Governments can agree all the targets they want (though they probably won't) and then they'll miss them anyway. The only thing that matters is what businesses choose to do and they will do what is economically soundest for them - if that is to embrace a greener energy future, they will do so in their own way, in their own time, and whatever happens to the planet happens. It's far more the concerns over oil scarcity that is driving greener fuel technologies in business than global warming concerns in my opinion. This meeting just fosters the illusion that governments are in control of, and can control, global events.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:24 PM
Yawn. It'll happen when God decides and how He decides.

Massive flood is the LEAST likely thing to happen, actually.
Is the rapture coming at last?

Will I live to see it? Though not for long of course.

Will I be

*gasp*

left below?

*yawn*

Ivanatis
12-10-2009, 05:27 PM
http://www.leadingsmart.com/leadingsmart/images/2008/07/29/change.jpg

oh wait..

Stensland
12-10-2009, 05:27 PM
if it rises more than a couple of metres in the next century, bearing in mind that nearly half the world's population leaves fairly close to the current coastline, that's an awful lot of human migration with all the intendant consequences.

:eek: that's not gonna happen, scooby. such a number is indeed alarmist. if it was to happen, literally BILLIONS would become climate refugees, mostly in south east asia and africa. banghladesh for example has like 150 mil inhabitants being directly affected, the whole country is below or at sea level.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:30 PM
:eek: that's not gonna happen, scooby. such a number is indeed alarmist. if it was to happen, literally BILLIONS would become climate refugees, mostly in south east asia and africa. banghladesh for example has like 150 mil inhabitants being directly affected, the whole country is below or at sea level.
In the worst case scenario, admittedly not the likeliest, if the polar ice sheets in the artic and antartic melt significantly due to the formation of a greenhouse feedback loop, oceans could rise as much as 40m. I don't believe it will be anywhere near that bad but even a couple of metres does mean some very serious problems for low lying regions like, as you say, Bangladesh, and they're already saying that estimates of a rise of 40-60 cm may well be understating the problem - and that's going to be bad enough.

Stensland
12-10-2009, 05:34 PM
"a couple of metres" would pose serious problems for hamburg, amsterdam or tampa - bangladesh would simply vanish though. the same basically goes for EVERY SINGLE ISLAND in the pacific ocean (ex nzl), the philippines, the bahamas and tons of other countries.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:38 PM
"a couple of metres" would pose serious problems for hamburg, amsterdam or tampa - bangladesh would simply vanish though. the same basically goes for EVERY SINGLE ISLAND in the pacific ocean (ex nzl), the philippines, the bahamas and tons of other countries.
I don't know what the answer is - politicians are impotent, the public is somewhat convinced but unsure what to really do...nobody is taking a lead on this.

I suspect the situation will just develop organically regardless of what the politicians attempt to do, and the consequences will be severe and those of us who avoid the worst effects will find ourselves being appealed to much more to help those who have been.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 05:44 PM
pretty much. as of now, that's the scientific consensus. again, i don't see why non-scientists would purposely identify with the remaining 5%.

Show me this is the scientific consensus. It is the political consensus for sure, not the scientific one

then we're doing good things for our planet nonetheless. will certain industry sectors get shattered? sure. will new industry sectors emerge? sure.

This is quite possibly the silliest thing I've ever seen you post.

according to most analysts desertification will be affecting africa's economy the most.

Honestly, Rrrainer, North Africa has been desertifying for many, many centuries. How are you going to prove that it's due to anthropogenic global warming and not due to overgrazing, wind erosion, and endemic drought?

you're onto something there: naturally there are some states who (not openly, but still) couldn't care less about global warming: saudi-arabia for example. they aren't really fond of all the new energy proposals, killing off their oil services. the same goes for russia. if the computer models are any right russians could tap into huge amounts of natural resources north of the arctic circle once temperatures rise just slightly. an article in a german paper today outlined their tactics in copenhagen: voting against every initiative, boycotting debates, flat out striking.

I'm so happy at least Russia is saying this GW stuff is nonsensical crap. If Russia, China, and possibly India say no to Copenhagen, all that "agreement" does is hamstring the West from staying competitive. It's virtually suicidal destruction of our economy.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 05:45 PM
Is the rapture coming at last?

Will I live to see it? Though not for long of course.

Will I be

*gasp*

left below?

*yawn*

I saw what you posted earlier. You are right I haven't treated your posts with basic etiquette. I apologize.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:49 PM
They will all say no because they all want everybody else to take the pain of making tough legally binding decisions and not themselves.

I truly hope climate change theory is wrong because the amount of real leadership our leaders are showing on the issue is dreadful and future generations will look back on these generations of people and their leaders with contempt for identifying a massive future problem and failing to do anything but take token measures to prevent or mitigate it.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 05:49 PM
In the worst case scenario, admittedly not the likeliest, if the polar ice sheets in the artic and antartic melt significantly due to the formation of a greenhouse feedback loop, oceans could rise as much as 40m. I don't believe it will be anywhere near that bad but even a couple of metres does mean some very serious problems for low lying regions like, as you say, Bangladesh, and they're already saying that estimates of a rise of 40-60 cm may well be understating the problem - and that's going to be bad enough.

"a couple of metres" would pose serious problems for hamburg, amsterdam or tampa - bangladesh would simply vanish though. the same basically goes for EVERY SINGLE ISLAND in the pacific ocean (ex nzl), the philippines, the bahamas and tons of other countries.

Do we have any evidence of ANY ocean level rise at this moment?

Oh, and as someone who has actually lived in Bangladesh, I can tell you that those people will not all be killed or flooded out by a modest rise in sea level. There's so many people there because the Ganges-Brahmaputra river delta is probably the most fertile place on earth. It can sustain an enormous population. They're not leaving it any time soon, even if 1/3 of it gets overflooded. Also, you forget how Himalayan glaciers melting would make that delta more fertile, actually.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 05:54 PM
Do we have any evidence of ANY ocean level rise at this moment?

Oh, and as someone who has actually lived in Bangladesh, I can tell you that those people will not all be killed or flooded out by a modest rise in sea level. There's so many people there because the Ganges-Brahmaputra river delta is probably the most fertile place on earth. It can sustain an enormous population. They're not leaving it any time soon, even if 1/3 of it gets overflooded. Also, you forget how Himalayan glaciers melting would make that delta more fertile, actually.
yes, current measurements suggest sea levels rising at a rate of about 3.2mm/year. obviously, if the climate models are correct, they expect that rate to start increasing notably over time.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:05 PM
yes, current measurements suggest sea levels rising at a rate of about 3.2mm/year. obviously, if the climate models are correct, they expect that rate to start increasing notably over time.

How are these measurements made?

Stensland
12-10-2009, 06:06 PM
Show me this is the scientific consensus. It is the political consensus for sure, not the scientific one.

how would that work? do you expect me to pm you data?


Honestly, Rrrainer, North Africa has been desertifying for many, many centuries. How are you going to prove that it's due to anthropogenic global warming and not due to overgrazing, wind erosion, and endemic drought?

how am i to know? again, i believe the majority of climatologists, you don't. moving on.


I'm so happy at least Russia is saying this GW stuff is nonsensical crap.

they've never said anything even remotely close to that. russia just doesn't care. man-made climate change or not, they're likely to gain enough to cope easily with possible negative effects.

I can tell you that those people will not all be killed or flooded out by a modest rise in sea level.

who said they're gonna be killed? it's not like one giant wave is gonna flush them away. most of them will just move (or try to move), to india, to europe, to the states.


There's so many people there because the Ganges-Brahmaputra river delta is probably the most fertile place on earth. It can sustain an enormous population. They're not leaving it any time soon, even if 1/3 of it gets overflooded.

i know. scoobs' post referred to a rise of "a couple of metres" though - and that would virtually eliminate the delta and everything fertile in sight. heck, "a couple of metres" (3-4-5?) would erase whole parts of nothern germany, denmark or more than half of the netherlands and you believe a shithole like bangladesh would be able to shrug it off? :rolleyes:

is the himalaya referece meant to be a joke?

scoobs
12-10-2009, 06:10 PM
How are these measurements made?
You can have a read here if you want to look at how they do it.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:17 PM
You can have a read here if you want to look at how they do it.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

It appears the satellite altimeters measure the water depth, which depends not only on the surface but also the bottom of the body of water being observed. The satellite altimeters assume that the bottom of the sea is constant.

Stensland
12-10-2009, 06:24 PM
okay, so aloimeh has debunked a scientific study, probably researched for some years, set up for the world to see by a respected university, within a minute.

seriously man, do you really believe what you're posting here? it's one thing to be impressed by flashy science which can overwhelm john doe to some extent, i give you that - but your approach resembles hannity's: your opinion is set, no matter what happens.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:29 PM
okay, so aloimeh has debunked a scientific study, probably researched for some years, set up for the world to see by a respected university, within a minute.

seriously man, do you really believe what you're posting here? it's one thing to be impressed by flashy science which can overwhelm john doe to some extent, i give you that - but your approach resembles hannity's: your opinion is set, no matter what happens.

Ever heard of confounders? Alternative hypotheses? Oceans may have swells, it could be a localized phenomenon that the satellites are detecting. If the satellites are determining the length of the water column, they can't assume that one end (the bottom) is fixed and only the surface is changing. The bottom could be changing as well.

In science, when we test hypotheses, we look at alternative explanations for our data rather than immediately jumping on the easiest (and frequently wrong) explanation.

I'm not saying sea levels haven't risen. Just saying that if they are using cheap altimetry and tidal levels (oh dear: these depend on the changing coast, too), we may not be getting data that can be interpreted justifiably any which way.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 06:36 PM
Ever heard of confounders? Alternative hypotheses? Oceans may have swells, it could be a localized phenomenon that the satellites are detecting. If the satellites are determining the length of the water column, they can't assume that one end (the bottom) is fixed and only the surface is changing. The bottom could be changing as well.

In science, when we test hypotheses, we look at alternative explanations for our data rather than immediately jumping on the easiest (and frequently wrong) explanation.

I'm not saying sea levels haven't risen. Just saying that if they are using cheap altimetry and tidal levels (oh dear: these depend on the changing coast, too), we may not be getting data that can be interpreted justifiably any which way.
Yes, we do. We also look for trends and patterns. The data they collected from specific locations (where they know and can measure the depth of the water and the bottom of the ocean) shows clearly over time a steady gradual rise in ocean levels. It's one thing to look for alternative explanations and not jump on the easiest explanation bandwagon. It's quite another to just debunk the whole data and assume that it's all wrong with absolutely no proof that they don't know what they're doing.

There is no point at all discussing matters with someone whose mind is completely closed. I am, at least, open-minded that I might be wrong on climate change, and indeed I hope I am - I just don't think it's worth us all taking the risk that we're wrong. You however seem completely inflexible and not a position I have a lot of time for. Any evidence against is swooped upon, any evidece for is ignored or blithely explained away. It's a waste of time.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:38 PM
Yes, we do. We also look for trends and patterns. The data they collected from specific locations (where they know and can measure the depth of the water and the bottom of the ocean) shows clearly over time a steady gradual rise in ocean levels. It's one thing to look for alternative explanations and not jump on the easiest explanation bandwagon. It's quite another to just debunk the whole data and assume that it's all wrong with absolutely no proof that they don't know what they're doing.

There is no point at all discussing matters with someone whose mind is completely closed. I am, at least, open-minded that I might be wrong on climate change, and indeed I hope I am - I just don't think it's worth us all taking the risk that we're wrong. You however seem completely inflexible and not a position I have a lot of time for. Any evidence against is swooped upon, any evidece for is ignored or blithely explained away. It's a waste of time.

I am open to climate change. I am not particularly open to anthropogenically-driven climate change. And I think my attitude is a better one that Rrrainer's, who seems to assume that just because a bunch of scientists agree on something it makes it true.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 06:39 PM
I am open to climate change. I am not particularly open to anthropogenically-driven climate change. And I think my attitude is a better one that Rrrainer's, who seems to assume that just because a bunch of scientists agree on something it makes it true.
So what would it take to convince you?

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:41 PM
So what would it take to convince you?

That's the problem, I don't think we can experimentally determine that humans are causing global warming. We can detect warming by measuring temperatures easily enough (although I suspect there's some bias there by the East Anglia fraud types). How can we take a unique system and subject it to an experiment? What sort of controls would we have? Without controls, an experiment tells you nothing, even if you could do it.

zeleni
12-10-2009, 06:41 PM
I used to believe but all this fuss is making me suspicious. It is known for example that small regular variations in the Earth's movement causes climate changes. That is how glacial periods are explained. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

So climate changes are normal, but what causes it and how different changes can affect climate is VERY hard question and I don't believe anyone who gives resolute answers.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 06:46 PM
That's the problem, I don't think we can experimentally determine that humans are causing global warming. We can detect warming by measuring temperatures easily enough (although I suspect there's some bias there by the East Anglia fraud types). How can we take a unique system and subject it to an experiment? What sort of controls would we have? Without controls, an experiment tells you nothing, even if you could do it.
If you knew for certain that global warming and all the attendant problems would happen in the future as has been predicted by the scientists, what would you do?

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 06:59 PM
If you knew for certain that global warming and all the attendant problems would happen in the future as has been predicted by the scientists, what would you do?

I don't think there is much that can be done other than react to the circumstances. Every hurricane and earthquake shows us how ill-prepared we are for natural disaster and how ineffectual we are at stopping it. We can only react by moving people, rebuilding homes, curbing infection, etc. We can't stop a hurricane, redirect it, or slow it down. We can't even predict when an earthquake or volcanic eruption is going to happen.

So, if we are so bad at predicting/stopping relatively local events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and cyclonic storms - how can we possibly propose to stop a worldwide phenomenon of earth's heating? The forces involved are so vastly beyond our imagination that this whole AGW hype is just illustrative of the hubris humans have when it comes to nature.

I am not encouraging wastefulness. SUVs were a wastefulness I never endorsed. But I dislike what is happening now, where some fast food places are now issuing carbon credits to their food and apparently chicken is "good" and beef is "bad." In the US, now some medical organizations are encouraging family docs (I think you call them GPs in the UK) to talk to their patients about global warming. How is global warming an individual medical issue?

I dislike how this self-flagellating, poorly-supported notion that humans are going to destroy the entire planet because they produce carbon dioxide (which any scientist knows is NECESSARY for life itself (plants use CO2 and H2O to make oxygen and cellulose, glucose, and oils, and we (meaning animals) use these plant products directly or indirectly to sustain life) is being inflicted on the entire planet.

There are calls for increasing taxes, taxing food, taxing airtravel, taxing everything that is a part of modern, industrial, society so that we can go back 100 years. Burning corn ethanol was an insanity beyond fiction. We actually preferred to burn food for energy rather than inedible fuels of far superior efficiency!

It reeks of the whole cholesterol hatred we had 20 or 10 years ago (or even now), where it was portrayed as this evil molecule and people weren't being told that it's actually a very necessary molecule for the proper function of our cell membranes and as a precursor for the bile acids we use in digestion and for hormones.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 07:12 PM
I don't think there is much that can be done other than react to the circumstances. Every hurricane and earthquake shows us how ill-prepared we are for natural disaster and how ineffectual we are at stopping it. We can only react by moving people, rebuilding homes, curbing infection, etc. We can't stop a hurricane, redirect it, or slow it down. We can't even predict when an earthquake or volcanic eruption is going to happen.

So, if we are so bad at predicting/stopping relatively local events like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and cyclonic storms - how can we possibly propose to stop a worldwide phenomenon of earth's heating? The forces involved are so vastly beyond our imagination that this whole AGW hype is just illustrative of the hubris humans have when it comes to nature.

I am not encouraging wastefulness. SUVs were a wastefulness I never endorsed. But I dislike what is happening now, where some fast food places are now issuing carbon credits to their food and apparently chicken is "good" and beef is "bad." In the US, now some medical organizations are encouraging family docs (I think you call them GPs in the UK) to talk to their patients about global warming. How is global warming an individual medical issue?

I dislike how this self-flagellating, poorly-supported notion that humans are going to destroy the entire planet because they produce carbon dioxide (which any scientist knows is NECESSARY for life itself (plants use CO2 and H2O to make oxygen and cellulose, glucose, and oils, and we (meaning animals) use these plant products directly or indirectly to sustain life) is being inflicted on the entire planet.

There are calls for increasing taxes, taxing food, taxing airtravel, taxing everything that is a part of modern, industrial, society so that we can go back 100 years. Burning corn ethanol was an insanity beyond fiction. We actually preferred to burn food for energy rather than inedible fuels of far superior efficiency!

It reeks of the whole cholesterol hatred we had 20 or 10 years ago (or even now), where it was portrayed as this evil molecule and people weren't being told that it's actually a very necessary molecule for the proper function of our cell membranes and as a precursor for the bile acids we use in digestion and for hormones.
So because we can't prove it's happening definitively yet, and because you believe that even if global warming is being caused in part by man-made occurances, we can't mitigate that by changing our behaviour because it's nature and too big for us....that we should just let it happen and deal with it when it does?

I don't know...that seems awfully irresponsible to me.

If we can mitigate the parts of global warming that are being caused specifically by the production of EXCESS CO2 and other greenhouse gases (yes CO2 is a necessary part of the lifecycle of the planet but the issue here is not some CO2, it's too much) NOW and we choose not to because we're waiting for definitive proof...what a terrible indictment on us.

Now I agree that some would use this issue to hang their own agendas on - there are without a doubt some crazies who want to revert us to some pre-industrial post-modern-hippy sort of era, but isn't there a middle way where we give the scientists the benefit of the doubt (this is the future of the planet we're talking about after all, it's not a tiny little issue), and work to change our behaviour gradually by introducing less damaging alternatives and phasing them in? Then at least we are trying to mitigate the potential effects - if there are no effects, then at least we've addressed energy sustainability issues, pollution, etc - which are issues in their own right quite apart from global warming. And if there are effects from global warming, at least we've tried to reduce their future harm, knowing that we've tried to be better custodians of the planet to hand over to the future generations to come.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 07:20 PM
So because we can't prove it's happening definitively yet, and because you believe that even if global warming is being caused in part by man-made occurances, we can't mitigate that by changing our behaviour because it's nature and too big for us....that we should just let it happen and deal with it when it does?

I don't know...that seems awfully irresponsible to me.

If we can mitigate the parts of global warming that are being caused specifically by the production of EXCESS CO2 and other greenhouse gases (yes CO2 is a necessary part of the lifecycle of the planet but the issue here is not some CO2, it's too much) NOW and we choose not to because we're waiting for definitive proof...what a terrible indictment on us.

Now I agree that some would use this issue to hang their own agendas on - there are without a doubt some crazies who want to revert us to some pre-industrial post-modern-hippy sort of era, but isn't there a middle way where we give the scientists the benefit of the doubt (this is the future of the planet we're talking about after all, it's not a tiny little issue), and work to change our behaviour gradually by introducing less damaging alternatives and phasing them in? Then at least we are trying to mitigate the potential effects - if there are no effects, then at least we've addressed energy sustainability issues, pollution, etc - which are issues in their own right quite apart from global warming. And if there are effects from global warming, at least we've tried to reduce their future harm, knowing that we've tried to be better custodians of the planet to hand over to the future generations to come.

This is senseless. What if our eating food is hurting the planet? The methane we fart might be contributing to global warming. Let's commit mass suicide and save the earth. If you don't know, you don't go on partial and faulty information to turn peoples' lives upside down, de-industrialize industrial civilization, tax the hell out of people, castigate them for eating meat, burn corn as a fuel, and other looney things that are being done.

Look, it's wikipedia, but here goes:

Carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere by a variety of natural sources, and over 95% of total CO2 emissions would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. But these natural sources are nearly balanced by physical and biological processes, called natural sinks, which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. For example, some carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, and some is removed by plants as they grow.
As a result of this natural balance, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would have changed little if human activities had not added an amount every year. This addition, presently about 3% of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until at present, its concentration is 30% above pre- industrial levels.[7]

How do you reconcile this information with AGW or with a planet that arose by natural forces. Why should the earth's vegetation and ocean sinks perfectly balance CO2 production by organisms and released by the earth? Why would there be such a perfect balance? How did it come about? Or are they lying about it?

scoobs
12-10-2009, 07:28 PM
This is senseless. What if our eating food is hurting the planet? The methane we fart might be contributing to global warming. Let's commit mass suicide and save the earth.

It's not senseless in the least.

Population control is a major issue that needs to be confronted this century regardless of any other issues. As for the other, maybe eating food is hurting the planet - but there's no evidence to suggest that, there's no scientist postulating that and presenting findings that cause major concern - unlike global warming.



Look, it's wikipedia, but here goes:



How do you reconcile this information with AGW or with a planet that arose by natural forces. Why should the earth's vegetation and ocean sinks perfectly balance CO2 production by organisms and released by the earth? Why would there be such a perfect balance? How did it come about? Or are they lying about it?

How do I reconcile what, exactly? I'm reading what that's saying. It's saying that without humans, there is still plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and that the planetary ecosystem counteracts that in its own way such that amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is kept in balance with the amount of CO2 going out of the atmosphere.

It's saying that due to human activitiy, additional CO2 of 3% of total natural levels is being added to the atmosphere, yet this apparently small 3% has been enough to create an imbalance such that the ecosystem cannot remove CO2 at the same rate that it is being added, so the imbalance exists and CO2 is building up in concentration in the atmosphere and is now 30% higher than it would be without any humans on the planet. That extra CO2 is contributing through its greenhouse properties, to the warming of the planet.

I don't know what your point is - it seems perfectly clear to me from that that man made CO2 emissions has disrupted the delicate balance that previously existed in nature.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 07:40 PM
It's not senseless in the least.

Population control is a major issue that needs to be confronted this century regardless of any other issues. As for the other, maybe eating food is hurting the planet - but there's no evidence to suggest that, there's no scientist postulating that and presenting findings that cause major concern - unlike global warming.

How do you propose to fix the problem? Withdraw presently available assistance? Sterilize? Inflict wars and famines?

How do I reconcile what, exactly? I'm reading what that's saying. It's saying that without humans, there is still plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and that the planetary ecosystem counteracts that in its own way such that amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is kept in balance with the amount of CO2 going out of the atmosphere.

It's saying that due to human activitiy, additional CO2 of 3% of total natural levels is being added to the atmosphere, yet this apparently small 3% has been enough to create an imbalance such that the ecosystem cannot remove CO2 at the same rate that it is being added, so the imbalance exists and CO2 is building up in concentration in the atmosphere and is now 30% higher than it would be without any humans on the planet. That extra CO2 is contributing through its greenhouse properties, to the warming of the planet.

I don't know what your point is - it seems perfectly clear to me from that that man made CO2 emissions has disrupted the delicate balance that previously existed in nature.

I am asking you why that equilibrium is so finely tuned that a human contribution of 5% CO2 per any time period is allegedly wreaking havoc in the atmosphere. Why aren't plants or the oceans a superior sink? Why don't we have a large buffer to sink into? I'd like to see the atheist perspective.

Tommy_Vercetti
12-10-2009, 08:16 PM
What pisses me off about this subject is how it's another issue that has gone straight into party politics here. It's now one of the issues where you can't be a Republican if you are an atheist or you believe in basic common sense policies like abortion and gay rights or the possibility of global warming. And you can't be a Democrat if you believe in basic common sense policies like an end to racial quotas or acknowledging that terrorists have zero rights. Or you support handgun ownership and the death penalty.

So now global warming is firmly attached to the left and Americans like or hate it based largely on party membership. So instead of actually working towards a solution if indeed there is one, we instead get Barbara Boxer living in denial and screeching about shooting the messenger while James Inhofe can't fathom that we can pollute the entire planet the same as our rivers.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 08:19 PM
How do you propose to fix the problem? Withdraw presently available assistance? Sterilize? Inflict wars and famines?

No I believe education and and wider availability and understanding about birth control in regions where population is rising fast is the most humane way to tackle this - it does also require the tackling of the life expectancy issues that tend to affect these regions also.


I am asking you why that equilibrium is so finely tuned that a human contribution of 5% CO2 per any time period is allegedly wreaking having in the atmosphere. Why aren't plants or the oceans a superior sink? Why don't we have a large buffer to sink into? I'd like to see the atheist perspective.

When something is in equilibrium, input = output. So if we upset the balance so that input > output, there's two approaches, increase the buffer by introducing ways of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere such that input = output once again, at a greater level (temporarily having input < output to reduce the buildup already created) or by reducing input such that input = output once again at a lower level. Something is either in equilibrium or it is not. If it is not, then the effects will depend upon the rate at which the inputs and outputs diverge from their equalibrium. If CO2 emissions had gone only up only 1% since industrialization then the equibilibrum disturbance would have been such that I doubt there would have been much concern at this point.

Aloimeh
12-10-2009, 08:29 PM
No I believe education and and wider availability and understanding about birth control in regions where population is rising fast is the most humane way to tackle this - it does also require the tackling of the life expectancy issues that tend to affect these regions also.



When something is in equilibrium, input = output. So if we upset the balance so that input > output, there's two approaches, increase the buffer by introducing ways of reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere such that input = output once again, at a greater level (temporarily having input < output to reduce the buildup already created) or by reducing input such that input = output once again at a lower level. Something is either in equilibrium or it is not. If it is not, then the effects will depend upon the rate at which the inputs and outputs diverge from their equalibrium. If CO2 emissions had gone only up only 1% since industrialization then the equibilibrum disturbance would have been such that I doubt there would have been much concern at this point.

I understand equilibrium. My question had to do with the oceans' and photosynthesizers' capacity to absorb CO2 being so kinetically overwhelmed by an extra 5% that we would see such a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 in just over a hundred years or so.

buddyholly
12-10-2009, 09:43 PM
What pisses me off about this subject is how it's another issue that has gone straight into party politics here. It's now one of the issues where you can't be a Republican if you are an atheist or you believe in basic common sense policies like abortion and gay rights or the possibility of global warming. And you can't be a Democrat if you believe in basic common sense policies like an end to racial quotas or acknowledging that terrorists have zero rights. Or you support handgun ownership and the death penalty.

So now global warming is firmly attached to the left and Americans like or hate it based largely on party membership. So instead of actually working towards a solution if indeed there is one, we instead get Barbara Boxer living in denial and screeching about shooting the messenger while James Inhofe can't fathom that we can pollute the entire planet the same as our rivers.

Posts like this will get you thrown out of the ACC for behaving sensibly.

scoobs
12-10-2009, 10:43 PM
I understand equilibrium. My question had to do with the oceans' and photosynthesizers' capacity to absorb CO2 being so kinetically overwhelmed by an extra 5% that we would see such a substantial increase in atmospheric CO2 in just over a hundred years or so.
Not really sure - I suspect as much as it is to do with the increase in CO2 emissions in the last 150 years, it's also down to the reduction in the CO2 absorption because of things like deforestation.

Henry Chinaski
12-10-2009, 11:52 PM
What pisses me off about this subject is how it's another issue that has gone straight into party politics here. It's now one of the issues where you can't be a Republican if you are an atheist or you believe in basic common sense policies like abortion and gay rights or the possibility of global warming. And you can't be a Democrat if you believe in basic common sense policies like an end to racial quotas or acknowledging that terrorists have zero rights. Or you support handgun ownership and the death penalty.

So now global warming is firmly attached to the left and Americans like or hate it based largely on party membership. So instead of actually working towards a solution if indeed there is one, we instead get Barbara Boxer living in denial and screeching about shooting the messenger while James Inhofe can't fathom that we can pollute the entire planet the same as our rivers.

90% very good post. props.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 07:11 PM
I had an epiphany last night when I was out in a wind chill of -20 degrees.

Canada would benefit greatly from a few degrees of global warming. So if global warming is halted by Al Gore and if there are any dollars left over after Tuvalu and the Sudan are paid off, could Canada claim compensation for man-made slowing of warming and depriving Canada of a attaining a better climate?

Stensland
12-12-2009, 07:39 PM
Canada would benefit greatly from a few degrees of global warming. So if global warming is halted by Al Gore and if there are any dollars left over after Tuvalu and the Sudan are paid off, could Canada claim compensation for man-made slowing of warming and depriving Canada of a attaining a better climate?

funny side note: this is pretty much exactly what one of the russian delegate member stated yesterday. oh, and he added that he's looking forward to cutting ever-escalating heating costs in siberia - and he was completely serious. :worship: :rolleyes:

well, he was no climatologist though. russia and some other countries sent businesspeople instead of scientists to copenhagen. unlike most western countries saudi arabia for example decided to send the deputy head of their oil ministry, for crying out loud. he's well-known in certain circles as he's been organizing his anti-climate-change opec fellows for a decade now: he's been instructed to put one opec member in every climate roundtable to boycott debates and eventually agreements.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 07:43 PM
funny side note: this is pretty much exactly what one of the russian delegate member stated yesterday. oh, and he added that he's looking forward to cutting ever-escalating heating costs in siberia - and he was completely serious. :worship: :rolleyes:

well, he was no climatologist though. russia and some other countries sent businesspeople instead of scientists to copenhagen. unlike most western countries saudi arabia for example decided to send the deputy head of their oil ministry, for crying out loud. he's well-known in certain circles as he's been organizing his anti-climate-change opec fellows for a decade now: he's been instructed to put one opec member in every climate roundtable to boycott debates and eventually agreements.

That's only reasonable. This is not a scientific symposium. It's a political meeting in which business interests have a direct role. The agenda is not even up for debate: AGW is taken as real and fossil fuel suppliers and dependent industries are going to take a hit.

Why would Russia or Saudi Arabia send climatologists to the meeting when the Western pro-AGW idiots would just claim these scientists were fakes and peddling stories instructed to them by their respective governments?

The whole meeting is a farce anyway. I wouldn't take it seriously. When push comes to shove, we will burn fossil fuels until we find a cheaper source of energy whose risks we are willing to deal with.

Chip_s_m
12-12-2009, 07:51 PM
funny side note: this is pretty much exactly what one of the russian delegate member stated yesterday. oh, and he added that he's looking forward to cutting ever-escalating heating costs in siberia - and he was completely serious. :worship: :rolleyes:

well, he was no climatologist though. russia and some other countries sent businesspeople instead of scientists to copenhagen. unlike most western countries saudi arabia for example decided to send the deputy head of their oil ministry, for crying out loud. he's well-known in certain circles as he's been organizing his anti-climate-change opec fellows for a decade now: he's been instructed to put one opec member in every climate roundtable to boycott debates and eventually agreements.

Can you blame them? European and developing nations that are looking for free handouts have made up their minds about climate change, so the debate in Copenhagen has moved well past determining whether global warming is an issue (even though its a debate that needs to be had, especially since the data has been tainted). The Russians and Saudis (and anyone else) would just be talking to a brick wall if they argued otherwise. At this point its in any country's best interest to milk the talks for as much economic benefit as possible.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 07:52 PM
Can you blame them? European and developing nations that are looking for free handouts have made up their minds about climate change, so the debate in Copenhagen has moved well past determining whether global warming is an issue (even though its a debate that needs to be had, especially since the data has been tainted). The Russians and Saudis (and anyone else) would be wasting their time if they argued otherwise. At this point its in any country's best interest to milk the talks for as much economic benefit as possible.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 08:02 PM
i don't think the concept of finding international compromises has really gotten through to both of you.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 08:05 PM
i don't think the concept of finding international compromises has really gotten through to both of you.

What on earth are you talking about?

If the West has DECIDED that AGW is real, that humans are to blame, why should Russia or Saudi Arabia send scientists? It's fait accompli. Now it's time to send the people who are actually involved in alleged AGW, those who deal with fossil fuels, to discuss how to reduce the burning of fossil fuels (of course, Russia and Saudi Arabia don't care for that but they want to come out in the best way from this debacle).

Stensland
12-12-2009, 08:13 PM
If the West has DECIDED that AGW is real, that humans are to blame, why should Russia or Saudi Arabia send scientists?

well, for one, because it's mostly a gathering of scientists, not businessmen.


Now it's time to send the people who are actually involved in alleged AGW, those who deal with fossil fuels, to discuss how to reduce the burning of fossil fuels

why? this is the same kind of reasoning that wallstreet bankers and neo-conservatives have put forward for decades: "let the people who run stuff take over politics, they're the most capable because they have the street cred, the knowledge and the experience." we know how that one turned out.

no, i think the contrary is desperately needed: get out the handcuffs and start setting BINDING rules for businesses without having them on the table to trashtalk every single initiative. business has had its chance time and time again and eventually failed miserably to come up with sustainable ideas, that particular lobby has lost its credibility as the ultimate problem-solver here.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 08:17 PM
well, for one, because it's mostly a gathering of scientists, not businessmen.



why? this is the same kind of reasoning that wallstreet bankers and neo-conservatives have put forward for decades: "let the people who run stuff take over politics, they're the most capable because they have the street cred, the knowledge and the experience." we know how that one turned out.

no, i think the contrary is desperately needed: get out the handcuffs and start setting BINDING rules for businesses without having them on the table to trashtalk every single initiative. business has had its chance time and time again and eventually failed miserably to come up with sustainable ideas, that particular lobby has lost its credibility as the ultimate problem-solver here.

I support technocracy. I support scientists coming together to discuss whether AGW is real, and suggest potential solutions. They are then free to try to come up with novel technologies that are alternatives to fossil fuels. It's not the place of scientists to tell industrialists what to do, anymore than it is the place of industrialists to tell how scientists should do their work.

Who should set binding rules on business? Or science?

Stensland
12-12-2009, 08:20 PM
Who should set binding rules on business?

certainly not businesses themselves, as you've suggested. i don't know the "königsweg" either, do you?

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 08:27 PM
well, he was no climatologist though. russia and some other countries sent businesspeople instead of scientists to copenhagen.

Why would anyone send scientists? This is not a convention for presenting scientific papers. Everyone knows this is a politics and money convention.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 08:32 PM
certainly not businesses themselves, as you've suggested. i don't know the "königsweg" either, do you?

I didn't suggest that. I agree that government has to reign in business run amok. I'm just questioning what's going on now, where a group of scientists and their hangers-on has inspired Western governments with fits of hysteria about the earth going up in smoke (and this is being increasingly questioned) and it is because of these idiots that 1.) Western countries and their taxpayers will foot the bill for the 3rd world (as if that had much to do with AGW), 2.) Industrial economies will suffer in the face of harsh regulations that more corrupt countries will ignore and 3.) We'll be neglecting tried and true sources of power, such as fossil fuels and nuclear power and going for expensive, inefficient and useless sources such as ethanol and windfarms.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 08:41 PM
I am still not sure where to find some answers. If emissions were to be cut to what the IPCC want, what would be our source of energy? Are there statistics on how this is to be achieved without destroying some economies? I read a lot about what goals must be met to stop catastrophic climate change, but I never read anything about who is going to provide the energy to meet the goals without ruined economies.

I see there are 25,000 on the street today protesting the US failure to hand out more money than anyone else. How are those people going to stay warm tonight?

Stensland
12-12-2009, 09:29 PM
i'd suggest you two just go to some forum where people with knowledge can help you out. non-mtf isn't the place to be for such questions (and answers). anyways, if you don't understand the basics or have questions regarding its practicability, why bash the initiative in the first place? wouldn't it be more reasonable to get some insight into the core ("If emissions were to be cut to what the IPCC want, what would be our source of energy?") first instead of trying to ridicule the whole mindset?

Chip_s_m
12-12-2009, 09:51 PM
well, for one, because it's mostly a gathering of scientists, not businessmen.



why? this is the same kind of reasoning that wallstreet bankers and neo-conservatives have put forward for decades: "let the people who run stuff take over politics, they're the most capable because they have the street cred, the knowledge and the experience." we know how that one turned out.

no, i think the contrary is desperately needed: get out the handcuffs and start setting BINDING rules for businesses without having them on the table to trashtalk every single initiative. business has had its chance time and time again and eventually failed miserably to come up with sustainable ideas, that particular lobby has lost its credibility as the ultimate problem-solver here.

This is exactly what I've been talking about. This line of reasoning is why the climate change movement hasn't gained as much traction in the US as it has in much of Europe. What does Wall Street have to do with global warming? Nothing. I'm not implying that you believe bankers are responsible for global warming because I know you're not stupid. However, the fact that Wall Street's failure to prevent the most recent recession even comes up in this debate indicates how off track the climate change movement has gone.

Capitalism and a safe environment aren't mutually exclusive. Yet there are massive groups of protesters out there screaming for the death of capitalism so we can save the world. Huh? Why does capitalism need to be destroyed? Why do businesses need to be taken down? I don't think you personally are arguing for this, but there are vocal groups out there that are. As a result, the whole movement takes a massive hit to its credibility, which becomes even more amplified with the revelation of the tainted data from East Anglia. Many people who might be otherwise inclined to call for reduced emissions (if its proven that CO2 is actually causing legitimate damage), including myself, are immediately turned off by this. I'm not going to support something if I think it's just a cover to radically transform the economic system that despite its occasional downturn has actually improved the lives of billions of people.

Aloimeh
12-12-2009, 09:54 PM
i'd suggest you two just go to some forum where people with knowledge can help you out. non-mtf isn't the place to be for such questions (and answers). anyways, if you don't understand the basics or have questions regarding its practicability, why bash the initiative in the first place? wouldn't it be more reasonable to get some insight into the core ("If emissions were to be cut to what the IPCC want, what would be our source of energy?") first instead of trying to ridicule the whole mindset?

Do you understand it? If you do, kindly explain it to us.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:02 PM
What does Wall Street have to do with global warming? Nothing.

my point was that the general mindset over the last two decades was something along the lines of "let business rule. let business take care of itself. let business regulate itself. business knows best."

now you and some others start talking the same language here. "let business take over the climate change roundtables."

Why does capitalism need to be destroyed? Why do businesses need to be taken down?

it doesn't, it only needs to be channeled properly. if it's on its own, it doesn't even need me or you or anyone else to scream anti-capitalist paroles - it'll kill itself sooner or later anyways. the problem is: it's either gonna take us with it or come begging for taxpayer money again - which is gonna be quite difficult task if the computer models about climate change buddyholly keeps referring to are any right.

this is why i dont get the notion that we should let free market capitalism make decisions about climate change ramifications.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:09 PM
Do you understand it? If you do, kindly explain it to us.

i don't, as i've stated before, which is why i'm clinging to the vast majority of scientists' opinion, as i've stated dozens of times as well. i don't have the time to study geology/climatology/biology/meteorology as a hobby and i think neither does anyone here.

you're the one mistrusting the scientists. i take it you've just finished your education, right? did you talk to scientists (or people studying science) at university about climate change?

Chip_s_m
12-12-2009, 10:28 PM
my point was that the general mindset over the last two decades was something along the lines of "let business rule. let business take care of itself. let business regulate itself. business knows best."

now you and some others start talking the same language here. "let business take over the climate change roundtables."



it doesn't, it only needs to be channeled properly. if it's on its own, it doesn't even need me or you or anyone else to scream anti-capitalist paroles - it'll kill itself sooner or later anyways. the problem is: it's either gonna take us with it or come begging for taxpayer money again - which is gonna be quite difficult task if the computer models about climate change buddyholly keeps referring to are any right.

this is why i dont get the notion that we should let free market capitalism make decisions about climate change ramifications.

I don't think businesses should be making all the decisions but since capitalism is going to be the system driving the "green economy" we should ensure that we set the system up as efficiently as possible while still achieving (y)our environmental goals.

Whatever agreement we reach, there is no doubt that at least in the short-run our economies are going to be negatively affected. Developing nations will apparently receive funding to help deal with this. For the rest of us, energy companies operating in CO2 emitting sectors will take big losses. Any business or individual using energy (all of us) will pay higher prices, so we can expect to take a hit too. As a result, our economies will suffer. Workers will be displaced and companies will go out of business. The extent of this is debatable (just like the extent of man's effect on climate change), but it is going to happen at least somewhat. If we want to minimize the negative effects that a climate agreement and the ensuing economic consequences will have on our standards of living then we're going to have ensure that the transition to a "green" economy is seamless.

How significantly businesses are affected will in turn affect us. We are unavoidably intertwined. For our own well-being, it's imperative that we listen to businesses to ensure that the effects on them while they transition their operations to "clean" functions are minimized (while still achieving the climate goals). Businesses don't know how to fix climate change (if it even exists), but scientists also don't know how to run a business. The decisions governments make at the advice of their scientists will affect businesses, which in turn will affect individuals. The Russians and Saudis, apparently, are seeking to minimize the affect that the climate agreement will have on their economies. That's smart thinking. We'd be foolish not to factor in the effects on the global economy while formulating this agreement.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 10:30 PM
i'd suggest you two just go to some forum where people with knowledge can help you out. non-mtf isn't the place to be for such questions (and answers). anyways, if you don't understand the basics or have questions regarding its practicability, why bash the initiative in the first place? wouldn't it be more reasonable to get some insight into the core ("If emissions were to be cut to what the IPCC want, what would be our source of energy?") first instead of trying to ridicule the whole mindset?

Why a forum? Shouldn't the IPCC be telling us? I am not convinced of man-made global warming and I am suspicious that this whole conference is using global warming as an excuse for redistribution of wealth. Does that really mean I am ridiculing the whole mindset? Is the debate over?

Snowwy
12-12-2009, 10:34 PM
Why a forum? Shouldn't the IPCC be telling us? I am not convinced of man-made global warming and I am suspicious that this whole conference is using global warming as an excuse for redistribution of wealth. Does that really mean I am ridiculing the whole mindset? Is the debate over?

I agree with you about global warming, it just doenst seem there is enough evidence to say that we are causing it, if it even exists. Redistribution of wealth seems a little bit odd to me, what makes you believe that?

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:35 PM
pretty reasonable post, i never wanted to flat out ban business from climate change discussions anyways. the only thing we won't agree on is your last sentence. it isn't smart thinking but ratehr selfish ignorance to me. if you don't wanna engage in international diplomacy, just stay in moscow or riad. don't even pretend to care, at least be open about your lack of willingness to cooperate in any way. it disgusts me to see you smiling into cameras while making borat-like gestures saying heating costs in rural russia are too high anyways.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:40 PM
Why a forum? Shouldn't the IPCC be telling us? I am not convinced of man-made global warming and I am suspicious that this whole conference is using global warming as an excuse for redistribution of wealth. Does that really mean I am ridiculing the whole mindset? Is the debate over?

i'm fairly sure the ipcc has published tons of research material, lots of scientific articles and sent out brochures all over the place. you're not the only one out there with questions, so i guess they've probably addressed all of them in orderly fashion. it's up to you to read the stuff.

re your your question about the status of the debate: i'm afraid you know too little as of now, so the debate hasn't even started. you've been disqualified by those in the know.

Stensland
12-12-2009, 10:46 PM
Does that really mean I am ridiculing the whole mindset?

it's the sarcastic way you talk about climate change i'm talking about. you don't make it sound like you disagree on the subject but rather like those who think climate change is man-made are the embodiment of buffoons. obviously you don't phrase it that way and call "them" out openly like a 10yo or bilbo, but you know what i mean. it's in the subtext, you know how to work it in subliminally.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 10:48 PM
i'm fairly sure the ipcc has published tons of research material, lots of scientific articles and sent out brochures all over the place. you're not the only one out there with questions, so i guess they've probably addressed all of them in orderly fashion. it's up to you to read the stuff.

re your your question about the status of the debate: i'm afraid you know too little as of now, so the debate hasn't even started. you've been disqualified by those in the know.

I haven't found it yet.

As for being disqualified from the debate, I guess that email hasn't appeared yet.

buddyholly
12-12-2009, 10:53 PM
I agree with you about global warming, it just doenst seem there is enough evidence to say that we are causing it, if it even exists. Redistribution of wealth seems a little bit odd to me, what makes you believe that?

I believe that, because the whole reason for Copenhagen is to decide how much the rich countries will hand over to the poor countries. Countries like Sudan that spend most of their GDP on genocide.
This is claimed to be paying forward for the disasters that computer models have predicted will happen, mostly based on data that the scientists tried to prevent from being made public.

Jimnik
12-13-2009, 02:44 PM
Poor countries using Copenhagen to remind everyone of how poor they are, and how it's all the West's fault. What a surprise.

Besides the fact the money always ends up in the wrong hands and never gets spent the right way, I have little against the concept of rich countries donating to poor nations. But when Africans then come out and accuse the West of killing their people (now with the convenient excuse of climate change) it's got to be time to give them middle finger, cut-off their funding altogether and if anything impose sanctions.

Don't let global warming become yet more fuel in the arsenal of corrupt lazy useless cynics.

buddyholly
12-13-2009, 11:48 PM
Now China is pissed because the US, of which China owns a good portion, says that China doesn't deserve a handout from the US. The UN going about its business.

Bilbo
12-13-2009, 11:55 PM
they should cancel the whole comedy show

Stensland
12-14-2009, 05:05 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6955990.ece

Developing nations stage walkout over Copenhagen stalemate

Jimnik
12-14-2009, 06:17 PM
That's great news. :yeah:

tangerine_dream
12-14-2009, 06:54 PM
OzkB5DuveDE


Newsweek: "The Cooling World" — April 28, 1975

http://www.climategate.com/the-cooling-world-newsweek-1975

buddyholly
12-15-2009, 12:19 AM
I knew she would eventually mention Katrina. This is the propaganda machine at work. Katrina was a moderate hurricane. If it had not hit NO directly and had the levees not broken, nobody would even know its name. But Gore and fellow warmers use it all the time because it scares people.

Aloimeh
12-17-2009, 12:50 PM
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-17/data-cherry-picked-climatologists.html/print

A Russian think tank has accused British climate researchers of ignoring the temperature data from Russian weather stations which do not fit into alarming global warming theory.

The Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA) has attacked the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research of the British Meteorology Office, reports Kommersant newspaper. The Center has recently made public part of the raw data used by HadCRUT, its joint research team with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which was earlier involved in a scandal dubbed “Climategate” by some media.

In a report this week the Russian institute says the HADCRUT’s study of climate change ignored data from three quarters of the weather stations on the territory of Russia. This includes “more than 40% of the area,” which was not included, not due to missing data, but “for some other reasons.”

Moreover, of the data available for the same location, the British researchers chose incomplete sets showing temperature growth trends over complete ones that didn’t fit in the global warming model. Also data from stations located in cities, which could have bias due to waste heat generated by local industries and homes, were preferred over those in remote areas, the IEA says.

All in all, the institute evaluates the difference between growth of average temperatures between 1870s and 1990s based on all data available for Russia and those delivered by HadCRUT as at least 0.64 degrees Celsius.

The report goes on to say that if similar practices, which the IEA bluntly calls “overstating the scale of the warming by HadCRUT”, were used in selection of raw data from other regions of the world, global estimates for climate change should be seriously corrected.

HadCRUT figures are being used by climatologists at the COP-15 international climate change conference currently underway in Copenhagen. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is to attend the summit. He also signed into law this week the Russian Climate Doctrine, a document outlining the estimated risks of global warming and Russian government’s planned measures to counter them.

Stensland
12-17-2009, 01:10 PM
i believe russian media reports even less than western media reports.

Aloimeh
12-17-2009, 01:12 PM
i believe russian media reports even less than western media reports.

I'm not saying it's necessarily true. Only that it is interesting new information, if indeed true, that 40% of sites and 75% of the area of Russia were neglected.

Stensland
12-17-2009, 01:19 PM
maybe they're just to old and shabby to be reliable, who knows? most of russia's technological equipment hasn't been up to date for some time now. the billions putin is raking in mostly go to the military. i think that one delegate i quoted some pages ago made it quite clear how much russia is caring about climate change and its forecast.

Aloimeh
12-17-2009, 01:32 PM
maybe they're just to old and shabby to be reliable, who knows? most of russia's technological equipment hasn't been up to date for some time now. the billions putin is raking in mostly go to the military. i think that one delegate i quoted some pages ago made it quite clear how much russia is caring about climate change and its forecast.

Why would you assume something so basic as a thermometer would be obsolete? Regardless, the climate change fanatics would have a strong incentive to update that technology before assuming its reliability.

You seem to attribute ulterior and nefarious motives to the Russians, Chinese, Saudis, etc. quite often and never assume that Western governments or NGOs or scientists could have an ulterior motive? Why do you imply a moral difference?

Stensland
12-17-2009, 01:42 PM
the motive i care the most about is money - so do russians and saudis obviously. they're in it for the cash, that's why they don't care about climate change. as i've said earlier, i find the whole climate change movement in the western world so intriguing because it defies the capitalist logic of the last decades: big money apparently doesn't always eventually win by going down spin alley, but sometimes, get this, truth might.

i don't believe western governments are morally superior to russian oder saudi governments per se (well, in reality they probably are these days but that's another issue). it's just that they act (or only talk, so far) contrary to big oil's interest. when has it ever been the case that lobby groups for big oil flat out lost out? this could be the first time it happens on the big stage, as far as i know - scientists trump cash. that's fantastic! :)

Aloimeh
12-17-2009, 01:46 PM
the motive i care the most about is money - so do russians and saudis obviously. they're in it for the cash, that's why they don't care about climate change. as i've said earlier, i find the whole climate change movement in the western world so intriguing because it defies the capitalist logic of the last decades: big money apparently doesn't always eventually win by going down spin alley, but sometimes, get this, truth might.

i don't believe western governments are morally superior to russian oder saudi governments per se (well, in reality they probably are these days but that's another issue). it's just that they act (or only talk, so far) contrary to big oil's interest. when has it ever been the case that lobby groups for big oil flat out lost out? this could be the first time it happens on the big stage, as far as i know - scientists trump cash. that's fantastic! :)

The fact that it seems climate change policy would run in conflict with business should make you think about whether that is really true (i.e. politicians could potentially be making a buck off of such policies).

Stensland
12-17-2009, 01:47 PM
more bucks than they could make off of big oil? doubt it.

buddyholly
12-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Your obsession with big oil is worse than my obsession with big Al.

Surely you have seen over the last couple of days that Copenhagen is all about big bucks for corrupt African regimes. Having representatives from Sudan and Zimbabwe lecturing the developed countries on their morals and failure to hand over billions of dollars, no questions asked, is just a Cirque de Shell Oil.

Big Oil is no different from any other industry, except that there is a much bigger risk taken in trying to make a buck.

Stensland
12-17-2009, 02:42 PM
Your obsession with big oil is worse than my obsession with big Al.

Surely you have seen over the last couple of days that Copenhagen is all about big bucks for corrupt African regimes. Having representatives from Sudan and Zimbabwe lecturing the developed countries on their morals and failure to hand over billions of dollars, no questions asked, is just a Cirque de Shell Oil.

so you believe these tiny african states will really win the the battle? europe and the states haven't even put down all the money they committed to in gleneagles in 06. i'm fairly sure they'll bribe some officials, take the issue out of the spotlight bit by bit and come up with defense contracts instead.

what's happening now is called "pyrrhussiege" in german, don't know if you guys have that expression in english as well. from pyrrhus, some roman emperor, i guess.


Big Oil is no different from any other industry, except that there is a much bigger risk taken in trying to make a buck.

but big oil is on stage here.

the pharmaceutical companies are no better, don't get me wrong. they have little to do with climate change though.

Aloimeh
12-17-2009, 02:57 PM
so you believe these tiny african states will really win the the battle? europe and the states haven't even put down all the money they committed to in gleneagles in 06. i'm fairly sure they'll bribe some officials, take the issue out of the spotlight bit by bit and come up with defense contracts instead.

what's happening now is called "pyrrhussiege" in german, don't know if you guys have that expression in english as well. from pyrrhus, some roman emperor, i guess.



but big oil is on stage here.

the pharmaceutical companies are no better, don't get me wrong. they have little to do with climate change though.

Pyrrhus was a king of Epirus. A Pyrrhic victory is one that comes at incredible cost (practically verging on destruction) to the victor.

buddyholly
12-17-2009, 03:00 PM
so you believe these tiny african states will really win the the battle?

They have already established themselves as whores. The conference is just about their fee.

And our resident Greek scholar has already explained Pyrrhus, I see.

buddyholly
12-17-2009, 03:03 PM
but big oil is on stage here.



Big Oil doesn't put carbons in the air, consumers do.

wcr
12-17-2009, 03:05 PM
The Economist last week published letters to the Editor as regards their November 28th article. The following letters are pretty informative about the legitimate concerns some have.


Against the prevailing wind

SIR – Passion is the root problem in what you term “the modern argument over climate change” (“A heated
debate”, November 28th). You state, for instance, that the “majority of the world’s climate scientists have
convinced themselves” that human activity is the cause of climate change. I know of no poll that confirms this,
but your choice of words is telling. In science, our interpretations of nature are based on observation,
experiment and evidence, not self-conviction.

Those of us who are dismissed, often derided, as sceptics have waited a long time for the chicanery behind the
global-warming movement to come to light. But we should not blame scientists—however unprincipled—nor UN
organisations, nor national governments. The true culprits are the latter-day Nostradamuses who, under their
icons of cuddly pandas and polar bears, have misused science to stoke fear, guilt and a craving for atonement
in the minds of the public. Governments have been browbeaten to respond to these catastrophists, and some
scientists, dependent on public money, have fashioned their behaviour accordingly.

Nikolay Semyonov, a Soviet scientist and Nobel prize winner in chemistry, wrote that:
“There is nothing more dangerous than blind passion in science. This is a direct path to unjustified
self-confidence, to loss of self-criticalness, to scientific fanaticism, to false science. Given support
from someone in power, it can lead to suppression of true science and, since science is now a
matter of state importance, to inflicting great injury on the country.”

Semyonov was referring to the ruthless manipulation of Soviet science by Trofim Lysenko and other
opportunists. In a similar vein, it is time we recognise that we are becoming prey to a new fanaticism, a
religious fervour that runs contrary to rational society.
Paul Reiter
Paris


SIR – You proclaimed that a scientist’s effort to “hide the decline” was “not sinister” (“Mail-strom”, November
28th). What is it, then, when a scientist formulates a hypothesis that growth patterns follow temperature, and
tests the hypothesis against data only to find that growth patterns do not follow temperature at all for 30% of
the data and only partially for the rest? Do you then conclude, as would any sane person, that your hypothesis
is not valid? Or do you instead take the road followed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and
conclude that data which undermine your favoured hypothesis are not valid, and throw out the data?
If this is “not sinister”, then it is flabbergastingly stupid.
Rikard Bergsten
Gothenburg, Sweden

SIR – I think the observed effects of global warming, such as rising sea levels, are worrisome, but I find the
hijacking or destruction of raw temperature data by leading climate scientists more troubling. If reputable
scientists are basing their opinions on bad data then maybe we need a different peer-review process.
Jeff Zohner
St Louis, Missouri

SIR – Your special report on climate change and the carbon economy (December 5th) quotes me as saying,
“we’re looking at the loss of 80% of our forest cover”. I actually said, “80% of our pine trees”. We have more
than 25 other tree species in British Columbia, so while the situation is very serious, it is not as catastrophic as
you suggest.
Scott Green
Associate professor
University of Northern British Columbia
Prince George, Canada

Stensland
12-17-2009, 03:05 PM
They have already established themselves as whores. The conference is just about their fee.

what would your way out look like? i mean, if you don't feed these people, they won't go away and scream louder and louder each time. i'm fairly sure western countries have worn them down to some extent already and the cost isn't gonna hurt its economies anyways.

so you wouldn't pay them nonetheless, fine. and then what?

Chip_s_m
12-17-2009, 08:16 PM
In case people need even more of a reason to hop onto the climate change bandwagon:

HNQqUACJ_Kw

buddyholly
12-17-2009, 09:26 PM
what would your way out look like? i mean, if you don't feed these people, they won't go away and scream louder and louder each time. i'm fairly sure western countries have worn them down to some extent already and the cost isn't gonna hurt its economies anyways.

so you wouldn't pay them nonetheless, fine. and then what?

The way out??? We have to get in first. Your posts always assume that runaway global warming is already happening. Before, you wrote about the millions arriving at our borders, as if it was going to happen tomorrow. Those people from the Sudan and Zimbabwe that are screaming for billions know very well that they themselves are their countries' main problems, not global warming.
I have yet to see evidence that they have suffered. If I remember correctly, any damage done by the sea in Tuvalu, was probably caused by dredging, not by rising sea levels. Yet their war cry is that they are on the Titanic. Wikipedia says that there is virtually no economy and the population lives off foreign aid. The only employment is in government and distributing aid. So why give these people more? One statistic I found interesting - although Gore prefers to believe many have had to leave already, the population has more than doubled since 1980!!!!! Could it be that Tuvaluans are returning to sit and wait for the rising tide of dollars?

sammy01
12-17-2009, 10:48 PM
for me climate change is obviously happening, whether it is the cause of man im unsure. im sure we don't help though and im all for recycling and cutting my CO2.

what i do know is man is a destructive force and the planet is at our mercy sadly.

Bilbo
12-17-2009, 10:55 PM
methane is a bigger problem than co2

Bilbo
12-19-2009, 11:38 AM
the climate conference failed as expected

typical politicians. the only thing they can do is talking and eating. next time they should scientists decide this one.

thanks for nothing you assholes.

buddyholly
12-19-2009, 10:58 PM
Glad that's over.

The socialists will have to find another way to rule the world.

Stensland
12-19-2009, 11:34 PM
and they will. :)

Johnny Groove
12-19-2009, 11:36 PM
My opinion on climate change?

I'm against it.

Bilbo
12-19-2009, 11:43 PM
I blame the USA and China for this

Chip_s_m
12-20-2009, 12:18 AM
I blame the USA and China for this

You're welcome :)

Bilbo
12-20-2009, 12:22 AM
each article i've read so far came to the same conclusion. it's not like i'm the only one with this opinion. most people are.

Chip_s_m
12-20-2009, 12:29 AM
each article i've read so far came to the same conclusion. it's not like i'm the only one with this opinion. most people are.

I know you're not and I agree. The US and China prevented the conference from coming to any type of significant agreement.

Bilbo
12-20-2009, 12:29 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Chip_s_m
12-20-2009, 12:33 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

What's your point?

Tommy_Vercetti
12-20-2009, 01:22 AM
I've always wondered exactly how they calculate how hot it was in the Dark Ages or the Ancient World. Or even until very recent times. It's not like virtually anyone, much less the entire populated world would or could keep accurate records about the temperature. All the stuff I've read about it seems like total manufactured bullshit used to con people. How the f--k do they know what the temperature was in 870? Or how much rain they got in Cambodia in 1180? It's ridiculous.

I strongly believe in the danger of global warming, but these scientists involved are making up whatever they want. They need to search for direct evidence both that the human impact is severe and exactly how we can deal with it without slowing down human development. I base my thoughts on looking at the horrible damage done to the Earth through pollution and observing things like smog and air pollution. Releasing all that garbage into the air has got to to have an impact. How severe is the question. I don't need scientists to pull figures straight out of their asses.

Aloimeh
12-28-2009, 07:27 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend

by Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker
Sun Dec 20, 3:23 pm ET
PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.
"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.
"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"
Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.
"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.
"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.
And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.
With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.
Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.
And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.
But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.
"If pussy is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.
"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."
Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.
As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.
But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.
"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

buddyholly
01-06-2010, 03:02 AM
Looks like Europe and North America are in for one of the coldest winters in a long time. I suppose this is just an anomaly in the warming trend, and must be ignored. After all, the debate is over.

Gore used a perfectly normal hurricane like Katrina to scare everyone gullible enough to believe that because it hit New Orleans it was really big and a foretaste of things to come.

But I suppose it would be politically incorrect to suggest that the present unusually cold weather is a foretaste of the coming Ice Age. Too bad that the top two warmer scientists of our day appear to have stepped away from their desks for a while, and are missing the excitement of the new data coming in.

bleu_cheese
01-06-2010, 06:42 AM
I've always wondered exactly how they calculate how hot it was in the Dark Ages or the Ancient World. Or even until very recent times. It's not like virtually anyone, much less the entire populated world would or could keep accurate records about the temperature. All the stuff I've read about it seems like total manufactured bullshit used to con people. How the f--k do they know what the temperature was in 870? Or how much rain they got in Cambodia in 1180? It's ridiculous.

I strongly believe in the danger of global warming, but these scientists involved are making up whatever they want. They need to search for direct evidence both that the human impact is severe and exactly how we can deal with it without slowing down human development. I base my thoughts on looking at the horrible damage done to the Earth through pollution and observing things like smog and air pollution. Releasing all that garbage into the air has got to to have an impact. How severe is the question. I don't need scientists to pull figures straight out of their asses.

Ice cores. By measuring the width of each layer, or winter really, the global temperature can be inferred. Other things, like CO2 can also be garnered from the cores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

However, I would have to agree that the experts might be pulling a lot out of their asses. We may very well be spewing tons of greenhouse gases, but our emphasis on CO2 is misplaced. Not only is CO2 a bad greenhouse gas, the more there is, the less effect the next batch has. The law of diminishing returns, I think. Methane is a much more potent gas, but you don't see us slowing down the beef industry.

Tommy_Vercetti
01-06-2010, 05:44 PM
That's the kind of bullshit I was talking about. None of those studies could possibly produce remotely accurate figures within a few degrees. You are talking in the best case scenario they are in the same neighborhood. Global warming is about the Earth temperature rising very slightly. And there is no way in hell that there is any figures that precise when it comes to historical temperatures. You hear a lot of things like "We think there was a warm period in the Middle Ages." Oh, really? You think that? You are not sure, yet you somehow feel comfortable making these studies with false estimates? The potential for global warming is real, in my opinion, but many of these scientists are con men. In the same vein as the self-promoting people who are involved in the global warming "movement." And you know I mean Al Bore and his ilk.

buddyholly
01-06-2010, 07:35 PM
That's the kind of bullshit I was talking about. None of those studies could possibly produce remotely accurate figures within a few degrees. You are talking in the best case scenario they are in the same neighborhood. Global warming is about the Earth temperature rising very slightly. And there is no way in hell that there is any figures that precise when it comes to historical temperatures. You hear a lot of things like "We think there was a warm period in the Middle Ages." Oh, really? You think that? You are not sure, yet you somehow feel comfortable making these studies with false estimates? The potential for global warming is real, in my opinion, but many of these scientists are con men. In the same vein as the self-promoting people who are involved in the global warming "movement." And you know I mean Al Bore and his ilk.

I think you got it wrong there. It is the warmers who tried to hide the Medieval Warm Period, because it obviously happened naturally and was not that long ago. And there were people around to confirm it, such as the Vikings who sailed over to GREENland, attracted by the nice climate. (It was the Spring break destination of its day, much like Cancun is now.)

Not being able to hide the evidence, the warmers now claim it was only warm around the North Atlantic, not the rest of the world.

But those Vikings were smart. Once they realised the Medieval Warm Period was out of control, they had a conference in Copenhagen and as a result were able to stop the trend and actually bring about the Little Ice Age.

Tommy_Vercetti
01-06-2010, 07:39 PM
The whole point is that we don't know for sure, either way. Much less do we have any idea the precise differences. So all these studies about past temperatures are useless. They are entirely about manipulating people.

buddyholly
01-07-2010, 01:38 AM
Actually there are a number of scientific methods. But the problem with the gurus of global warming (Mann, Jones and Hansen) is that they seem to have decided on what the future will be and have then been manipulating the actual records to provide the historical trends they needed. The IPCC may go on and on about thousands of peer reviewed scientists, but actually only a handful of guys controlled the data that was given to other researchers. And for years they tried to prevent full disclosure of the data bases. Thankfully two of the big three are no longer at their posts.

buddyholly
01-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Remember the days before carbon dioxide, the life-giving molecule for the world's plant life, was made the culprit? When the main threat to civilization was CFC's and the hole in the ozone layer?

A new study in Physics Reports finds that CFCs did indeed cause global warming, but since they were phased out in 2000, following the Montreal Protocol of 1987, the earth has been on a cooling trend that started in 2002. Even I find it hard to believe, but apparently a molecule of CFC is 10,000 times more potent than a molecule of carbon dioxide in its greenhouse effect.

The report concludes that the actual rate of cooling is not clear, because it was calculated using historical temperature data obtained from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. And this database is now under investigation.

But this study does nothing to promote the politics of global warming, so it probably will be largely ignored.

buddyholly
01-27-2010, 06:04 PM
the motive i care the most about is money - so do russians and saudis obviously. they're in it for the cash, that's why they don't care about climate change. as i've said earlier, i find the whole climate change movement in the western world so intriguing because it defies the capitalist logic of the last decades: big money apparently doesn't always eventually win by going down spin alley, but sometimes, get this, truth might.

i don't believe western governments are morally superior to russian oder saudi governments per se (well, in reality they probably are these days but that's another issue). it's just that they act (or only talk, so far) contrary to big oil's interest. when has it ever been the case that lobby groups for big oil flat out lost out? this could be the first time it happens on the big stage, as far as i know - scientists trump cash. that's fantastic! :)

You have insisted for quite a while that all the money is on the side of the deniers, fuelled by big oil.

Today a leading member of the IPCC, canadian Andrew Weaver, claimed it is time to step back and look at the IPCC panel. This statement of doubt no doubt stems from the latest embarrassment suffered by the IPCC. In its 2007 report the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Did this come from a ''peer reviewed'' journal article? No it came from an Indian, Syed Hasnain, who now says he just made it up. The author of the Asian chapter of the report states that he included this glacier claim in the report for political purposes, hoping to influence policy makers.

Syed Hasain works for a research company in India that is headed by Rajendra Pachauri. The company used this glacier claim to collect millions in research grants from the taxpayers of Europe and the US. And who is Rajendra Pachauri? No less than the chairman of the IPCC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rrainer, when are you going to stop believing saying that these people are scientists, with no other goal than stopping Global Warming? In this latest incidence two birds are killed with one stone: the claim that the IPCC uses peer reviewed science and the claim that these people are not in it for personal monetary gain.

buddyholly
01-27-2010, 10:31 PM
in the cretaceous the sea level was up to 300 m higher than today which means it can happen again.

many people think the situation as of now is bad but it will happen anyway sooner or later. people think if we "save the world" now we will have no problems.

Cretaceous sea levels were due to the geology of continents and sub-ocean topography. Therefore they are of absolutely no relevance to this thread. You can't compare sea levels today to geological periods when the land masses were arranged in an entirely different pattern.

Of course if you want to worry about high sea levels 100 million years from now, go right ahead.

Stensland
01-28-2010, 08:02 AM
You have insisted for quite a while that all the money is on the side of the deniers, fuelled by big oil.

Today a leading member of the IPCC, canadian Andrew Weaver, claimed it is time to step back and look at the IPCC panel. This statement of doubt no doubt stems from the latest embarrassment suffered by the IPCC. In its 2007 report the IPCC claimed that Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. Did this come from a ''peer reviewed'' journal article? No it came from an Indian, Syed Hasnain, who now says he just made it up. The author of the Asian chapter of the report states that he included this glacier claim in the report for political purposes, hoping to influence policy makers.

Syed Hasain works for a research company in India that is headed by Rajendra Pachauri. The company used this glacier claim to collect millions in research grants from the taxpayers of Europe and the US. And who is Rajendra Pachauri? No less than the chairman of the IPCC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rrainer, when are you going to stop believing saying that these people are scientists, with no other goal than stopping Global Warming? In this latest incidence two birds are killed with one stone: the claim that the IPCC uses peer reviewed science and the claim that these people are not in it for personal monetary gain.

hmmm. while i still believe that there's quite a difference between the kind of money and goals big oil has and the personal gains "some" of the scientists may be looking for, this scenario seems rather bad, i give you that. not only is it downright criminal to manipulate the date but it's like the perfect invitation for guys like you (and many prominent figures in the media) to come up with the "see? told ya!"-lines, even though the likelihood that the bunch of scientists is just as corrupted by its own lobbying efforts as the anti-man-made-climate-change-group are by its donors is quite small. so we have these pretty much isolated cases giving the whole scientific community a bad name - because, as you know, most of the ipcc gets backed up by climatologists around the world.

lobbying groups stemming from *your* side of the table have been solely founded for one purpose: lobbying. that's completely different from the climatologists' community.

anyways, this particular guy's disservice will probably kick-start a whole avalanche of bashers who think they're now able to crush scientific opinions. way to kill your fellow researchers' reputation worldwide, mr. pachauri.

buddyholly
01-28-2010, 06:05 PM
so we have these pretty much isolated cases giving the whole scientific community a bad name - because, as you know, most of the ipcc gets backed up by climatologists around the world.



Two of the three guys who controlled the temperature database have been suspended and are under investigation. The head of the IPCC controls a company whose existence depends on research on global warming effects.

I do not think these can be called isolated cases. These are the top guys being exposed one by one. I do not think it safe anymore to say that it is too bad that a few guys have deflected attention from the immediate dangers of global warming. These are the guys that may have invented the whole carbon dioxide scare for fame and money.

Stensland
01-29-2010, 07:27 AM
i can only speak for the scientists over here as i'm not really following the worlwide debate that much. 99% of german scientists are d'accord with the general ipcc mindset. i don't think it's very likely they'd just read the ipcc reports and go "alright, we're just gonna accept that stance and run with it." chances are these guys are well-educated and able to check the stats. i have no idea why such large chunks of misinformation hadn't been noticed though.

anyways, i'm just hoping this isn't gonna be one of the cases where we're going from 100 to 0.

«Ivan»
01-29-2010, 01:02 PM
i have no opinion,i don't care.i have way more important problems.

buddyholly
01-29-2010, 03:46 PM
i can only speak for the scientists over here as i'm not really following the worlwide debate that much. 99% of german scientists are d'accord with the general ipcc mindset.


Good that you can be a spokesman for every scientist in Germany. Did you poll them or just decide that 99% was a good number to advance your agenda, like the Indian that made up the year 2035 for the disappearance of Asian glaciers?
''Mindset'' is probably a good word, in that the IPCC mindset is to push their agenda that the world is in peril unless the developed countries give billions of dollars to the undeveloped countries. And one way to ensure this is to invent statistics.

Stensland
01-29-2010, 04:10 PM
Good that you can be a spokesman for every scientist in Germany. Did you poll them or just decide that 99% was a good number to advance your agenda, like the Indian that made up the year 2035 for the disappearance of Asian glaciers?

just a feeling. seems like you have a similar feeling with the ipcc. i do believe though that my feeling ("german scientists tend to agree with the ipcc outlook") is much closer to the truth than yours ("the whole ipcc is made up of crooks").

do you really think the majority of worldwide climatologists is actually denying man-made effects on climate change? :confused:

buddyholly
01-29-2010, 06:18 PM
just a feeling. seems like you have a similar feeling with the ipcc. i do believe though that my feeling ("german scientists tend to agree with the ipcc outlook") is much closer to the truth than yours ("the whole ipcc is made up of crooks").

do you really think the majority of worldwide climatologists is actually denying man-made effects on climate change? :confused:

That 99% solution seems to have disappeared. Now it is 50% plus one.

I think the concept that carbon dioxide is causing global warming is fading fast. The ICPP has pinned the future of climate science on that.

Also, when you talk about majorities, are you talking about scientists who have actually done research on climate change, or just all scientists who have opinions on what they read? Don't forget it is a very small group that controlled the data and two of these three are suspended under suspicion of faking their results. I think the scientific community at large is now waiting for more information. I don't believe the whole IPCC are crooks ( in the scientific research meaning), but it only takes a few rotten apples at the top to spoil the whole barrel.

I read another report last week, don't have details, that concludes that temperature reading stations in the developed nations were selectively chosen to bias results towards warming - such as near city centres and airports. Large numbers of readings from rural stations were just ignored.

Stensland
01-30-2010, 07:58 AM
I read another report last week, don't have details, that concludes that temperature reading stations in the developed nations were selectively chosen to bias results towards warming - such as near city centres and airports. Large numbers of readings from rural stations were just ignored.

i'd find it downright earth-shattering to believe such things given the coalition of the unwilling has thrown millions at the ippc and the likes to boycott its findings plus subsequent releases, i suppose. so either big oil and friends have found a way to sabotage the climate campaign way more subversively or they're pretty much unmasked as amateurs. and i doubt the last bit, to be honest.

buddyholly
01-30-2010, 04:08 PM
They're not amateurs. They were skillfully manipulating big governments for money and fame.

Why hasn't the scientific community rallied to have their two suspended scientific leaders reinstated in their positions at prestigious universities immediately?

Nobody has denied that the emails are genuine. So it is not sabotage, just exposure of the truth. Or are you like Barbara Boxer and claim that the true criminals are the hackers? The left didn't cry foul when the Pentagon Papers were stolen. Now it's acting like exposing fraudulent science is a crime.

They were not unmasked as amateur scientists, just as amateur crooks.

buddyholly
01-30-2010, 04:57 PM
lobbying groups stemming from *your* side of the table have been solely founded for one purpose: lobbying. that's completely different from the climatologists' community.

anyways, this particular guy's disservice will probably kick-start a whole avalanche of bashers who think they're now able to crush scientific opinions. way to kill your fellow researchers' reputation worldwide, mr. pachauri.

It is now clear that Pachauri knew about the glacier lie before Copenhagen. But he tried to deny this. An Indian Government report that stated that the 2035 date was ridiculous was dismissed by Pachauri as ''voodoo science.'' And a scientist emailed him a number of times before Copenhagen about the error, but was ignored. Faced with this evidence of permitting this ridiculous number to be used at Copenhagen, Pachauri now claims that he was just too busy to bother with correcting the error until after the conference. And he got the Nobel Prize for this?

I can go on: Pachauri runs The Energy Research Institute (TERI), a division of the TATA Group - a world class industrial conglomerate. TERI has a North American office, midway between the White House and the Capitol. What is it doing there? Why, lobbying of course. So when you talk about the evil lobbiers, remember that the guy at the top of global warming policy is also in charge of lobbying Washinton for a major industrial conglomerate.

You still keep talking about the honest climatology community. Maybe so, but the problem is that these honest and trusting people did not collect their own data. They accepted in good faith the data that was fed to them by the guys that are now suspended from their posts.

Stensland
01-30-2010, 05:58 PM
They're not amateurs. They were skillfully manipulating big governments for money and fame.

Why hasn't the scientific community rallied to have their two suspended scientific leaders reinstated in their positions at prestigious universities immediately?

Nobody has denied that the emails are genuine. So it is not sabotage, just exposure of the truth. Or are you like Barbara Boxer and claim that the true criminals are the hackers? The left didn't cry foul when the Pentagon Papers were stolen. Now it's acting like exposing fraudulent science is a crime.

They were not unmasked as amateur scientists, just as amateur crooks.

i think you got me wrong there. i wasn't talking about panchauri and the likes being amateurish. it rather seemed like big oil with all it's money and influence were the amateurs (that's what the apparently misleading statement beginning with "so either..." should've said).

in your scenario there's a tiny group of scientists allegedly fooling an industry with billions of dollars at their disposal just to crack up that very group - yet they get fooled in a way that's so easy, it's almost beyond comprehension and didn't even notice it (re the selective choosing etc.)? i simply cannot believe the anti-climate lobby is such a bunch of dimwits.

and come on, tata is nothing on capitol hill compared to the dirty tricks big oil has been known for for centuries now. those guys eat tata and 1000 panchauris for breakfast, just like reps eat dems in terms of deceits, no strings attached. they'd probably figured out an ongoing scheme before it was even ongoing and infiltrated tata on day 1.

buddyholly
01-31-2010, 04:01 AM
I still don't understand it though. How is big oil unmasked as amateurish?

buddyholly
01-31-2010, 04:09 AM
in your scenario there's a tiny group of scientists allegedly fooling an industry with billions of dollars at their disposal just to crack up that very group - yet they get fooled in a way that's so easy, it's almost beyond comprehension and didn't even notice it (re the selective choosing etc.)? i simply cannot believe the anti-climate lobby is such a bunch of dimwits.

and come on, tata is nothing on capitol hill compared to the dirty tricks big oil has been known for for centuries now. those guys eat tata and 1000 panchauris for breakfast, just like reps eat dems in terms of deceits, no strings attached. they'd probably figured out an ongoing scheme before it was even ongoing and infiltrated tata on day 1.

You really hate big oil - even to the extent of convincing yourself that big oil has been around for centuries, pulling tricks all the time. How about a few examples from the 1700's?

If you check out Panchauri you will find out that his involvement with the IPCC is tiny compared to his involvement in big business. And his big businesses make money depending on decisions governments make on advice of the IPCC. It is the biggest scam in history and an amazing number of people are still demanding to be scammed some more.

KingSodaPop
01-31-2010, 08:13 AM
We are all doomed. It doesn't matter if climate change doesn't kill us.

Sadly, I have to agree.

Stensland
01-31-2010, 11:59 AM
I still don't understand it though. How is big oil unmasked as amateurish?

allegedly big oil was fooled by a tiny group scientists - who didn't even need to come up with any sort of strategy to succeed as it becomes more apparent by the day that bullshitting was hilariously easy. in your scenario the scientists made huuuge mistakes (on purpose, i give you that), yet big oil didn't notice it. given big oil has actually funded lobbying groups with the sole purpose of distorting the debate, i find the the skeptics' output shameful and amateurish, yes.

that'd be one scenario. the second would be the notion that these groups act way more subversively than we believe. it'd make them even more ugly but at least i'd view them as pros.

You really hate big oil - even to the extent of convincing yourself that big oil has been around for centuries, pulling tricks all the time. How about a few examples from the 1700's?

i was referring to standard oil and the likes. wasn't that in the 1850s and 60s? fine, then turn "...for centuries" into "...for approximately 160 years" if it makes more sense to you.

buddyholly
01-31-2010, 02:53 PM
allegedly big oil was fooled by a tiny group scientists - who didn't even need to come up with any sort of strategy to succeed as it becomes more apparent by the day that bullshitting was hilariously easy. in your scenario the scientists made huuuge mistakes (on purpose, i give you that), yet big oil didn't notice it.

Now you are blaming big oil for not being quick enough to expose the fraud at East Anglian University. You are determined to blame big oil for everything. I think if it is eventually shown that there is no global warming from carbon dioxide levels, you will say that big oil stopped the warming as a trick to discredit those brave scientists. Actually, you are paying tribute to big oil by saying big oil is the only entity capable of exposing scientific fraud. Aren't we lucky they are looking out for us and trying to avoid sending our money to Mugabe, the Maldives and the like? (Incidentally, I saw the Maldives is in the top 5 countries for intolerance of religious freedom. With attitudes like that I am no longer surprised the President gave an underwater press conference to scam a few billion dollars).

I suppose you will also blame big oil for being the foundation stone of the industrial revolution. Do they actually stop people from developing new energy sources, or could it just be that feasible alternative energy sources have not yet been developed?

Chip_s_m
01-31-2010, 06:17 PM
Now you are blaming big oil for not being quick enough to expose the fraud at East Anglian University. You are determined to blame big oil for everything. I think if it is eventually shown that there is no global warming from carbon dioxide levels, you will say that big oil stopped the warming as a trick to discredit those brave scientists. Actually, you are paying tribute to big oil by saying big oil is the only entity capable of exposing scientific fraud. Aren't we lucky they are looking out for us and trying to avoid sending our money to Mugabe, the Maldives and the like? (Incidentally, I saw the Maldives is in the top 5 countries for intolerance of religious freedom. With attitudes like that I am no longer surprised the President gave an underwater press conference to scam a few billion dollars).

I suppose you will also blame big oil for being the foundation stone of the industrial revolution. Do they actually stop people from developing new energy sources, or could it just be that feasible alternative energy sources have not yet been developed?

Of course not. If new energy sources are feasible on a wide scale then you can expect "Big Oil" to hop on and become "Big Oil and Wind" or whatever. It makes no sense for an oil company to stand by idly while a cheaper energy source undercuts its business. If they're smart then they'll invest in the new energy source since it's more profitable for them too. This is exactly why Exxon entered into the natural gas market last month with its purchase of XTO. If wind, solar, geothermal, etc were feasible on a large scale you can bet they would've purchased one of those companies instead.

Stensland
02-01-2010, 12:19 PM
man, are you guys some gullible nuts. :lol:

@ buddyholly

where do you get the idea i'm actually "blaming" big oil for anything re: the whole panchauri case?

Do they actually stop people from developing new energy sources?

uhm, YE-AH! obviously indirectly though, by desperately trying to stop the funding for such endeavors, to cut of subsidies etc.

you don't really expect them to come clean on that though, do you? is it really news that businesses actually use all kinds of spin? ever heard of the term marketing?

buddyholly
02-01-2010, 04:46 PM
man, are you guys some gullible nuts. :lol:

@ buddyholly

where do you get the idea i'm actually "blaming" big oil for anything re: the whole panchauri case?





Reading this thread I suppose. You have blamed big oil for everything for ''centuries.'' ( I don't know if you specified Panchauri as an escape from your sweeping accusations.)

Big oil is irrelevant against the resources of big government.

buddyholly
02-01-2010, 04:50 PM
uhm, YE-AH! obviously indirectly though, by desperately trying to stop the funding for such endeavors, to cut of subsidies etc.



I don't want alternative energy if it is something so uneconomic that it can only be possible if heavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

I didn't know that ''marketing'' was now a dirty trick.

Stensland
02-01-2010, 05:35 PM
Reading this thread I suppose. You have blamed big oil for everything for ''centuries.'' ( I don't know if you specified Panchauri as an escape from your sweeping accusations.)

you stated i've blamed big oil for not being "quick enough" to uncover panchauri's scam. all i've pointed was that you'd think they'd have been faster, given all the resources they can tap into. it was ridiculing rather than blaming.


Big oil is irrelevant against the resources of big government.

...which is why lobbying groups have been founded with the sole purpose to infiltrate, influence, spin, misinform and deliberately DISinform. again, why do i have to break the principles of things such as think tanks and their financial backers to you?

I don't want alternative energy if it is something so uneconomic that it can only be possible if heavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

it's not meant to be that way in the long run but as a "kick-start" to some extent. take is a some sort of loan, if you will, a long-term credit. lots of things work and have worked the same way, ranging from the hoover dam to the moon project and so on.

but anyways, i simply refuse to believe you really didn't know the general concept behind subsidies for renewable energies. this isn't a discussion to be had between adults.


I didn't know that ''marketing'' was now a dirty trick.

up to you to insert that "dirty" (depends obviously), but marketing is the art of bullshitting the consumer/voter/viewer, yeah.

buddyholly
02-01-2010, 10:53 PM
up to you to insert that "dirty" (depends obviously), but marketing is the art of bullshitting the consumer/voter/viewer, yeah.

OK, now I understand. The IPCC is marketing global warming.

Chip_s_m
02-02-2010, 05:46 AM
it's not meant to be that way in the long run but as a "kick-start" to some extent. take is a some sort of loan, if you will, a long-term credit. lots of things work and have worked the same way, ranging from the hoover dam to the moon project and so on.

Why do you think they've only been able to get a "loan" from the government for all these years? Have countless investors representing possibly trillions in capital really been blind to the fact that renewable energy is a profitable investment while the government and a few environmentalists know something everyone else doesn't? I don't think so. It's essentially no different than the government investing in what it thinks will be the next hot stock on the NASDAQ. If it's truly profitable then the private sector will invest in it (and many investors already are...see: T. Boone Pickens, who incidentally is a billionare oilman).

I wasn't aware that the moon landing created a profit. The Hoover Dam has been profitable. However, this doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been more profitable investments at the time. Perhaps if the $49 million it took to build it hadn't been taken out of the private sector then the money would've found it's way to those other projects instead. It's also possible that the government just got lucky and just happened to find the most profitable venture that $49 million could be invested in. Give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and eventually it'll type a copy of one of Shakespeare's plays.

buddyholly
02-19-2010, 12:13 AM
CNN is reporting that the chairman of the IPCC is going to resign in disgrace. That just about wipes out the warmer mafia - except for the Godfather Gore, who seems to be lying low these days.

Jimnik
02-19-2010, 11:26 PM
Kansas has had the most brutal winter in decades. Absolutely freezing here. Never thought I'd actually miss the weather in London.

Global warming can't come soon enough IMO.

sammy01
02-20-2010, 12:15 AM
in my 21 years i've never seen derby have so much snow as this year. again tonight we got a dusting.

Junkyard Racket
03-01-2010, 10:09 PM
Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'
By Gerard Couzens

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/01/article-1254619-0884FEF0000005DC-111_233x276.jpg
Survivor: The seven-month-old baby girl is recovering in hospital after she was shot by her parents

A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.

Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad's handgun missed her vital organs.

Paramedics rushed her to hospital covered in blood when police alerted by worried neighbours discovered the massacre three days later.

The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0gxu6Pzon

Jimnik
03-02-2010, 12:03 AM
Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'
By Gerard Couzens

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/01/article-1254619-0884FEF0000005DC-111_233x276.jpg
Survivor: The seven-month-old baby girl is recovering in hospital after she was shot by her parents

A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.

Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.

Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.

But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad's handgun missed her vital organs.

Paramedics rushed her to hospital covered in blood when police alerted by worried neighbours discovered the massacre three days later.

The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.

Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254619/Baby-girl-survives-shot-chest-parents-global-warming-suicide-pact.html?ITO=1490#ixzz0gxu6Pzon
A miracle she survived.

It's very scary how crazy people can get over stupid little obsessions.

buddyholly
03-24-2010, 04:31 PM
Slightly off-topic, but we all know that warmers are also likely to consider themselves green.

A University of Toronto peer-reviewed paper published in Psychology has concluded that green people consider that they have a higher moral ground than the rest of us, giving them an excuse to cheat and steal in all other areas of life.

I could have told them that. Could be a description of Al Gore, the chairman of the IPCC and the University of East Anglia Department of Climate Data..

Aloimeh
03-25-2010, 05:17 AM
Anyone know if Rrrainer is OK? Haven't seen him here for a while.

Jimnik
03-25-2010, 06:46 PM
Still waiting for a paper to prove or disprove global warming, or at least its connection with man-made CO2 emission.

Nothing but theories, guesses and beliefs at this point.

buddyholly
03-25-2010, 11:50 PM
Rrainer and PD eloped to North Korea.

Bilbo
03-26-2010, 12:36 AM
Still waiting for a paper to prove or disprove global warming, or at least its connection with man-made CO2 emission.

Nothing but theories, guesses and beliefs at this point.

you wouldn't understand the paper with all the technical terms anyway. scientific papers are not made for normal people.

Jimnik
03-26-2010, 01:27 AM
you wouldn't understand the paper with all the technical terms anyway. scientific papers are not made for normal people.
I'm not normal. I'm an engineer. ;)

Bilbo
03-26-2010, 02:00 AM
I'm not normal. I'm an engineer. ;)

sure, but that's a complete different genre to geo sciences. it would be like me reading a paper about engineering. i wouldn't understand much.

buddyholly
03-27-2010, 12:27 AM
you wouldn't understand the paper with all the technical terms anyway. scientific papers are not made for normal people.

You're just a student, bilbo. An, as yet, unformed mind.

buddyholly
06-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Well, it seems there has been a definite recent period of cooling, in the Gore household at least.