PDA

View Full Version : "How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Lancer
16-12-09, 23:33
Ha! The Earth is really cooling, the buggers lied, Right?...

http://www.prairie-advocate-news.com/12-16-09/larryplachno12_16_09.html

How They Faked Global Warming
By Larry Plachno

The Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England has long been regarded as the leader in providing information on climate change. In November, e-mails, computer code and data from the CRU was made public by a whistleblower. All of this showed that information on global warming was being falsified and manipulated while true information and procedures were being hidden.

In the following weeks, people have been able to review this material including the UK’s Lord Monckton who wrote a 42-page report for the Science & Public Policy Institute on what he and others have found. What has emerged is a story of hidden agendas, political intrigue, international conspiracy, scientific corruption and contempt for the public trust. It has all of the elements that will eventually make a great movie.

What is now becoming increasingly obvious is that the data that was released from the Climate Research Unit was not random but carefully selected, probably over a period of time. It was also sent from one of the University’s servers. Hence, some people are suggesting that this was not the work of a random outside hacker but quite possibly an insider concerned over what was going on who gathered this information over a period of time.

Lord Monckton points out that the initial mistake of the whistleblower was to send this data to the mainstream media . . . where it was ignored. The BBC had a copy of this data for a month before the story broke on an obscure bulletin board in the United States but they did nothing. Most of the mainstream media has remained silent or nearly silent on this huge issue that touches every human on the earth. They have supported global warming for so long that they have egg on their face for being taken in. Readers should be thankful that the editors and management of The Prairie Advocate are willing to present the news instead of editing or ignoring it.

As ridiculous as it sounds, let me ask you how you would go about proving that elephants fly if you were paid handsomely to do this? You would only need a three-step procedure. Step one would be to collect data on the distance of elephants above the ground, and then “process” that information through a computer that added in a few extra feet. Step two would be to prevent others from seeing your computer programs or learning how they work. Step three would be to discredit or stop others from presenting conflicting data. This is basically what the team at the Climate Research Unit did with temperatures.

Changing data on temperatures is not new. A few years back, a few researchers tried to present what came to be known as the hockey stick graph. Looking like a hockey stick on its side, it supposedly showed hundreds of years of constant temperatures following by a sharp increase in temperature in modern times. This was later disproved because the manipulated data failed to account for the warm period in the Middle Ages, and only partial data was used for the warming part.

Most of the nearly 12,000 years since the last ice age have been warmer than at present. The Bronze Age, the Roman era and the medieval warm period were all warmer than today’s temperatures. In addition, the past four interglacial warm periods were as much as 11 degrees F warmer than the present. In spite of carbon and other gasses in our atmosphere, our current temperatures are cool compared to what the earth has seen in the past.

E-mails between team members released from the CRU at the University of East Anglia admitted that temperatures around the globe have been falling for almost a decade. Team members were unable to explain why temperatures were falling so they decided to conceal this fact.

The way they did this was to take basic temperature readings and “process” these figures through their computers using their own special programs. Data that started out showing level temperatures or even a cooling trend emerged from the computers showing warming,

Written in Fortran, the computer code for these programs shows some amazing and incriminating remarks from the programmers. One program note is so bold to state: “Apply a very artificial correction for decline.” In another program’s code, the programmer’s remark mentions a “fudge factor” to increase temperature data. In addition to increasing more recent temperatures, some of this “processing” also reduced older temperatures to artificially create more of a spread in temperatures over the years.

What all of this amounted to was simply a blatant manipulation of data to show what they wanted to prove regardless of the initial input or reality.

Professor Phil Jones, the man primarily responsible for the surface temperate datasets at CRU has subsequently stepped down. Prior to that he put in a great deal of effort to keep these programs and other data from being made public. There were e-mails between team members discussing how to keep data and computer codes from being disclosed. The reason is obvious; any competent researcher would realize that the computer code manipulated the temperatures and that all of the resulting information showing decades of temperatures on the earth was nothing more than a work of fiction.

Several other irregularities were also discovered in the CRU’s data collection procedures. The CRU used proxy data from tree rings to determine temperature in spite of warnings from the UN’s climate panel against doing this. Warmer weather is not the only reason for wider tree rings. Both wetter weather and CO2 in the atmosphere will cause wider tree rings. There was also a concern that the CRU had temperature stations located at airports, next to roads and buildings, close to air conditioning vents, and in industrial areas that were once rural. All of these locations could create a measurable increase in temperature readings.

An interesting side note brought out by Lord Monckton is the confusion about the correlation between temperatures and carbon in the atmosphere. A major premise of Global Warming theory is that increasing carbon in the atmosphere holds in heat and causes our earth to warm. However, the actual research shows that increases in carbon in our atmosphere follow warming rather than precede it.

The e-mails made public also show that the CRU team had two different standards regarding peer reviews of climate material. They tried to get their own material into the hands of friends and those who supported global warming. In spite of the fact that in many cases their methodology and computer code should have also been submitted and reviewed, it appears that the team was successful in keeping these items away from the reviewers. However, with material skeptical of global warming or disproving global warming, they tried to get it reviewed by global warming people so it would be discredited, ignored and go unpublished.

When all of this became public in November, it was disclosed that the original temperature readings at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia had been disposed of and were no longer available. In addition to being a valuable resource record of past temperatures actually recorded, the missing information prevented anyone from going back to check for accuracy. All that remained was the “processed” numbers.

Why has all of this happened? Like a best-selling novel, the motives are money and political control. One report indicates that the CRU received more than $23 million in taxpayer money to prove global warning. They certainly tried to do what they were paid to do.

However, the second part is that virtually all of this research money came from governments. In some cases, governments wanted to prove global warming in order to justify additional taxation and control through emission limitations, emissions trading schemes, or Cap and Trade programs. None of these programs are logical or justified unless you can prove that manmade global warming exists.

While the CRU e-mails show collusion with other temperature researchers in other countries, there has not yet been enough time to determine which temperature reports from which countries are accurate and which have been “processed.” Preliminary reports from New Zealand indicate that the “processed” data from their National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research shows global warming and is being used to encourage the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. However, the actual raw data shows that temperatures in New Zealand have remained stable for 150 years.

Unfortunately, temperature reporting in the United States is also compromised according to Lord Monckton. Temperature studies in the United States typically come from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It collaborates with NOAA’s National Climatic Data center that produces its own dataset, which is usually very close to that of NASA. The e-mails at CRU suggest that these groups have coordinated their results and coordinate how they present their results.

Lord Monckton goes on to explain that recently it was discovered that NASA was “processing” information from individual temperature stations to remove the urban heat island effect. But the effect of that “processing” actually enhanced the heat-island effect and increased the apparent rate of warming.

An example he gives is that raw data shows 100 years of cooling at the temperature station at Santa Rosa, California, which is the headquarters of NOAA. However, the “processed” data from that same station now shows warming.

Lord Monckton was originally scheduled to appear at a recent high profile global warming hearing on Capitol Hill and go head to head with former Vice President Al Gore on global warming. Lord Monckton was later informed that he would not be allowed to testify. This sounds remarkably like “our minds are made up, do not bother us with the truth.” It is noteworthy that while all of this discussion is going on in regard to how global warming was faked, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cleared the way for regulation of greenhouse gasses in an obvious ploy to tax and regulate where no taxation and regulation is justified.

One remarkable development of all of this is that there may no longer be a current source of accurate global temperature data. There have been four such datasets, two from the earth’s surface and two from satellites.

The two surface datasets include the one from the CRU at the University of East Anglia in England and the NASA Goddard Institute-NOAA National Climatic Data Center datasets in the United States. The two satellite datasets come from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. and the University of Alabama at Huntsville.

The CRU dataset in England has certainly been compromised and the original data is missing. Because of coordination with CRU and the “processing” of data, the American datasets are equally suspect. The satellites do not have thermometers and hence their sensing instruments must be calibrated. Unfortunately, they were calibrated using the information from the surface datasets. Hence, their data is questionable because it will show the same inaccurate statement of warming.

As suggested by Lord Monckton, what we badly need is an accurate, globally uniform, unbiased method of gathering temperature changes everywhere in the world. But we also need honest scientists.

Larry Plachno is a professional researcher, writer, editor and author with several books to his credit. His has written hundreds of articles that have appeared in several newspapers and magazines. For the past 30 years he has served as the editor for two national trade magazines. He resides in Polo, Illinois with his wife and family. His email is input@busmag.com.

Buster's Uncle
16-12-09, 23:36
SIIIGGHH.

Do they have Fox News in the Philippines?

Lancer
16-12-09, 23:40
Nope. Just BBC usually. Why?

Zkribbler
16-12-09, 23:46
Because the OP contains all the false claims passed off by Fox News as "fact."

Lancer
16-12-09, 23:54
Well, maybe they are facts. I had heard that there was a leak of info that the scientists had fudged the facts as the story in the OP states. For some reason support for global warming has dropped drastically in the US. Maybe its on CNN? I'm not there to watch though.

Oerdin
17-12-09, 00:00
Because the OP contains all the false claims passed off by Fox News as "fact."

Yep.

PiMan
17-12-09, 00:50
Well, maybe they are facts. I had heard that there was a leak of info that the scientists had fudged the facts as the story in the OP states. For some reason support for global warming has dropped drastically in the US. Maybe its on CNN? I'm not there to watch though.

Support has dropped in the US because the east and midwest recently experienced one of the coldest summers on record. However globally it has been a very hot year, on par with any other this decade.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 01:00
Mostly. it's just that it's only another story about a few science types cooking the data. Regrettable, but shouldn't be very interesting to anyone outside the fields of study involved.

The author has taken said little sad story and thrown in a lot random scattered facts (accepting for the sake of argument that the facts are even facts) to stitch together a big editorial wish-fulfillment fantasy conspiracy story.

I cannot believe that anyone without an agenda would be pushing this. It's already become the journalistic/political equivalent of sticking you fingers in your ears and shoputing "LA LA LALA LA!"

The right desperately wants global warming to not be true. Come to think of it, I'd be willing to give them the satisfaction on this one if I ran the universe. It would be worth it.

But it's still just a fantasy.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:07
I'd settle for some fake Ontario warming. **** it was cold today. :(

Dale
17-12-09, 01:09
I'd settle for some fake Ontario warming. **** it was cold today. :(

40C here yesterday. A more comfortable 24C (or close) for today.

SlowwHand
17-12-09, 01:13
5.6C here right now. I don't like it; even though it could, and has, been worse.
It's the wind that sucks.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:13
:envy:

It's currently -7C. I have no idea what it was earlier. Let's just say too damn cold.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:14
It's the wind that sucks.


-14 with wind chill.

Lancer
17-12-09, 01:14
fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LALA LA!"

I'm thinking new smiley!

SlowwHand
17-12-09, 01:15
Whatever it is somewhere else, and whether people like it or not, I don't care.
I don't like cold and never have. Now with that Plavix blood thinner, I truly know hate.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:18
I absolutely hate the cold. Many of my fellow countrymen revel in winter activities but not I. I've done the usual winter things of course but not for many years as I chose warmth and comfort over cold and misery.

Lancer
17-12-09, 01:18
It it gets down into the 70s I'm putting on long pants and a long sleeve shirt. My blood is so thin...

I don't want to go back to the US.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:20
I certainly envy the Philippine climate (minus the tropical storms of course). Sunny and warm is a hit in my books. I'm surprised at how cold it is in Texas. Poor Sloww. :(

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 01:20
fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LALA LA!"

I'm thinking new smiley!
Expect something soon- it's beginning to assemble in my brain right now.

Whatever it is somewhere else, and whether people like it or not, I don't care.
I don't like cold and never have. Now with that Plavix blood thinner, I truly know hate.
Have you been on Plavix long? 'Cause if you didn't truly know hate six months ago, I now truly know fear. :gun_cowboy:

SlowwHand
17-12-09, 01:26
It's the same humidity and wind that we have all year. It's just not hot as Hell. I actually prefer hot. I don't love up over 100F particularly, but given the choice, come on heat.

Alinestra Covelia
17-12-09, 01:29
I absolutely hate the cold. Many of my fellow countrymen revel in winter activities but not I. I've done the usual winter things of course but not for many years as I chose warmth and comfort over cold and misery.

Hear hear. I lived in Britain for 11 years and it has imbued me with a nameless dread of cold.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 01:31
It's the same humidity and wind that we have all year. It's just not hot as Hell. I actually prefer hot. I don't love up over 100F particularly, but given the choice, come on heat.I dunno. I hate being cold, too, but I survived five Texas summers, and after the time I had to perform outdoors all day at 113 degrees, I kinda don't understand why we stole that land from Mexico.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:35
Here here. I lived in Britain for 11 years and it has imbued me with a nameless dread of cold.

I've never been but isn't a "cold" day there something just below freezing?

SlowwHand
17-12-09, 01:38
I dunno. I hate being cold, too, but I survived five Texas summers, and after the time I had to perform outdoors all day at 113 degrees, I kinda don't understand why we stole that land from Mexico.

In the first place, if we stole it from anyone, it was Comanche Indians.
In the second place, too bad for them.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:40
In the first place, if we stole it from anyone, it was Comanche Indians.
In the second place, too bad for them.


Did you give them a casino for it?

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 01:45
No, they gave them syphilis.

Wezil
17-12-09, 01:56
Bad deal. They should have held out for a casino.

We gave our natives casinos and a thriving illicit cigarette business. The future looks bright. :b:

Alinestra Covelia
17-12-09, 01:58
In Britain most days are cold, largely because most days are overcast. The weather was probably what drove them to colonize one quarter of the world's land mass. They were looking for someplace - any place - less miserable than home.

Dale
17-12-09, 02:02
Back to the OP, I'm not sure what to believe now. There was that incident earlier in the year where NASA admitted to faking US climate data, then last month New Zealand warming as reported by NZ scientists years ago was found to be completely false, and now this. There's a growing list of primary climate change data being found false and adjusted these last couple of years. How much more will be found false?

It appears both arguments currently could be viewed as true. I'm going to wait to see how this all plays out, but if the claims of false global warming and manipulated data so a small number of sponsers could profit massively from it are true, then those people should be forced to repay all that money to the public, be drawn and quartered, and then made to give back their nobel prizes.

Lancer
17-12-09, 02:03
...and what Ali? They made New Jersey?

Lancer
17-12-09, 02:05
Good for you Dale, your mind is not closed by a political bias. :b:


Back to the OP, I'm not sure what to believe now. There was that incident earlier in the year where NASA admitted to faking US climate data, then last month New Zealand warming as reported by NZ scientists years ago was found to be completely false, and now this. There's a growing list of primary climate change data being found false and adjusted these last couple of years. How much more will be found false?

It appears both arguments currently could be viewed as true. I'm going to wait to see how this all plays out, but if the claims of false global warming and manipulated data so a small number of sponsers could profit massively from it are true, then those people should be forced to repay all that money to the public, be drawn and quartered, and then made to give back their nobel prizes.

Wezil
17-12-09, 02:09
...and what Ali? They made New Jersey?


If better climate was what they were looking for I have to wonder how the hell they ended up here. Talk about missing the mark. Geez.

Dale
17-12-09, 02:12
Thats why they kept looking and found Australia. They stopped after that. No need to look for anything after finding perfection. ;)

Lancer
17-12-09, 02:18
Dale, can you link to the NASA faked climate data? Where did you hear of it? I searched, can't find it.

Wezil
17-12-09, 02:26
Thats why they kept looking and found Australia. They stopped after that. No need to look for anything after finding perfection. ;)

You need to find a use for the part in the middle though.

We've been sitting on the frozen north waiting for global warming. Our day is dawning. :b:

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 02:42
Heat is the fuel that drives the global weather engine. It's not just the few degrees of warmth that is to be feared. It's that those few degrees will change the weather. Some places will get colder. There will be a tendency for the most habitable places to get less so. Life will not generally be good for anyone living close an ocean- like the one Melbourne is on. More heat = bigger storms. It could be GREAT news for the Aboriginal Australians of the interior; I gather there's nowhere to go but up for that climate.

For most everyone else- let's hope the right-wing turds are right this time. That there global warming is baaad news, I tells yuh.

Dale
17-12-09, 02:44
Dale, can you link to the NASA faked climate data? Where did you hear of it? I searched, can't find it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/

That's probably the biggest bit. Basically their data was found wrong and they were asked to release how they calculate the data. They won't release that.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 02:53
Let me add this: scientists are like everyone else, only nerdier than most, right? They are all. over. the. political. spectrum. -Just like us folks at WPC.

I cannot believe in this "conspiracy" in the face of the scientific consensus about global warming. The likelihood of such a variety of people playing along is much harder to swallow than that the Fox news types are (to be charitable) cherry-picking their data.

Wezil
17-12-09, 02:55
Some of us are old enough to remember the fears of a coming ice age the scientists used to warn us about.

Lancer
17-12-09, 02:57
Thanks Dale.

Dale
17-12-09, 03:02
You need to find a use for the part in the middle though.

We've been sitting on the frozen north waiting for global warming. Our day is dawning. :b:

Didn't you know, we make big cattle stations. ;)

This one is 6 million acres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_station

Wezil
17-12-09, 03:04
Didn't you know, we make big cattle stations. ;)

This one is 6 million acres: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Creek_station

You evil bastards! Think of all the flatulence emissions that causes. The environmentalists will be after you guys. :shame:

Dale
17-12-09, 03:16
Didn't you hear it was all a hoax? ;)

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 03:22
That Australia is full of flatulence?

Pretty sure that's true...

Lancer
17-12-09, 03:32
Something stinks about that story.

PiMan
17-12-09, 03:44
Back to the OP, I'm not sure what to believe now. There was that incident earlier in the year where NASA admitted to faking US climate data, then last month New Zealand warming as reported by NZ scientists years ago was found to be completely false, and now this. There's a growing list of primary climate change data being found false and adjusted these last couple of years. How much more will be found false?

It appears both arguments currently could be viewed as true. I'm going to wait to see how this all plays out, but if the claims of false global warming and manipulated data so a small number of sponsers could profit massively from it are true, then those people should be forced to repay all that money to the public, be drawn and quartered, and then made to give back their nobel prizes.

The NZ data only appeared to be fake because the raw data didn't take into account the weather station being in different locations over the past 100+ years. When that was accommodated for, the trend was as seen.

And I'm not such a fan of drawing and quartering. For any person.


Heat is the fuel that drives the global weather engine. It's not just the few degrees of warmth that is to be feared. It's that those few degrees will change the weather. Some places will get colder. There will be a tendency for the most habitable places to get less so. Life will not generally be good for anyone living close an ocean- like the one Melbourne is on. More heat = bigger storms. It could be GREAT news for the Aboriginal Australians of the interior; I gather there's nowhere to go but up for that climate.

For most everyone else- let's hope the right-wing turds are right this time. That there global warming is baaad news, I tells yuh.

Melbourne should actually be mostly fine in the event of sea levels rising. We are a large hilly city, so the vast majority of the population live above any reasonable sea level predictions. Global warming probably will give us our first day over 50 some time in the next 90 years however, as well as screw with water availability. These are problems that aren't exclusive to, nor universally applying to, coastal cities.

Dale
17-12-09, 03:46
That Australia is full of flatulence?

Pretty sure that's true...

Yeah that's true (if everyone is like me). :p

But it's not Aussie farts causing global warming, but immigrant farts causing global warming! (http://www.culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/faux_think_tank_claims_immigrant_farts_cause_globa )

:huh:

Dale
17-12-09, 03:53
The NZ data only appeared to be fake because the raw data didn't take into account the weather station being in different locations over the past 100+ years. When that was accommodated for, the trend was as seen.

There's no doubts that human interaction with the planet is affecting the climate, but then there is also no doubts that there are certain groups lieing for their own benefits. Some of the "representatives" of global warming have very strong ties with the industries that will benenfit from "greening" the planet. Take a certain nobel prize winning ex-US politician. He's got lots of shares in companies who control alternative energy generation.

There's the true science behind global warming (which is slowely coming out) and then there's the business manipulation of the truth behind global warming.

Wezil
17-12-09, 03:54
Al Gore has made an absolute fortune jetting around the world promoting his cause.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 04:04
Melbourne should actually be mostly fine in the event of sea levels rising. We are a large hilly city, so the vast majority of the population live above any reasonable sea level predictions. Global warming probably will give us our first day over 50 some time in the next 90 years however, as well as screw with water availability. These are problems that aren't exclusive to, nor universally applying to, coastal cities.But the typhoons; good God, man, the typhoons!

I never mentioned sea levels. That's only part of the problem.

I have seen the future, and all the houses look like Fred Flinstone's, not George Jetson's.

There's no doubts that human interaction with the planet is affecting the climate, but then there is also no doubts that there are certain groups lieing for their own benefits. Some of the "representatives" of global warming have very strong ties with the industries that will benenfit from "greening" the planet. Take a certain nobel prize winning ex-US politician. He's got lots of shares in companies who control alternative energy generation.

There's the true science behind global warming (which is slowely coming out) and then there's the business manipulation of the truth behind global warming.
No need asking which party you usually vote for.

Enjoy the typhoons.

PiMan
17-12-09, 04:19
But the typhoons; good God, man, the typhoons!

I never mentioned sea levels. That's only part of the problem.

I have seen the future, and all the houses look like Fred Flinstone's, not George Jetson's.


Melbourne is protected from all sea based extreme weather phenomenon, like typhoons and tsunamis, thanks to the small mouth of Port Phillip Bay.

Dale
17-12-09, 04:45
Melbourne is protected from all sea based extreme weather phenomenon, like typhoons and tsunamis, thanks to the small mouth of Port Phillip Bay.

And Tasmania.

Dale
17-12-09, 04:46
No need asking which party you usually vote for.

Yeah, conservatives.

Lancer
17-12-09, 05:24
Regarding global warming, the planet is either getting warmer or its not. Politics of the left or right aside, its got to be just one or the other. Its a fact whichever it is but how to find the facts when even the scientists, the fact guys, are full of crap?

Here's the story from Dale's link...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...imate-dispute/



The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.


Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

Mr. Horner's fight mirrors one that has sprung up in Britain since the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which appear to show researchers shaving their data to conform to their expectations. They also note efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

JEELEN
17-12-09, 06:45
Funny thing: Dale's link works, Lancer's quote of Dale's link doesn't.

Lancer
17-12-09, 06:57
That IS odd. :D

Lancer
17-12-09, 07:27
"China sees no chance of climate deal: source"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091217/ts_nm/us_climate_copenhagen

I guess in time we might know whether this is a good thing.

PiMan
17-12-09, 07:55
That IS odd. :D

Not really. Notice the "..." in the middle of the broken link? That isn't supposed to be quite like that.

El_Cid
17-12-09, 09:42
Firstly i'd like to say i approve of this thread, it shows exactly how all it takes is a little misinformation to create the desired effect. So a good lesson :b:

probably the arguement is moot in real terms anyway. But most of the data from climate science shows a general increase in warming that has been seen before in the earths natural cycles from the past(britains lanscape would have looked like an African plane, with elephants+hippos, a good number of tens of thousands of years ago etc).

the difference this time is the speed of change. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is currently the highest for 100,000 years, and that rise has been recorded to change since around an important event in our history - the industrial revolution. I dont remember the exact numbers(i'm not a climate scientist) but were are running at levels around 300(whatevers) when we should be closer to 200(whatevers) - in terms of the carbon content.

A wiki link for those that want detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Now i dont have a problem if the oil company lobbyists/Fox/who ever, wants to stop action that might(it might not - it may be too late) reduce the chance of a general 2-3 degree global rise in the next 20-30 years.

Frankly somehow during my life, i've ended up learning quite a bit that is very usefull to 'surviving'. How food works/grows, how to build shelter, hunting, fishing, firearms. Alongside my computer-nerd i have a useful dose of 'rambo'.

But for people with stocks+shares, a reliance on the modern worlds conviences, condo's on the coast etc - well maybe in your life time if we carry on regaurdless of the majority of unbiased scientific opinion on what the effect of burning all this unclean fossil fuel is doing, well you my friend are going the way of the dinosaur. This current financial crisis will seem like chiken feed and all the money in the world wont help when you are upto your neck in sea water.

So it's 'our' call, collectively. carry on increasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere in exchange for (very short-term!)profits, or do something to stop the worse that can happen.

like i say i'm personaly easy with it - i'm setup to manage whatever happens, or atleast have given myself a chance. I suspect 90% of the western world hasn't prepared like myself though.

And also you have to look at who is benifiting from all the issues and opinions around this debate. Where is 'the money' likely to distort the truth? who has the biggest agenda? Big oil, a handfull of scientists, or the general scientific community?

And fully expect colder weather snaps in an enviroment that is warming, as you should expect harsher storms, more variable and extreme weather patterns compared to normal etc. If you do the actual reading on the subject none of this will actualy surprise you, it's been predicted and is part of global 'warming'.

PiMan
17-12-09, 11:41
The "whatevers", I think are ppm (parts per million).
I think that might be some old data there. I seem to recall the number being closer to 400ppm (or 0.04% of the atmosphere) today.

Grey Fox
17-12-09, 16:09
Global Warming is creating extreme weather in both directions, some places will get it hotter some colder, some will dry up, some will flood.

I definitely don't need Scientists to tell me that we are experiencing global warming. I just have to look back at my entire life, and ask my parents about their past. And watch the news.

Actually one of the results of a prolonged global warming might actually be a new ice age.

Senethro
17-12-09, 17:29
The article is the OP is trash. Its a longer form of the same talking points that were misrepresented by fox news and co.

There are causes for concern and some strange datasets but not for the reasons the skeptics claim and we're still waiting on some analysis from people qualified to interpret the work and not journalists taking phrases like "hide the decline" out of context.

Zkribbler
17-12-09, 17:42
Let's keep things simple:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT
We are producing many times more CO2 than ever before in human history. FACT.
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??

The North Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The South Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The Greenland ice cap is melting. FACT.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andies and elsewhere in the world are melting. FACT.
The permafrost in the artic is melting. FACT.
CO2 is permeating the oceans, turning them more acidic and killing off coral reefs. FACT.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 18:04
Yeah, conservatives.
Ah, Oz. Surely the only place in the world where voting Liberal is the opposite of voting liberal.

Apropos of being upside-down land, I guess.

Wezil
17-12-09, 18:16
Let's keep things simple:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT
We are producing many times more CO2 than ever before in human history. FACT.
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??

The North Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The South Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The Greenland ice cap is melting. FACT.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andies and elsewhere in the world are melting. FACT.
The permafrost in the artic is melting. FACT.
CO2 is permeating the oceans, turning them more acidic and killing off coral reefs. FACT.

Not a one of those "facts" demonstrates it is man made change.

Senethro
17-12-09, 18:41
Not a one of those "facts" demonstrates it is man made change.

You think theres another species on this planet that industrialized and we didn't notice?

Wezil
17-12-09, 18:47
Did climate change occur before human industrialization Senethro?

How do explain that?

Senethro
17-12-09, 19:00
There is not one cause of climate change. Different forms of climate change have certain characteristics associated with them. The speed of the current climate change is atypical. This means that something new or at least difficult to observe using geological evidence is taking place.

Wezil
17-12-09, 19:09
There is not one cause of climate change. Different forms of climate change have certain characteristics associated with them. The speed of the current climate change is atypical. This means that something new or at least difficult to observe using geological evidence is taking place.

Which is not an argument made by zkribbler with his "facts".

Lancer
17-12-09, 20:04
Let's keep things simple:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT
We are producing many times more CO2 than ever before in human history. FACT.
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??

The North Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The South Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The Greenland ice cap is melting. FACT.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andies and elsewhere in the world are melting. FACT.
The permafrost in the artic is melting. FACT.
CO2 is permeating the oceans, turning them more acidic and killing off coral reefs. FACT.

Sounds reasonable Zkrib and this is what I'm inclined to believe myself. I just wonder why, if that's all true, do scientists feel the need to lie about it? Can't they just depend upon exactly what you wrote to make their case without doing things which undermine it?

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 20:14
There are a million reasons one could imagine for some random researcher to be sloppy or dishonest without putting it all down to pushing an improbable conspiracy. Scientist screw up. Scientist get caught up in a goal and lose perspective. Scientists do blatantly cherry-pick data for reasons of academic politics- to show results to secure or keep a grant, or to get one up over a rival in their field.

Academia is notorious for its pettiness- especially among academics. That is a big reason for the peer review process- those guys are often full of it. However, laymen interpreting results they don't understand are even less reliable.

Lancer
17-12-09, 21:01
Well, I traded in my minivan for a Rav4 a few years back and Dolores and I are considering a very small car for the Philippines. Right now we take the bus everywhere we go and our electric comes from hydro.

What bugs me are people who are trusted to faithfully do something and turn out to be completely full of crap.

Senethro
17-12-09, 21:03
Sounds reasonable Zkrib and this is what I'm inclined to believe myself. I just wonder why, if that's all true, do scientists feel the need to lie about it? Can't they just depend upon exactly what you wrote to make their case without doing things which undermine it?

Because they're people and people are fallible? Because the worst of their opponents feel no need to tell the truth themselves? Because decades have come and gone but still not enough is being done?

I read a website which has a section devoted to posting and discussing terrible right-wing editorial cartoons. About this time of year there will be 5 a week from major publications which have the punchline "Its cold outside right now so that must mean global warming is false!". This year was worse because of the Copenhagen conference drawing attention to it.

Another common punchline prompted this parody:
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6840/artduck10.jpg

Points if you can identify what its parodying.

It shouldn't be a big deal. We shouldn't care about what some syndicated chuckle**** with a pen thinks except theres all these damn old people everywhere staunchly resisting problems that need to be dealt with soon but the consequences won't be felt until after their death. They're everywhere and their symptomatic of peoples preference to believe what is comfortable than what is rational.

Lancer
17-12-09, 21:10
Everybody always blames the other guy. I believe that if you say you're going to do something then do it with integrity and if you don't well its because you are dishonest.

Dale
17-12-09, 22:22
Let's keep things simple:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT
We are producing many times more CO2 than ever before in human history. FACT.
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??

The North Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The South Pole ice cap is melting. FACT.
The Greenland ice cap is melting. FACT.
Glaciers in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andies and elsewhere in the world are melting. FACT.
The permafrost in the artic is melting. FACT.
CO2 is permeating the oceans, turning them more acidic and killing off coral reefs. FACT.

Actually, the South Pole ice cap is increasing not melting. FACT.
The North Pole is warming, the South Pole is cooling. FACT.
Glaciers in the southern hemisphere are generally increasing. FACT.

This year also saw more 2nd year ice on the north ice cap than in the last 10 years. FACT. The north ice cap requires more analysis to see if this is an anomaly or the bottom of a sine wave advance-retreat of the ice cap.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 22:31
Uh, Bruce? Do you not know where all those southern glaciers are coming from?

I could not swear to it of my own knowlege, but I believe your other facts turn out not to be the case. Links, please- and they will be evaluated for signs of bias or an agenda, this being the innerwebs and all.

Dale
17-12-09, 22:43
Easy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica



Overall sea ice on Antarctica has increased since satellite measurements began in 1979. Sea ice was reported to be at a record level in 2008, and 2009 is also significantly above average.[9]

Although the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is widely believed to be associated with global warming, ice sheets on Antarctica have actually grown, rather than shrunk. Wingham et al 20 showed “the Antarctic ice sheet growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-1 in period 1992-2003”.[10] Using satellite altimetry technique, authors show that “72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 gigatons per year.”



From the beginning of record until about 1965 they find slight warming, since 1965 slight cooling

A number of studies show cooling since 1965, except one which shows a 1C difference per decade (but not reliably accepted).



# Climate models predict more snowfall than ice melting during the next 50 years, but models are not good enough for them to be confident about the prediction.
# There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.

Not sure where I saw the arctic ice details, but somewhere. :)

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 22:51
Okay, that looks good; however I cannot resist taking the cheap shot that it's Wikipedia- a pretty good place to do comic book research, but unreliable even on a lot of subjects that don't attract cranks with an agenda.

Your case would be strengthened greatly by links to something more reputable.

Dale
17-12-09, 22:54
Links to the actual studies are in the Wiki article. I just couldn't be bothered listing them individually. But I understand where you're coming from as I also say "it's just Wiki, where's another source". ;)

Try here, I see a number of reputable reports in this search. antarctic ice thickening - Google Search

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 23:04
Hmmm. Towards the end of the Wikipedia article it also says
Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
There is no evidence for a decline in overall Antarctic sea ice extent.
The central and southern parts of the west coast of the Antarctic Peninsula have warmed by nearly 3°C. The cause is not known.
Changes have occurred in the upper atmosphere over Antarctica.

NASA map showing snowmelt in areas where it has not previously been observed.The area of strongest cooling appears at the South Pole, and the region of strongest warming lies along the Antarctic Peninsula. A possible explanation is that loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica. [7]

In their latest study (September 20, 2007) NASA researchers have confirmed that Antarctic snow is melting farther inland from the coast over time, melting at higher altitudes than ever and increasingly melting on Antarctica's largest ice shelf.[12]

There is also evidence for widespread glacier retreat around the Antarctic Peninsula.[13]

Large ice shelves, such as the Wilkins Ice Shelf, have also been shrinking in size, though because these are already floating in the ocean, this will not cause sea level rise.

...And there are a lot of Google hits; USA today is no Nature, but not a right-wing propaganda organ, either. I had not heard this stuff before, and hope it's true in a significant way- Greenland's icecaps won't flood out nearly as many people working alone.

This is what I love best about a good argument- done right, you learn things.

Dale
17-12-09, 23:16
One thing to remember is that the Antarctic Pen is just one part of the whole. Yes in general ice has been thickening and the pole cooling, but the outlieing area has seen some shrinking and warming. The pen is the bit that sticks right out into the southern oceans so logically would see some melt as the warmer tropical water flows around the bottom of Africa, South America and Australia.

Another consideration in the outlieing melt is that we've seen a few El Nino's in quick succession. Not a rare occurance, but certainly unusual.

* El Nino is a standard climatic event where warmer than usual tropic water currents flow into the southern oceans causing warmer than normal summers.

Buster's Uncle
17-12-09, 23:45
Well, as I mentioned/implied, a hypothetical global warming would be an inherently chaotic phenomenon, with some places getting colder. There would be a general trend towards warmer and more volatile weather, but it would inevitably tend to cause change. This is especially cause for concern for the most hospitable climates, which tend to hold a lot of people, and the coastal areas, which hold the bulk of the human race.

You can put this and that down to local phenomena, but remember that heat powers those weather conditions in the first place.

I haven't unmistakably seen global warming myself- what I have seen is increasingly atypical weather patterns in my part of the world in the last decade. Who knows? I remember the unusually fierce winters here in the late 70's, too. People are always myopic about recent weather.

Dale
17-12-09, 23:52
Just pointing out that I was refuting zkrib's points on the southern poles. Not trying to refute global warming as a whole. ;)

Zkribbler
18-12-09, 00:15
Not a one of those "facts" demonstrates it is man made change.

Let's try again:


CO2 is a greenhouse gas. FACT
We are producing many times more CO2 than ever before in human history. FACT.
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??

Buster's Uncle
18-12-09, 00:26
It's hard for all of us to accept that things we can't perceive directly on our normal human scale are important. I feel that way all the time when I'm reading about some NASA engineering problem over some effect so trivial in my own earthly experience that my gut tells me they've GOT to be wrong. Greenhouse gasses are like that.

Grey Fox
18-12-09, 00:30
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure3.png
November 2009 had the third-lowest average extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records. The linear rate of decline for the month is now 4.5 percent per decade.
That's the arctic though.



The good news is that it would take more than 1,000 years to melt the massive ice sheet in west Antarctica that could raise sea levels by 16 feet.

The bad news is this event could become unstoppable this century if carbon dioxide concentrations keep rising as predicted, a study has found.

Zkribbler
18-12-09, 00:46
Ironically, I was just reading an article on Wiki about the potential collapse West Antartic Ice Sheet [WAIS]:


Large parts of the WAIS sit on a bed which is below sea level and slopes downward inland.[4] This slope, and the low isostatic head, mean that the ice sheet is theoretically unstable: a small retreat could in theory destabilize the entire WAIS leading to rapid disintegration. Current computer models do not include the physics necessary to simulate this process, and observations do not provide guidance, so predictions as to its rate of retreat remain uncertain. This has been known for decades.

In January 2006, in a UK government-commissioned report, the head of the British Antarctic Survey, Chris Rapley, warned that this huge west Antarctic ice sheet may be starting to disintegrate. It has been hypothesised that this disintegration could raise sea levels by approximately 3.3 metres (10 ft).[5] Although if the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet was to melt this would contribute 4.8 m to global sea level.[6] Rapley said a previous Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that played down the worries of the ice sheet's stability should be revised. "The last IPCC report characterized Antarctica as a slumbering giant in terms of climate change," he wrote. "I would say it is now an awakened giant. There is real concern." [7] Note that the IPCC report did not use the words "slumbering giant".

Rapley said, "Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet that rest on bedrock below sea level have begun to discharge ice fast enough to make a significant contribution to sea level rise. Understanding the reason for this change is urgent in order to be able to predict how much ice may ultimately be discharged and over what timescale. Current computer models do not include the effect of liquid water on ice sheet sliding and flow, and so provide only conservative estimates of future behaviour." [8]

James Hansen, a senior NASA scientist who is a leading climate adviser to the US government, said the results were deeply worrying. "Once a sheet starts to disintegrate, it can reach a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid," he said. [9]


The science on such a disintegration is very sketchy, but it indicates that any large-scale melting of the ice sheet won't be on a linear basis but will be sudden and irreversible. The melting of that portion of the ice sheet which would be affected would raise sea levels 3.3 meters, [10 feet].

Dale
18-12-09, 01:01
Your graph is Arctic, your text is Antarctic. Confusing. :confused:

Zkribbler
18-12-09, 01:13
I think Grey Fox acknowledges that in his last line of text.

At the beginning, he's talking about the Artic. The ending quote though is about the Antarctic.

Dale
18-12-09, 01:41
Ah yes. He edited it after I'd loaded the page (and then walked off for 10 mins). :)

Zkribbler
18-12-09, 02:29
I, for one, am in favor of instituting time travel, so we can go back and edit out our mistakes. :nod::b:

ainwood
18-12-09, 03:09
So, do you thing that CO2 has suddenly stopped having an effect on the world's termperature??
For CO2 to have the doomsday scenario impacts that are claimed, there needs to be some positive feedback. Models assume positive feedback, and that is why the predictions are so high. Whether the feedback is positive or negative is not yet proven with certainty.

PiMan
18-12-09, 05:57
By what mechanism would heat reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

ainwood
18-12-09, 08:09
By what mechanism would heat reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere?

No - by feedback mechanism, they mean something like:

Positive feedback:
1.) Increased CO2 means more warming.
2.) More warming means polar caps melt.
3.) Melting polar caps mean less energy reflect back into space
4.) Less energy reflected back means more warming etc.


However, there is a lot of uncertainty about cloud formation.

Eg. Negative Feedback:
1.) Increased CO2 means more warming.
2.) More warming means more water evaporated.
3.) More water evaporated means more clouds.
4.) More clouds means reflects more energy back into space.
5.) More energy reflected back into space provides some 'cooling'.

The key uncertainty is where the clouds form. Clouds at some lattitudes / elevations actually trap heat, whereas others reflect solar radiation.

In general, however, negative feedbacks tend to dominate natural systems (whcih is why natural systems tend to be fairly stable; positive feedbacks are inherantly unstable).

Zkribbler
18-12-09, 08:53
For CO2 to have the doomsday scenario impacts that are claimed, there needs to be some positive feedback.



You sure?? I don't recall Venus having any positive feedback...just lots of greenhouse gases.

El_Cid
18-12-09, 09:00
well the problem with more clouds is that they trap heat - so ok we will be reflecting more from the sun directly, but also retaining more under cloud cover. It could as easily lead to a runaway climb in tempreture as cooling.

And most importantly neither prospect is a good thing for you or your family or life on this planet in general.

:lol: - i really hope most of the folks that deny our part in scientificaly observed climate change(rise in carbon as in that wiki link i gave etc) are not just thinking 'God' will look after them when the chaos hits.

most of the models used(which are not perfect) and some of the latest work is saying the predicted 2 degrees C is now looking more like 4 or 5 degrees C in the same time frames(20-50 years).

Forget all the 'bogey-men' self created issues(cold-war hangovers etc) around terrorists etc...chiken feed, small potatoes.

Seriously we are entering collapse of civilisation territory on a scale vaster than anything that took out egyptian dynasties or mayan/south american civilisations in the past......at the least, and in the not too distant future(maybe our kids generation).

At the worst we are looking at a mass extinction event, self induced by the 'intelligent' life on this planet! Corals are dying, deserts expanding, drinking water shrinking, food chains collapsing.

And all so we can drive our fat arses around cause we are too lazy to walk, can't be bothered to switch things off we are not using and dont give a rats arse where our food comes from and how(in effect). Go human race :b:

Frankly, sometimes i dont think we deserve anything other than what is coming our way, which is sad.

ainwood
18-12-09, 09:15
Well, if the earth's atmosphere ever gets to 96.5% CO2, then you might have a point, but Mars has almost as much CO2 as Venus, and yet is cool.

Venus is so hot because of positive feedbacks.
Greenhouse effect


Bodies other than Earth

In our solar system, Mars, Venus, and the moon Titan also exhibit greenhouse effects. Titan has an anti-greenhouse effect, in that its atmosphere absorbs solar radiation but is relatively transparent to infrared radiation. Pluto also exhibits behavior similar to the anti-greenhouse effect.[26][27][28]

A runaway greenhouse effect occurs if positive feedbacks lead to the evaporation of all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.[29] A runaway greenhouse effect involving carbon dioxide and water vapor may have occurred on Venus.[30]

Its also got issues with lack of plate tectonics, and slow rotation that contribute to exacerbating heating.

ainwood
18-12-09, 09:19
most of the models used(which are not perfect) and some of the latest work is saying the predicted 2 degrees C is now looking more like 4 or 5 degrees C in the same time frames(20-50 years).

You can take heart.

Lucia at "the blackboard" (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/gisstemp-for-november-0-68-c/) tracks the actual satellite observations against the IPCC predictions.


So, given these analytical choices, the nominal projection by the IPCC remains inconsistent with observations. FWIW, the actual multi-model mean for the AR1 models exceeds 0.2C/decade, and it also remains inconsistent with the observed data.

i.e. Actual temperatures are outside (lower than) the 95% confidence interval of the IPCC models. There is therefore a 95% chance that that IPCC models are wrong.

El_Cid
18-12-09, 09:21
....and both mars+venus are completely void of life, well certainly a life like we are used to here on earth.....i'm not sure how long it will take for us to evolve into a sub-strata permafrost dwelling algea(i think they have been found on mars or theorised might exist there).

This planet is incredibly precious - dont take it for granted please. the vast body of evidence points to our having a real effect on it's ability to remain a nice place to live. it's that simple. Burning more of the trapped carbon so it mixes in the atmosphere is what all this is about.

Forget complexity - just think about that problem. what does more carbon in the atmosphere mean. thats all you need.

Dale
18-12-09, 09:22
There is therefore a 95% chance that that IPCC models are wrong.

Which is what everyone's in arms about this last month. Were they rigged or just simply mistakes?

El_Cid
18-12-09, 09:30
Forget complexity(semantics even) - just think about that problem. what does more carbon in the atmosphere mean. thats all you need.

;)

El_Cid
20-12-09, 11:30
I think this is the best place to carry on the climate related stuff, as it allows political rather than just the science of the issue :)

so we have two views that have risen out of the recent Copenhagen summit, one positive one not so positive. For myself I dont closely follow the exact details(like i dont know word for word what has been agreed) around all this, my stance is more or less the same in that I believe our damaging impact on the enviroment is a scientific fact, believed and supported by data from most scientists around the world that study the issue.

I've never had faith that any government in our system of politics, that allows in effect private corporations to control policy, to ever be able to really make an intelligent stand on the issue. I've held that view since i was about 10 years old(yes i know, but i did a lot of reading back then; Johnathan Porrit, Huxley, Orwell and understood how they all were relevant to us etc). So all i could count on was myself, how i would live my life and what i needed to learn if the day would ever come when the system would fail.

Now i'm not sure on how big the 'system' has failed here, in the Copenhagen summit, but various pundits that have been closely following the debate have more informed opinions than mine.

So the good news: An agreement was reached :b:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8422133.stm

we have another 'start', like the few before(Kyoto,Rio etc). Is that enough, at this stage in the scientific process of how much trapped carbon we are increasingly releasing into our atmosphere? I think not, but that's just my gut feeling - not very scientific.

and the bad news can be summerised by this pundit's blog:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

The bbc's climate corrospondant richard black who has been following the details of the agreement in detail(unlike myself) uses the phrase 'NoHopenhagen', and has some good points to make imho.

So where now for the human-race? In our childrens lifetimes(or grandchildren for the most senior people here?) they will either be facing massive taxes from the combined effect of this recesion + having to actualy do something about climate change or just fighting for survival in a very different world.

Our governments have spoken. They(well their backers - companies from an industrial world) are not prepared to safe gaurd their childrens future at the cost of real world profits now. So what good are they to us really? They certainly cant continue to hold up the facade that they actualy work for us 'the people' of the various countries they were designed to represent.

I wonder how long before even the most 'right' wing minded of us - those most comfortable with the notion of corporate controlled politics and eager to jump on the bandwagon of 'if it looks caring and concerned for the whole, it must be communist propaganda' types(Fox news watchers/Big Oil/War Industry supporters - you know the type).

How long before even they, when faced with their descendants question of 'why did you let this happen daddy/mommy?', or having to deal with the actual chaos even a single foot(12 inches/30cm) of global sea-level rise will cause, how long before they will understand the falicy of all they have held onto and believed during their lives?

Anyway i will just end by offering some small advice:

1. make sure you have sold all your shares by 2030ish(at the very max - keep a close eye on the climate as you may have to move much earlier).
2. sell any property you own near the sea/rivers, or if buying dont buy in those locations.
3. learn to be self-sufficient and able to protect.
4. keep your family strong and together, likewise friends(they will be your new 'government').
5. pray for luck from whatever god(s)/system of inspiration you believe in.

In some ways i've had a jump start in all this, i've seen it coming most of my life, even if i didn't think i would need it i knew it would be good knowledge to pass on.
So Copenhagen to me is a big fail, in that it has come too late and delivered too little, we just dont have time anymore to stop changes that will require the basic 5 points above imho.

happy xmas! ;)

Dale
20-12-09, 11:43
I still can't get over the stupidity that a reduction from a 5C to 3C increase over 50 years is a win. HOW IS THAT A WIN???????

Isn't 2C the breack point for the arctic and antarctic to disappear? Craziness!

I just cannot understand politicians who crow about a 3C increase being a success. IT STILL MEANS THE WORLD IS ****ED!

The only win is a -3C change to return the World's climate to how it was before all the resources were ripped out and burnt up.

PiMan
20-12-09, 12:03
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I'm not sure where you got three degrees to date from.

We don't know the point at which warming becomes a runaway problem. The 2 degrees thing was for two reasons; first, because it is probably about the best we could reasonably expect based on existing emissions remaining in the air for up to 100 years; second, because that it estimated as the threshold beyond which the advantages of a warmer climate are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Dale
20-12-09, 12:23
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I'm not sure where you got three degrees to date from.

I pulled it out of my rear end. ;) I didn't know the real figure just put a guess which sounded reasonable to me.


We don't know the point at which warming becomes a runaway problem. The 2 degrees thing was for two reasons; first, because it is probably about the best we could reasonably expect based on existing emissions remaining in the air for up to 100 years; second, because that it estimated as the threshold beyond which the advantages of a warmer climate are outweighed by the disadvantages.

Come on...... the CO2 agreement (which is non-binding mind you) is a croc. It's agreed that it's too little, and if turned into a legally binding document in Mexico next year won't force China (with the US the largest CO2 emitters) to do anything anyways as they consider themselves as a "developing nation".

There's also the debate whether human CO2 is actually responsible for the rise in temperature considering CO2 levels were much higher in other times of history. Due to organic matter absorbing CO2 the argument of "CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years" is just not true. Organic growth is known from past experiments to go into hyper-drive during a CO2 oversupply to balance the environment (controlled experiements for sure, but no one can scale up to a planet level).

Lancer
20-12-09, 12:25
THE WORLD IS ****ED!

Yup.

El_Cid
20-12-09, 12:36
...............

There's also the debate whether human CO2 is actually responsible for the rise in temperature considering CO2 levels were much higher in other times of history. Due to organic matter absorbing CO2 the argument of "CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years" is just not true.

well those other times are probably related to massive climate events themselves. One of the last was the 'tiping' point where a huge sea in northern canada broke it's ice walls and caused the flooding that resulted in(among other things) the UK becoming an island from main land europe and the formation of the Baltic Sea. This was less because of the level of carbon(PPM) and more just as case of it being an accident waiting to happen.

Volcanic activity is the other historic thing that has increased global carbon levels in the records - and that is fair enough. Over huge time frames our planet is a living changing and moving thing and all that activity does cause climates to change. But you cant really eqaute that or the time scales involved to this particular event we are approaching.

The human issue, especaily the modern human issue i think is very hard to argue against, you just have to look at the various graphs to see the effect of our industrialisation compared to the 'natural' trend. It's about as black and white as you can get.

And in terms of using oraganic matter to lock-up carbon from our atmosphere, we are still destroying more of that 'assistance' while increasing our output of CO2. I dont think Copehagen changed that.

The industries responsible for that destruction are often quite closely related to the carbon burning+sale industires, the same mind set, the same greed, the same short sightedness imho.

Also as the changes to our climate take effect we will see our trees die, either by pest outbreak(as in the bettle problem in the logging areas of canada) or by natural fires(a global problem these days). Trees take a longtime to become useful and a very short time to destroy, so we cant rely on them in the future as much as maybe we thought we could, they are suffering under climate change now.

Grey Fox
20-12-09, 12:56
It is theorized that a cooling period of the earth was necessary for our brains to have evolved to be so large. Not the defining factor (there were also a genetic disease or something that caused our jaw bones, or some such to be moved to enable greater cranium size), but an important one.

Cause the size and complexity of our brain easily overheats, and with a warmer climate it can't operate as well (which would have possibly caused smaller brain favorism by natural selection).

Only a few degrees mattered here.

PiMan
20-12-09, 14:10
Come on...... the CO2 agreement (which is non-binding mind you) is a croc. It's agreed that it's too little, and if turned into a legally binding document in Mexico next year won't force China (with the US the largest CO2 emitters) to do anything anyways as they consider themselves as a "developing nation".

There's also the debate whether human CO2 is actually responsible for the rise in temperature considering CO2 levels were much higher in other times of history. Due to organic matter absorbing CO2 the argument of "CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for 100 years" is just not true. Organic growth is known from past experiments to go into hyper-drive during a CO2 oversupply to balance the environment (controlled experiements for sure, but no one can scale up to a planet level).

I know Copenhagen was a failure, but I think that is more because it is non-binding than because it aims for 3 degrees instead of 2. I mean sure, ideally we'd have globally binding targets aiming at a 1-2 degree rise at most, but governments rarely produce an ideal situation.

And yes, CO2 has been higher prehistorically, but not for at least half a million years. And I know most CO2 stays in the atmosphere for much less than 100 years, which is why I said "up to". As an uneducated guess, I'd say CO2 stays in the atmosphere closer to 20-30 years, which happens to to be similar to the lifetime of CO and CH4, the other two most well known greenhouse gases.

Senethro
20-12-09, 19:51
It is theorized that a cooling period of the earth was necessary for our brains to have evolved to be so large. Not the defining factor (there were also a genetic disease or something that caused our jaw bones, or some such to be moved to enable greater cranium size), but an important one.

Cause the size and complexity of our brain easily overheats, and with a warmer climate it can't operate as well (which would have possibly caused smaller brain favorism by natural selection).

Only a few degrees mattered here.

I'd be very cautious before repeating those, they sound a bit half baked. Theres lots of things guessed on human evolution on insufficient evidence.

Check out this year of 1 punchline cartoons in the American media.
http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/

Buster's Uncle
20-12-09, 19:58
I liked the Garfield one.

Huh. A gazillion cartoons, and GARFIELD is the funny one.

That there's a bizzarro page.

Lancer
21-12-09, 00:43
Its wery werm her in the Pilpines and it has't efected my bwain won bit.

Grey Fox
21-12-09, 13:32
I'd be very cautious before repeating those, they sound a bit half baked. Theres lots of things guessed on human evolution on insufficient evidence.

I'm only repeating what I've read in Illustrerad Vetenskap (Illustrated Science) magazine :P

"2,5 million years ago the conditions were just right and led to an extra large brain in our ancestors, scientists at American Howard University of Washingto DC and German Max Planck-institute for biogeochemstri at Jena says.
Up until about that time it was a couple degrees hotter on earth than it is today, and that made it impossible for a big brain to get rid of the heat. A brain couldn't get larger than about 600 cubic centimeters without getting overheated says the Scientists.
Their calculations show that a temperature decrease of only 1.5 degrees would make it possible for that times primitive Homo habilis brain to get rid of more heat and grow to the 1000 cm^2 which the later, more developed Homo Erectus had."

4~ Million years ago, Australopithecus Africanus, brainsize: 460 cm^2
3~ Million years ago, Homo Habilis, brainsize: 600 cm^2
1-2~ Million years ago, Homo Erectus, brainsize: 1000 cm^2
Homo Sapiens, brainsize: 1500 cm^2

"The Colder climate should NOT be seen as the reason that the human brain started to grow. The foundational reasons are still to be found in evolution, in which a larger brain was an advantage in the daily struggle to survive. The colder climate can be seen as a FACTOR that made the brains development possible."

Oh, and I've heard that about 17~ degrees room temperature is about optimum for us. When it comes to being at our sharpest. :P

PiMan
21-12-09, 14:35
Neanderthals had even larger brains than us.

Vishniac
21-12-09, 19:27
fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LALA LA!"

I'm thinking new smiley!
Here it is:
http://www.transitmag.ch/forum/images/smiles/blblbl2.gif

Buster's Uncle
21-12-09, 19:39
No, HERE it is: :lalala:.

Lancer
22-12-09, 03:30
Europe and the US both hit hard by cold temps and storms.

Europe...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091221/wl_afp/europestormweather
Big freeze kills at least 80 across Europe
AFP


Travel misery continues for Eurostar customers Play Video AFP – Travel misery continues for Eurostar customers
Big freeze kills at least 80 across Europe AFP – A postman rides his bike in the snow covered Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The death toll from winter storms …
Mon Dec 21, 4:28 pm ET

PARIS (AFP) – The death toll from winter storms across Europe rose to at least 80 on Monday as transport chaos spread amid mounting anger over the three-day failure of Eurostar high-speed trains.

With tens of thousands stranded by the cancellation of London-to-Paris trains and hundreds of flights across the continent, new accidents and mass power cuts added to the big freeze tumult.

A car veered off an icy road and knocked concrete onto rails, derailing a Paris commuter train and injuring 36 people, police said. Three hundred people had to be evacuated from the train.

Another train in the Croatian capital Zagreb hit a buffer injuring 52 people.

Croatian investigators blamed the minus 17 degrees Celsius (1.4 Fahrenheit) temperatures for a brake failure, national television reported. European temperatures as low as minus 33.6 degrees Celsius (minus 28.5 Fahrenheit) have been recorded in Bavaria.

In Poland, authorities said 42 people, many of them homeless, had died of cold over three days after temperatures plunged to minus 20 degrees Celsius (minus four Fahrenheit).

Ukraine reported 27 deaths while six people were killed in accidents in Germany and three in Austria.

France has reported at least two deaths of homeless people, and the national power company briefly cut electricity to two million people on Monday saying it was necessary to avoid an even bigger blackout amid surging demand.

More flights were cancelled in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain and main highways were blocked across Europe where some regions had more than 50 centimetres (20 inches) of snow.

The breakdown of the Eurostar service under the Channel, linking London with Paris and Brussels, has symbolised Europe's suffering.

After the nightmare of more than 2,000 people stuck in the tunnel when five trains broke down Friday, tens of thousands more people have missed trains cancelled since then, with Eurostar announcing a "restricted" service for Tuesday.

Eurostar to restart some services

But those trains will only run for passengers originally due to travel Saturday or Sunday, with the remainder of the backlog to be cleared over the next few days. Normal service is not expected to resume before Christmas Day.

The French transport ministry has ordered an investigation into the breakdown, which Eurostar said has been caused by trains unable to handle the change from freezing temperatures outside to warm temperatures in the tunnel.

Eurostar said it had launched its own independent review.

The winter storms caused other disruption across Europe.

Air traffic was again badly hit as temperatures remained glacial: minus 20 degrees Celsius in Sibiu in Romania, where more than 50 centimetres of snow fell, and minus seven Celsius in Venice, Italy.

Seven hundred people spent the night on camp beds at Amsterdam-Schipol airport and more flights were cancelled after dozens were grounded Sunday.

The Dutch rail network was also badly hit with the railway company advising commuters to stay at home.

Heavy snowfall led to more delays and cancellations at Frankfurt and Duesseldorf airports in Germany, where more than 500 flights were cancelled or redirected on Sunday.

Twenty percent of flights out of Paris-Charles de Gaulle were cancelled Monday. The main RER commuter train line running east to west across the Paris region has been out of action for 12 days because of a strike.

Spanish civil aviation authorities said 174 flights from Madrid-Barajas airport were called off. Flights from Lisbon to Madrid were among those hit while main roads in northern Portugal were cut by snow.

Brussels airport also reported cancellations and delays.

After more snow falls on Moscow, authorities sent out 13,000 dump trucks to clear the streets as chronic traffic jams built up.

In Britain, more airport delays hit passengers while snow forced the postponement of Wigan's English Premier League football match against Bolton Wanderers.

Lancer
22-12-09, 03:32
US...

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/12/21/2009-12-21_millions_head.html


First day of winter after mammoth East Coast snow storm brings freezing temperatures, ice

BY Katie Nelson
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Originally Published:Monday, December 21st 2009, 10:53 AM
Updated: Monday, December 21st 2009, 7:37 PM
The first day of winter - called the winter solstice - is bringing melting snow that will turn into ice overnight, forecasters warned.
Harbus for News
The first day of winter - called the winter solstice - is bringing melting snow that will turn into ice overnight, forecasters warned.
Pedi-cab strolling in the Central Park. CLICK PHOTO FOR MORE PHOTOS OF NYC BLIZZARD 2009.
Lombard for News
Pedi-cab strolling in the Central Park. CLICK PHOTO FOR MORE PHOTOS OF NYC BLIZZARD 2009.
Take our Poll
Snow daze

Do you like when it snows?
Yes, it's a lot of fun and only a minor inconvenience.
No, it's cold and wet - awful.
Only on the weekends - and when school is canceled.
I'm not sure.
Related News

* Articles
* Traveler's worst nightmare: Blizzard cancels over 800 flights
* Blizzard dumps 11 inches on Central Park
* Snow storm blankets city, with more expected overnight and into Sunday
* Winter blast brings out the spirit of warmth among New Yorkers of all ages
* New Yorkers get shopping in before snowfall
* New Yorkers dig snow - and bargains: Shoppers flock to stores in city

Now that the winter's first snow storm has come and gone, this week is all about the ice, ice, baby.

Sunny days mixed with below-freezing nights will guarantee dangerous slippery conditions in New York, especially for the Christmas holiday.

The National Weather Service expects daytime highs to be in the mid-30s and nighttime lows in the mid-20s through Friday.

It could get even as low as the teens on Tuesday night. It's a recipe for wind-whipped icy madness, said Richard Castro, of the National Weather Service.

"It will be quite windy as that storm that gave us our snow pulls away out in to the Atlantic," he said.

Expect winds gusting at up to 30 miles an hour.

Traveling for the holidays? Be careful.

Forecasts predict a wet - rather than white - Christmas.

It's likely to rain and snow on Christmas Eve and Christmas morning in New York, though temperatures on Friday are expected to warm into the mid-40s. All in all, it'll be treacherous driving conditions, Castro said.

"When the sun is out, we'll see melting. Then any little bit of that moisture will freeze solid at night," he said.

This week's temperatures are colder than normal. It's typically around 41 degrees during the days and about 30 degrees at night this time of year.

Transportation systems throughout New York are getting back on track after this weekend's whopper of a snowstorm.

The Nor'easter buried New York in a foot of sparkling snow and dumped more than two feet of the white stuff along Long Island.

The area's three main airports were pummeled with weather related delays and cancellations - 800 on Saturday and 1,200 on Sunday.

But they seemed to be straightening out Monday morning.

During the Monday morning rush hour, the Long Island Rail Road reported delays of 20-minutes to an hour. New Jersey Transit had some 30- to 40-minute delays.

knelson@nydailynews.com

ainwood
22-12-09, 04:50
weather != climate.

Lancer
22-12-09, 08:27
Imagine freezing to death a few kilometers down the road from a global warming conference. It would seem...like I wasn't keeping up with the times or the times weren't keeping up with me.

Camikaze
22-12-09, 10:07
For some reason support for global warming has dropped drastically in the US. Maybe its on CNN?

Popular opinion does not equal scientific fact.

Lancer
22-12-09, 10:16
That's true Camikaze, thank you. Consider also that "science fact" does not always equal reality. Remember steady state, or this...

Both were considered 'science fact' in their time.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

I include only the original article from 1975.

The Cooling World
Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

Mr. Scruffy
22-12-09, 11:22
I must admit, i havent read all of this thread (skiped page 5 and some on 6, didnt even start 7).

The scientific basics about the greenhouse effect are upto a century old or such (spectroscopic properties of molecules, basics about global climate, thermodynamics...), and based on them, we should be very surprised, if our industrial actvities would not generate such a greenhouse effect.

The resulting ´global warming´ does not mean, that it gets hotter everywhere all the time - for example, the golf-current, warming europe, might have just broken down (or may do so in the near future).

To say, that there have been climate changes before humans even walked the earth, and there is thus nothing to worry about a anthropogenic greenhouse effect, is like saying the man lying in the street, with a dagger in his back was not murdered, because people also used to die, before there were daggers around.

And of course Al Gore has put his money into ´green´ stocks - if he is man of some integrity (which i cannot - and dont want to - judge), that is exactly what i´d expect him to be doing.

The big issue with ´Copenhagen´ is that you can put out any goal you want out there (be it 2 or 3 °C or whatever) - it remains utterly pointless, if you dont know, how to achieve it. That´s like if Hitler had discussed with his generals wether he wanted all of the soviet union annexed, or just the european part of it, or what to do with new york, once it´s conquered. You know what? I decided last week, to become a millionaire by 2015. But hey - dont ask me how - i´ll figure it out as i go...

Fact is, under the current system, we will be building levées like crazy and regard it as ´economic growth´ and ´work´ and thus a good thing. At least a way better thing than to work less. We will be happy about the new demand for hazard suits, once they are needed to walk outside, if the day might come. The best thing would be, if everyone needed a new one each year or so. And we will, cause the first generation suits wont have phones and TVs built in, which will get hip the year after - merry xmas everyone!

The core of the environmental problem is still totally outside the scope of the people who try (or pretend to try) to protect it: It´s the interest system, and i bet that this was not even talked about in Copenhagen, nor will it be in Bonn next year. It´s the holy cow, that we are going to sacrifice our entire planet for, some willingly, most unwillingly, not even ever knowing, what causes and forces them to regard destruction and mass perversion as the only natural thing to do.

Grey Fox
22-12-09, 11:33
Historically, Europe has been cold, we were struck pretty badly by the last Ice Age for example, and it is on of those places where Humanity have lived the least.

El_Cid
22-12-09, 12:16
Indeed 'Global Warming' doesn't mean eveywhere will get hotter all year round. You will see a trend in warmer weather in the seasons associated with that normaly, and outside of that weather will become more extreme as in the case of the rapid drop in tempretures recently(the snow in europe+usa etc).

Global warming = Extreme Weather events. Over time the global warming will just shift to averagely hotter temps and has the danger of hitting some kind of tipping point that could lead to runaway warming, but no one knows exactly when that might happen or what the tipping point is.

But it is a common mistake to think global warming = hotter temps all the time+no cold temps. It doesn't, especialy in the early stages. we will just experience more extreme weather conditions first.

These last few years especialy it has been amazing to see how quickly and far tempreturs can swing from day to day - the tempreture range change you would normaly see over a whole season in just 24hours! last month we went from 16 - 6 degrees C here in the Uk from one day to the next, i've never seen that before.

Senethro
22-12-09, 14:21
Stop posting bullshit about Global Cooling being some kind of scientific consensus we've gone back on. It was a myth. There was a prediction of an Ice Age, we're still going to have an Ice Age (eventually) but even then there was an expectation of warming.

Seriously.

http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf

Lancer
22-12-09, 16:39
You and Grey make good points. As far as temperature variations in a short period of time I've seen it drop 40F degrees from sunset to dawn on the Oregon Coast. In the desert it can be even greater difference. Heat radiates into space, the hotter it is the more it radiates. I know greenhouse gasses trap heat but it seems they do a lousy job of it and likely so did the 80 people in Europe who froze to death in their record cold temps. Anyway, I'm inclined to believe in global warming. I personally produce a lot less carbon than I used to. Still, a bunch of scientists lied to make it seem worse than it is so maybe its not as bad as they say it is.


Indeed 'Global Warming' doesn't mean eveywhere will get hotter all year round. You will see a trend in warmer weather in the seasons associated with that normaly, and outside of that weather will become more extreme as in the case of the rapid drop in tempretures recently(the snow in europe+usa etc).

Global warming = Extreme Weather events. Over time the global warming will just shift to averagely hotter temps and has the danger of hitting some kind of tipping point that could lead to runaway warming, but no one knows exactly when that might happen or what the tipping point is.

But it is a common mistake to think global warming = hotter temps all the time+no cold temps. It doesn't, especialy in the early stages. we will just experience more extreme weather conditions first.

These last few years especialy it has been amazing to see how quickly and far tempreturs can swing from day to day - the tempreture range change you would normaly see over a whole season in just 24hours! last month we went from 16 - 6 degrees C here in the Uk from one day to the next, i've never seen that before.

Buster's Uncle
22-12-09, 16:55
Again, Global Warming and the next Ice Age are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Global warming would pour a lot of inherently chaotic energy into a system, the weather, that is poorly-modeled as it is already. We simply cannot reliably predict the weather for next week now, and it's far more impossible to predict the weather under higher-energy conditions that have yet to be observed.

-Also, [intercourse] the crooked scientists. That part of this thread is too tediously boring for words.

Lancer
22-12-09, 23:29
Isn't that global warming cooling in Europe going to be caused by the shut down of the North Atlantic conveyor or some such...has it shut down? If it hasn't shut down wouldn't these record cold temps be a happy sign of pleasantly normal climate?

Or would a pleasant sign of normal climate be too much for supporters of global warming to take? Would you rather freeze or bake? I think I'm becoming poetical.

Anyone know if there would be any warning of it starting to shut down?

That's all the pointed questions I can think of. :)

Dale
22-12-09, 23:44
Isn't that global warming cooling in Europe going to be caused by the shut down of the North Atlantic conveyor or some such...has it shut down? If it hasn't shut down wouldn't these record cold temps be a happy sign of pleasantly normal climate?

Or would a pleasant sign of normal climate be too much for supporters of global warming to take? Would you rather freeze or bake? I think I'm becoming poetical.

Anyone know if there would be any warning of it starting to shut down?

That's all the pointed questions I can think of. :)

No one really knows what the hell will happen.

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

Lancer
23-12-09, 02:18
It appears from reading that link the signs of the stopping of the flow from '05 have reversed themselves and its going fairly normally now. :dunno: That's good news...

El_Cid
23-12-09, 14:06
it's another one of the climate systems that is responsible for a stable temperate climate in the UK(we should have a climate more like scandinavia due to our latitude), the concern being based around what the increasing amount of fresh water introduced into the atlantic(via increased ice melt from the antartic) could mean, as it seems to have a tipping point that could 'switch' it off if the mix of cold+warm salt water gets effected by the extra fresh water.

And as this was only discovered a short time ago, no-one as yet really knows what that tipping point will be, just that it has one.

@Senthro, i was just making it clear that Global warming will not just mean we wont get snow anymore. Global warming = extreme weather, more than what it's name suggests.

This is important as many people dont get that, and it allows people with vested interests in industries based around burning carbon to say "Hey look at all the snow! obviously global warming is just a lie" etc. That is all i wanted to make clear.

I think maybe you misunderstood as i wasn't arguing for us moving into a Global Cooling, although i'm not surprised by the extreme weather we are seeing more off.

I think to most people that have been following the debate about our impact on the enviroment, extreme weather events were always predicted as being a sign of man-made enviromental change, i think maybe many are just surprised at how quickly it seems to have happend.

Senethro
23-12-09, 14:34
My post was aimed at Lancer posting "The Cooling World" article, not you El Cid. I've no real objections to what you said.

Scientists being portrayed as some kind of flip-floppers annoys me when 1: It was actually media hype, 2: It wouldn't even matter if it was true as you should make decisions based on the evidence available. Do we praise the generals of early WWI for sticking to their guns and using infantry tactics from the previous century?

El_Cid
24-12-09, 13:17
Obama says he is dissapointed that more couldn't be done in Copenhagen:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8429310.stm

Just 'Politcs' as usual or is there actualy an understanding around the whitehouse with this administration that simply looking after the interests of your friends isn't enough? You have a higher responsibility to the world as president of the USA.

I hope so, and i hope this time the most powerfull country in the world can do the right things, the things we all need to be done(climate/war/diplomacy/trade/domestic things). Time to build a world for the future, rather than destroy for profits imho.

Edit: my 'pro-Obama' stance is more from desperate hope after the last administration(i really dont think many americans understand just how the Bush administration damaged your rep around the world) than just wanting to join the 'Obama as saviour' band wagon.

Buster's Uncle
24-12-09, 15:20
We have to stop making green, unqualified people President. My reading of Backrama is that he's a really special man and could be a super-great leader- but he's made some stupid rookie mistakes.

I never thought much of George Quincy Bush in the first place, and he manged to under perform my expectations to a degree that really shocked me. That he was re-elected more or less legitimately after a disastrous first term establishes that the US is indeed a nation of drooling retards deserving of the world's opprobrium.

Lancer
24-12-09, 15:33
I'm glad I'm not the president. Of course if what they say about infinite realities is true then I'm the president in an infinite amount of realities. On my watch in those places space aliens would have a much harder time dissecting cows and tossing their bloodless carcasses out of their saucers I can tell you. :b:

My campaign slogan would be...

'Lets shoot down the flying saucers!'

Catchy.

nbcman
24-12-09, 15:33
Yes, GW Bush did do some damage to our reputation around the world. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of people who backed GW Bush either don't care about our reputation around the world or were pleased about GWB thumbing his nose at the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, Obama is not proving to be a more effective leader domestically-but he does have a superstar status with the remainder of the world. The problem with that is that he has to be re-elected by Americans and not by the remainder of the world.

Lancer
24-12-09, 15:40
Looks from here like health care will get done. Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of that one way back when and it went nowhere iirc. I really don't know what happened to Obama's approval rating.

Buster's Uncle
24-12-09, 16:35
Lance, it looks to me like the only difference is that something worthless will actually pass- and unlike Hillary, Backrama won't get fired mid-term. Trying to one-up the Clinton administration first thing out of the gate is the formost of the rookie mistakes I was talking about.

One term in the Senate was obviously less experience of how Washington works than he needed to be the kind of President we need him to be.

Lancer
25-12-09, 00:24
I'm just glad I get exempted by being with the VA. If we have to shell out big bucks it would be for Dolores. My concern is that when we retire here full time sometime in the next 3 years we'll still have to pay for health insurance for her that we'll never need since anyone that might honor it is 8000ish miles away. That would suck.

Buster's Uncle
25-12-09, 00:27
How would you be forced to buy American health insurance for her?

Lancer
25-12-09, 00:31
She's a US citizen. I brought her to the US under a fiance visa and then there's a process to get her citizenship.

Buster's Uncle
25-12-09, 00:38
What's US citizenship for if you're staying there?

Lancer
25-12-09, 00:42
We've been together over 13 years. In the beginning when we were broke we were mostly there working. At one time she had 3 jobs she wanted to work so much. I just let her burn out on that like I did in my 20s. Anyway once we had the 2 income thing going it was just a matter of time. Built a house and a half here in the Philippines, (hope to finish the other half soon) going to get a car next trip for Dolores and a motorcycle for me this one I hope and then...we don't have to go back. Our time there had a definite purpose though. Plus, we have to go back and work some more to be ready.

Buster's Uncle
25-12-09, 00:49
Building the retirement fund, eh?

Lancer
25-12-09, 00:53
Using what we make to build 2 retirement houses so far. Not much in any fund right now. :D

Got 3 rice fields too in those years and 4 pieces of ocean property one of which Zkrib has where he's building his house. Another is where we have our half a house.

Gotta quit dickin around though, I'm tired of going back there to work.

Buster's Uncle
25-12-09, 00:54
That's just investment of the fund- hope the ocean don't rise on you...

Lancer
25-12-09, 00:58
Still trying to keep on topic? :shame:

When Global cooling kicks in it will go back down again. ;)

Mr. Scruffy
25-12-09, 01:13
What's US citizenship for if you're staying there?



Unfortunately, Obama is not proving to be a more effective leader domestically-but he does have a superstar status with the remainder of the world. The problem with that is that he has to be re-elected by Americans and not by the remainder of the world.

If we think about, didnt Copenhagen just proof, that the polticians are not able to stop global warming? Werent they all getting the problem and were they not motivated to do somthing about it? Didnt they all just loose from the failure? So, if they were all willing and motivated, then, they simply couldnt do it.

Are they the cause of the problem anyways? How can they be supposed to fix it? Isnt most of what causes ´global warming´ due to economic activities? Sure, they could have parliaments with solar roofs, dont drive around with tanks too much and have the police use more bikes maybe, but beyond that?

If 2009 has one single lesson, it is the absoulte dominace of the economy over politics. Bail out and Copenhagen. It has proven, that the democratic institutions are powerless against the perceived needs of the economy. You can vote for whoever you like, you can promise whatever promises, there will always be the need for economic growth and the competition for acquiring it.

[i might do a follow up on this tomorrow - until then: merry christmas and may god bless us all, my fellow a...ooops :P.]

Lancer
08-01-10, 01:18
As a sign of the coming ice age I offer you this pic from NASA.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2002/47061196greatbritainjpg.jpg (http://img85.imageshack.us/i/47061196greatbritainjpg.jpg/) http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/47061196greatbritainjpg.jpg/1/w618.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img85/47061196greatbritainjpg.jpg/1/)

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 01:21
Wow. That glacier is shaped exactly like Great Britain. :nod:

Lancer
08-01-10, 01:35
Precisely. Believe it or not there are still some survivors in the ice there huddled in their cave like homes. These people are still believing the global warming mantra as they are slowly ground under the great glacier. But, they are British after all.

Take this advocates of the global warming extremest agenda!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hpWa7VW-OME&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="384" height="313"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpX-Kae00s8&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DpX-Kae00s8&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="384" height="313" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

PiMan
08-01-10, 01:39
My brother says it is a fake because Ireland is green, but wikipedia used this image, so I'm just wondering why Ieland has any green.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 01:42
I stopped at "We imagine that we live in an age of reason."

That fellow has clearly never seen this thread...

Lancer
08-01-10, 01:51
What? You have something better to do Jack? :)

PiMan, since the great recession Ireland doesn't have any more green.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2BJrdSRDVlQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2BJrdSRDVlQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dale
08-01-10, 01:52
I stopped at "We imagine that we live in an age of reason."

That fellow has clearly never seen this thread...

Or anything else on the interwebs either.

Lancer
08-01-10, 01:59
There were very few sunspots last year so this year the world is freezing its ball off.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rf6C0cMq3RU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rf6C0cMq3RU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 02:02
What? You have something better to do Jack? :)
Rub it in, willya?

Lancer
08-01-10, 02:06
Watch the show buddy...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nkSmdaLkd60&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nkSmdaLkd60&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 02:16
Not gonna happen for the same reason I can't take Fox News for long- I have the personality flaw that hearing people talk stupid crap makes me angry. I can't afford to be angry all the time, so I've gotten good at spotting moronic crap-talk coming.

Mind you, if you post a video of George Will reading the phone book in Ben Stein's voice, I will watch it. If you post video of stupid liberals talking their garbage, I will not.

Lancer
08-01-10, 02:25
Actually they blame Margaret Thatcher for starting it all. Still, if your peace of mind is at stake better not watch.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlSSwErKWQs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VlSSwErKWQs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 02:29
I'm pretty sure there's no way it would be worth it. :yes:

Lancer
08-01-10, 02:40
No matter what you do Jack, don't watch this show!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/efxToyX5cPw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/efxToyX5cPw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lancer
08-01-10, 03:06
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gGZ1bHo6jR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gGZ1bHo6jR0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Dale
08-01-10, 03:23
Damn, I just blocked Youtube at work cuz the Tubbies were streaming too many movies, and now I can't watch them. :(

Have to wait till I'm home.

Lancer
08-01-10, 03:26
Well worth it Dale. I started this session in this thread joking around, now I wonder...

This is just for Jack. ;)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7VUg7nG3lw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G7VUg7nG3lw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 03:33
Speaking of tubbies...

Tubbies?

Dale
08-01-10, 05:11
Yeah, the fat animators (Tubbies) we have here who live on too much KFC and coke. ;)

El_Cid
08-01-10, 09:05
Not gonna happen for the same reason I can't take Fox News for long- I have the personality flaw that hearing people talk stupid crap makes me angry. I can't afford to be angry all the time, so I've gotten good at spotting moronic crap-talk coming.


When you said this i wasn't sure why(i dont know the source of these vids), and i watched them, and they were pretty interesting untill you start to notice a very stong political bias that basicaly says 'it's communism's fault'.......and i was like heh!??

To be fair some of the science in the vids seems credible(sun spots+cosmic rays corolation to times of global warming and cooling), and if these 'documentaries' had just stuck to that basis they could have a stronger impact on the debate.

but the whole shift to a political 'it's the peace-nic lefties wanting to hurt america, darn commies' - well lets just say these clips are probably made and sponsored by people with strong connections to industrial corporations(oil+gas industries etc) and on that note Lord Lawson(the bloke talking about Margret Thatchers attitude that britain needed nuclear) is a non executive director(I may have his exact title slightly wrong) on a number of oil+petrolium based boards. Way too obvious bias going on here :q:

It's a shame, as i think the science they do talk about is deserving of wider scrutiny.

Lancer
08-01-10, 09:21
I agree El_Cid, and its the science I'm interested in, not the rest. Regarding the science, when researchers lie and bias the results to prove global warming is real that is also the effect of politics, and no less a con job. Finding the science among all this seems to be very difficult, and this science sounds good to me. Now I'm no scientist so I don't know. I do know that the scientists have been dealing from the bottom of the deck to get grant money and if that's the case well, I might not be the best judge but who am I to believe?

So I keep an open mind and watch these things, and the arctic weather coming so far south, and right now I don't buy the whole global warming thing.

If what Gingrich says is true well it isn't as bad as they say. I think that has been definitely established since they've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar by making the numbers up, the SOBs.

El_Cid
08-01-10, 09:38
well i agree definately looking through bias(from all sides) to find what is really going on is the key.

And the problem at the same time. So i give myself one simple test. What side of the bias stands to make most money? As money is the defining factor in our lives it is a good indicator of where the most likely source of misinformation is likely to come from.

So if i see science allied with a certain sides view(a side that has the biggest financial stake) then i tend to think the counter arguement might be the 'truer'.

Lancer
08-01-10, 09:57
That's one way I guess. I listen to the science, like the sunspot thing, and try to see if it has the ring of truth. These vids have the ring of truth as you seem to indicate, up to a point where they get political. That's where I turn off. But! The science seems reasonable, and that's how I judge. The money hasn't helped me in the least, its just corrupted the people who should be able to be relied upon and they are the ones supporting global warming in the recent revelations.

This is interesting...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cl4Pz1mwBao&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cl4Pz1mwBao&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lancer
08-01-10, 10:41
This looks like fun...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/16mXi5iGj-o&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/16mXi5iGj-o&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Mr. Scruffy
08-01-10, 11:12
I can only repeat:

To say, that there have been climate changes before humans even walked the earth, and there is thus nothing to worry about a anthropogenic greenhouse effect, is like saying the man lying in the street, with a dagger in his back was not murdered, because people also used to die, before there were daggers around.

I live in the upper floor of a house. Now, if i close the window, and turn on the heater, it gets warm. Now, if it turns warm, it might be because of that - but of course, it could also be, because the floor under mine is on fire. It could be both in fact. But to deduce, that closing the window and turning on the heater had no effect would be pretty insane, wouldnt it? So why do people keep claiming such things about global warming? Wether there are factors, others than man-made, that contribute to the climate change does not in any way change the fact, that pumping CO2 (and Methane, and others) into the atmosphere will and does heat it up. And it is known to do that, from everything we know about physics (the spectroskopic properties of the molecules in question, thermodynamics, basics on electro-magnetic waves and such). If it didnt, science would be startled and would frantically look for the reason why it wouldnt - cause it would be like something falling upwards (but hey, things fall downwards, because they are tossed that direction - which occasionally happens as well, so that´s proof, isnt it?).

Lancer
08-01-10, 11:32
Just trying to figure out if the window is open or the floor is on fire or any other conclusions that are based on politically or financially biased biases. Maybe the floor isn't on fire but the window is open and a huge lump of **** just flew in heaved our way by a scientist chasing dollars and the hottest thing around his own greedy hands. Or maybe not. If there is a man with his knife in his back in this world we need to each independently check his equipment to determine sex and feel the blade in his back or it might all change tomorrow with some new revelation about how these facts were screwed with. He might have been taking a nap with a fingernail cutter in his pocket attached to his key ring and one of the keys jabbed him a bit when he rolled over cutting off his willy and changing his/her sex and she is indeed fine and even well slept. That's what I'm coming to in my mind, that the world, though nappy, is well slept and okay, kinda. Also, if you want to know why co2 might not heat things up well why not watch the vid? It is after all what we are on about. (The 8 part vid)

Senethro
08-01-10, 11:47
So if the sun is entering a period of low output, that means the observed trend of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases would actually be greater if it wasn't?

Lancer
08-01-10, 11:53
Primordially speaking, no.

Senethro
08-01-10, 12:37
oh well if you want to move the goalposts, then REALLY primordially speaking [makes up a faceious reason and justifies it with a dumb example thats irrelevent to a human timescale]

Lancer
08-01-10, 12:51
You didn't watch the vids, did you? Children. :rolleyes: < --- Jack, please turn your skills to this : rolleyes:. Really needs your help.

Senethro
08-01-10, 13:07
Yeah I'm sorry I didn't watch 100 minutes of crap that you didn't even bother to summarise. Your main comment about it was it didn't have much science in it, so already we know its not especially valuable.

Camikaze
08-01-10, 13:10
I'm just gonna point out that you, Lancer, posting videos and expecting us to watch them and believe them is the same as us posting videos and expecting you to watch and believe them. It's not gonna happen. Probably best for discussion's sake that you either move on from the videos, or take some choice quotes from it and discuss them.

Lancer
08-01-10, 13:23
Actually Camikaze I don't really care who believes or disbelieves but I do think if someone is going to comment on a discussion of vids they ought to either watch them first or find something else to do. Its the internet, there's lots to keep folks busy who don't feel like watching the vids. That's fine too! To them I say, go, have fun. :)

Camikaze
08-01-10, 13:40
Fair enough, I 'spose.

Good to see you found (one of) the CFC thread(s), BTW. Ziggy and El Mach are exceptionally good on this topic.

Lancer
08-01-10, 13:41
Good! I hope they watch and comment, maybe I'll learn something. :)

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 15:53
I've saved the smilie and will see what I can do.

Look folks, I live in a red state. I grew up Southern Baptist and I speak fluent Republican. I knew with 95% certainty what those videos were when I saw the title cards. Now the comments of others have satisfied me that I was right. It's not that my mind is closed; it's just that I am quite fond of the truth, and do NOT enjoy seeing it tortured. Global warming is one of those polarizing issues where the political bullcrap has obfuscated the facts enough that I cannot benefit from the discourse.

Lance, you are obsessing on exactly the minutiae that Rupert Murdock wants you to. :lalala: I will not speculate about your politics in general, but on this one you're drinking a whole pitcher of the Bosses' kool aide.

If you choose to disseminate truth-challenged "information", I choose to protest.

Lancer
08-01-10, 16:01
Jack, if you don't want to watch them, that's okay. :dunno:

Senethro
08-01-10, 16:09
You can't use "I don't really care either way" as a defense as you clearly want us to care enough to watch hours of propaganda.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 16:17
Actually Camikaze I don't really care who believes or disbelieves but I do think if someone is going to comment on a discussion of vids they ought to either watch them first or find something else to do. Its the internet, there's lots to keep folks busy who don't feel like watching the vids. That's fine too! To them I say, go, have fun. :)


You can't use "I don't really care either way" as a defense as you clearly want us to care enough to watch hours of propaganda.And I assert my right to call propaganda when I smell it.

half_lotus
08-01-10, 16:29
For presentations of scientific data, see this by Dr. Richard Lindzen:


YouTube- Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria

and this by Dr. John Christy:


YouTube- Global Warming - what do the numbers show.

Lancer
08-01-10, 16:29
Absolutely! One of the reasons I served in the military was to support free speech. Call the vids what you will Jack, be my guest.

Edit: Thank you half_lotus! :)

Senethro
08-01-10, 16:40
I don't have time to watch 2 hours of video until Tuesday but you should note that both of those are about scientists who call into question parts of the science on climate change. They are in no way trying to deny the whole thing.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 16:47
I phrased my last poorly. What I assert is actually the rightness of commenting in opposition, not the right.

Senethro, check this: http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showpost.php?p=63434&postcount=1806

Lancer
08-01-10, 16:48
Senethro, why bother? Your mind is made up. Mine is not so I'm looking into it, an experience you have made more informative btw. Perhaps you should step back and relax a bit and try not to get so involved in other people's decision on the subject, or even better try to be involved in a way that won't push people the other way from your beliefs.

half_lotus
08-01-10, 16:53
A critical finding of Dr. Lindzen's is with respect to climate feedbacks. The IPCC's models all suppose a positive feedback with respect to outgoing radiation (heat escaping the earth). In short, the models predict that more C02 and more heat begets more of both, thus a positive greenhouse feedback.

However, directly observable data from ERBE/CERES satellites show that exactly the opposite is true, that there is a negative feedback - that the IPCC models are wrong, and are overestimating potential temperature increase.

This portion of Dr. Lindzen's presentation is toward the end of the video, the last 5 minutes or so.

Senethro
08-01-10, 17:20
Ok, troll mode off.

half_lotus, thanks for the videos. Its enlightening to see the range of viewpoints within the scientific community rather than misconceived attacks from without. I will be taking a look at them after my next deadline next week. Do you want to declare your interest though as you seem to have registered for this thread?

El_Cid
08-01-10, 17:47
lol - it's bloody freezing! i got home early and forgot to reset the heating timer!

anyway i'm going to look into the whole 'margaret thatcher started the CO2 debate', 'sunspots' etc as mentioned in those vids - something to do over the weekend :)

here is an article looking at what the cirrent cold weather can mean:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/arctic_conditions_arctic_cause.html

"It's cold in Kirkcaldy, freezing in Frankfurt and brass monkeys in Bryn Mawr... a winter spell with weather that's unusually - well - wintry.

But not everywhere; in fact, other places in the Northern Hemisphere are seeing weather that's unseasonably warm.

In Goose Bay in Newfoundland, it's barely getting below 0C - bikini weather, relatively speaking, given that the average minimum for January is -23C."

etc

Lancer
08-01-10, 17:48
half_lotus, I've watched a portion of your first vid and find it very interesting. I'll finish both vids tomorrow, and likely more than once. This is great info which I will think about very carefully. The book that Dr. Lindzen quotes is just amazing! Fascinating quotes...I really want to watch now but I'll wake up the wife. Thanks again! :)

Edit: Cool El_Cid ;) An article won't wake anyone up.

Dale
08-01-10, 17:54
I just want to point out that we are trying to model AN ENTIRE PLANET'S CLIMATIC AND ECO SYSTEMS in a test tube. And all this whilst not even understanding half of how this planet's climatic and eco systems work.

I don't think anyone will get this right. :)

Senethro
08-01-10, 18:27
I'm going to try and explain my position a bit better lancer. Lets take a quote of El Mac.


There is an extremely strong misinformation campaign going on that tries to deny AGW. The disconnect between sunspots & temperature (though no one denies they contribute!) is well-proven, though. There's no reason for us to have lies in a debate that's pretty nuanced as it is.

That there is my issue. People are choosing to get their information from those intentionally trying to misinform instead of from scientists. Hell, that berserker guy at civfan straight up said that you can't trust the climatologists because they're climatologists. Do you want to bet he visits a doctor or a homeopathist when he gets ill?

The videos half_lotus posted are legitimate concerns about the science of global warming from within the scientific community. Most of the rubbish posted here and at civfan has been the same endlessly repeated outright lies and twisted truth thats been going round the internet for years. Theres a difference. Its not that I'm being closeminded, its that you're being credulous and unable to correctly value a source.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 18:38
I just want to point out that we are trying to model AN ENTIRE PLANET'S CLIMATIC AND ECO SYSTEMS in a test tube. And all this whilst not even understanding half of how this planet's climatic and eco systems work.

I don't think anyone will get this right. :)
QFT.

I'm going to try and explain my position a bit better lancer. Lets take a quote of El Mac.


That there is my issue. People are choosing to get their information from those intentionally trying to misinform instead of from scientists. Hell, that berserker guy at civfan straight up said that you can't trust the climatologists because they're climatologists. Do you want to bet he visits a doctor or a homeopathist when he gets ill?

The videos half_lotus posted are legitimate concerns about the science of global warming from within the scientific community. Most of the rubbish posted here and at civfan has been the same endlessly repeated outright lies and twisted truth thats been going round the internet for years. Theres a difference. Its not that I'm being closeminded, its that you're being credulous and unable to correctly value a source.
QFFT!

One should think a seeker of truth would post information on both sides of the "debate" coughLANCERcough. Shall I skim the thread and count how much pro-global warming stuff you've pointed us at?

Where's the fair? Where's the balanced?

Dale
08-01-10, 20:14
I'm going to try and explain my position a bit better lancer. Lets take a quote of El Mac.


That there is my issue. People are choosing to get their information from those intentionally trying to misinform instead of from scientists. Hell, that berserker guy at civfan straight up said that you can't trust the climatologists because they're climatologists. Do you want to bet he visits a doctor or a homeopathist when he gets ill?

The videos half_lotus posted are legitimate concerns about the science of global warming from within the scientific community. Most of the rubbish posted here and at civfan has been the same endlessly repeated outright lies and twisted truth thats been going round the internet for years. Theres a difference. Its not that I'm being closeminded, its that you're being credulous and unable to correctly value a source.

:b::b::b::b::b: 5 thumbs up.

I think THE BEST we can do is to take the videos at face value to open discussion and debate. They shouldn't be taken as gospel but open the way to proper testing of the scientific results. If the scientific results still hold up against these claims then we know what to do with these claimants. ;)

BU, I think we need a lynchmob smilie. :D

half_lotus
08-01-10, 20:33
half_lotus... Do you want to declare your interest though as you seem to have registered for this thread?

I'm not sure what you're asking. ?

Senethro
08-01-10, 21:00
I'm not sure what you're asking. ?

You signed up to the site out of nowhere and posted only in this thread. You even posted some informative links that weren't the usual "its a goshdarn librul conspiracy". Thats just so unusual I was wondering what your stake was? Are you just a polite internet vagrant dispensing wisdom or do you "come" from somewhere?

If you don't mind me asking, which is better? Alpha Centauri or Civilization IV and why?

Since you posted something apparently useful and valuable I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but I've also got this burning curiosity to put on my internet detective hat and go googling.

half_lotus
08-01-10, 21:06
I've been a member of Apolyton for 9 years. It was there that I heard about WPC and decided to post in your OT forum. :)

I've never played AC. I was a big fan of Civ2, hated Civ3, wrote expert-level strategy for RoN (/toots horn), and now thoroughly enjoy getting my butt kicked by Emperor level AI in Civ IV:BtS. :)

Senethro
08-01-10, 21:26
I've been a member of Apolyton for 9 years. It was there that I heard about WPC and decided to post in your OT forum. :)

I've never played AC. I was a big fan of Civ2, hated Civ3, wrote expert-level strategy for RoN (/toots horn), and now thoroughly enjoy getting my butt kicked by Emperor level AI in Civ IV:BtS. :)

Confirmed!

Alright, very well, seems fair enough I guess. Not a sinister agent with an agenda.


So you don't read articles by crazy people alleging climate change is a conpsiracy lead by Al Gore and the liberal elite power bloc like this one here?
http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-climate-change-skeptics-are-flat-earthers/
coz theres a half_lotus cheering him on at the bottom.


What about this? Seems to be an anarchist/libertarian type blog. Is this you?
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/noam-chomsky-on-ron-paul/
A half_lotus there says:

Chomsky is a tool of the elite Socialist power bloc. Those looking for truth and a way to make a difference should not waste time dissecting his verbose hypothetical viewpoints.

Believe in the Declaration of Independance and support Ron Paul!
You're certainly a Ron Paul supporter as theres plenty of results for you and him on 'poly.


So this, http://www.truthnews.us/?p=2073&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850/

#
half_lotus on March 19th, 2008

A article.

To further consider this in the context of the globalization mechanisms at work, consider these quotes from Club of Rome publications, taken from a Global Research article I read this morning:

“The modern crises are, in fact, man-made, and differ from many of their predecessors in that they can be dealt with.” [emphasis in original] - Mankind at the Turning Point, 1974 (p15)

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us [all of humanity], we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena constitute a common threat which as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
-The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome


Thats not you right? Cause its a site by Alex jones, sometimes called a conspiracy theorist alleging theres a liberal elite power bloc trying to control us and human population and stuff.

No, you're not some internet crazy with wild out there opinions and an agenda, you're a civ player like us.

(Not that this in any way detracts from the quality of the videos you linked, this is one of them personal attacks.)

half_lotus
08-01-10, 21:48
Good Googling. :) The posts you quote are all from me, as I recall. And I stand by each of them.

If you're interested in discussing the substance of my posts and the facts of the matter, I'd be happy to. :)

If you want to call people names and rely on ad hominem persuasion, you'll surely have a willing and rapt audience, this being the internet, but thinking men and women are not easily influenced in that way.

I regard such language as a weakness in one's substantive views, and as a poor reflection of character.

Senethro
08-01-10, 21:50
Your name on your poly account is Scott fox. Amusingly enough you may not be the craziest Scott Fox on the internet. Hes Jewish and you are concerned about Zionists and people controlling the world etc. You're probably not one of those conspiracy theorists worried about Zionism AND a Jew at the same time, that would be just too crazy.

This is you as well, isn't it?
http://echochambers.wordpress.com/

half_lotus
08-01-10, 21:53
Yep, that's my blog. :)

Maniac
08-01-10, 21:54
I found this an interesting video. By the guy who invented the Dyson Sphere!

YouTube- Freeman Dyson on Global Warming 1of2 Bogus Climate Models

Senethro
08-01-10, 21:55
I'm glad that you're a good sport about this sort of thing. My trolling isn't so much malicious as mischievous.

But yeah, you're an ideologue. I gave you your chance to declare this and when you didn't I thought it best to do it for you. Honesty, freedom of information, etc. Because you stand by all your opinions this won't trouble you at all.

However, because I adopt a lower posting quality at civfan I am going to go over there and submit this page as evidence of the kind of people on the opposite side of the debate.

half_lotus
08-01-10, 22:09
Not troubling at all. Your implication that I was dishonest is false, however. I answered your questions honestly and accurately.

One might say that your warm embrace of character assassination does not reflect well upon your side of the debate. Facts and substance are what matter. :)

Senethro
08-01-10, 22:16
You don't share the same reality as many other people on the planet. You've got a blog about crazy but you didn't think it was necessary to mention? Thats not dishonest but it is concealing the truth.

You presented yourself as a nice, normal person when really you were a trojan horse.

You don't disbelieve in climate change because you're convinced of the science disputing it, you disbelieve in climate change because its obviously a global conspiracy orchestrated by the socialist elite in a bid to gain more control. And stuff.

Thats relevent information for people here to know.

Maniac
08-01-10, 22:20
So what are people's opinion about stratospheric cooling due to CO2? :scared:

half_lotus
08-01-10, 22:30
My views are in the minority. The "truth", whatever that may be, is not determined by a majority vote. It is determined by a reasoning of the facts, of which you have addressed none so far, with respect to me. You just call me names.

I have been nice, and usually am; "normal" is an obscenely subjective word in the general sense, which has no place in a serious discussion. I don't even know how to address the claim that I am not "normal". :D

You can call my blog "crazy", but that is childish name-calling, nothing more. If you want to substantiate your view, address the facts. I don't think it was necessary to mention my blog when we're talking about climate change. Why would I?

If you wanted to know my position on other matters, or if I had a blog, then you should have asked me; rather than ask an oblique question about where I "was from", then characterize me as dishonest when I answered "from Apolyton". That line of debate and character assassination was intellectually dishonest of you.

Senethro
08-01-10, 22:38
You've only posted in this thread. You registered solely to post in this thread. You may have found the site from 'poly but your interest is clearly only in this thread, as shown by your blog. This makes you slightly less dishonest than an internet crazy who had simply found this site by googling and registering.

This is the important bit you didn't address. This is the fact I consider most pertinent.
"You don't disbelieve in climate change because you're convinced of the science disputing it, you disbelieve in climate change because its obviously a global conspiracy orchestrated by the socialist elite in a bid to gain more control. And stuff."

Go on. Tell us some wild stories about zionists and corporatists and bilderbergs and heroes like Dr Ron Paul and all the rest of the rich narratives of your mythological landscape.

Senethro
08-01-10, 22:50
Goddamnit this is a rabbit hole and a half.

On your blog you've got a link to a site called The Green Agenda (Don't go googling folks, you'll spoil the surprise).

Tell me and the fine people of WPC about the content of that site. Which parts of it you endorse and which you don't might be enlightening as well.

Dale
08-01-10, 22:55
Senethro, stick to the facts of science and lose the other bits. Stop attacking the character. I know this is a charged debate, but I close threads when the intent changes from facts to people.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 23:07
But it's kinda funny...

Freeman Dyson is awesome. I'm listening as I type.

half_lotus
08-01-10, 23:11
You've only posted in this thread. You registered solely to post in this thread. You may have found the site from 'poly but your interest is clearly only in this thread, as shown by your blog. This makes you slightly less dishonest than an internet crazy who had simply found this site by googling and registering.


I registered a day or two ago to participate in this forum. This thread happened to be first I posted in. I expect to post in more, and it was entirely possible that I could have posted in a different thread first, had the fancy struck me. :)

My blog covers a wide range of subjects, it makes no sense to suppose that my only interest here is in climate change based on its content.

I'll stick to the topic of the thread, and the relevant facts from here. Your falsehoods and name-calling are too spammy and too time-consuming to sort out.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 23:22
Welcome, BTW, half_lotus. I mean that.

To summarize what I took from Dr. Dyson, who is no professional speaker:

Garbage in, garbage out. (Many including me have commented to the effect of they don't really know what they're doing. I just don't buy, and am quite annoyed by, aspersions on their motives.)

The Earth has ways of adjusting to shifts in carbon levels. (This is true, to my prior knowledge. I've read that the fossil records show an immense increase in carbon-absorbing life, like coral, in periods of heavy world-wide volcanic activity and the like. It's part of Gaia theory, if you want to google it, and even if you don't. One could question whether the biosphere can adjust to a new thing, us, and one could question whether it can adjust fast enough to preserve Bangladesh, but that whole video struck me as 100% true.)

Senethro
08-01-10, 23:24
I've had a friendly request to adopt more noble methods. I'll try to keep to that but I have to wonder at someone who won't defend what he keeps as permanent links on his blog. This is the thin end of the wedge I say.

Maniac
08-01-10, 23:28
To summarize what I took from Dr. Dyson, who is no professional speaker:

Garbage in, garbage out.

Have you also listened to the second video? That one I actually find more interesting. It speaks of the extra CO2 causing stratospheric cooling which disrupts the ozone layer. Plus at the end he also says that placing extra forests etc to absorb carbon would be far cheaper than reducing carbon emissions. An interesting suggestion.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 23:30
Wait. I missed a second one? Hold on.

Buster's Uncle
08-01-10, 23:32
BU, I think we need a lynchmob smilie. :DI'm game if we can come up with a concept that portrays the notion. Smilies thread?

half_lotus
08-01-10, 23:32
Yes the self-correcting aspect of Gaia theory is very interesting, and on the side of skeptics. It is in line with the negative feedback research of Dr. Lindzen.

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 00:10
Sure. I don't have a problem at all with questioning the science on scientific grounds for reasons of seeking the truth. (I've said- how many times now?- that they don't know what they're doing.)


I have a huge problem with people who have an outside ax to grind going on about it.

I have to point out that I'm grateful to Senethro for his research- I thought his manners were bad, but I didn't find his posts to be entirely ad hominem. Questioning a source is always in order. However, as I've told him, he's made his point and Dale is not wrong.

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 00:14
I think Dr. Dyson's remarks on the stratosphere in part 2 speak to how complex the system is. I hope he's right about simple and cheap ways to compensate. I personally doubt it, but what do I know? I'm sorry I can't speak in more detail but I've got a lot of random events distracting me all the sudden.

half_lotus
09-01-10, 00:27
It is tempting and very easy to dismiss a viewpoint based on its source alone, rather than apply intellectual rigor and reason the facts presented - in this case two thorough presentations by PhD climate scientists.

It is also very easy to be wrong about intentions and motives, but convenient and intellectually lazy to ascribe them.

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 00:30
It is tempting and very easy to dismiss a viewpoint based on its source alone, rather than apply intellectual rigor and reason the facts presented - in this case two thorough presentations by PhD climate scientists.

It is also very easy to be wrong about intentions and motives, but convenient and intellectually lazy to ascribe them.QFT

I agree with every single word you say there and intend to judge you by your conduct here only. That's fair, isn't it?

half_lotus
09-01-10, 00:37
You should judge me by all the conduct you know of me, here and elsewhere.

I take conduct to mean behavior, manners, and so forth.

Viewpoints are another matter, and those should be judged on the facts and reasoning presented.

The so-called "conspiracy" behind AGW and the science of AGW itself are not mutually inclusive. It is possible to believe one and not the other.

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 00:48
Fair enough.

Lancer
09-01-10, 01:09
Well what fun! :D

Jack, I've been leaning towards global warming and if you looked like you said you found where I said that. To revive this thread I put up vids people could discuss and they did, w i t h o u t even having watched them! :lol: An amazing success I must say.

So I'll explain myself because you are a friend. When I posted the vids I was leaning towards global warming but as I posted them I watched them and by the end of the experience I was leaning towards global warming being mostly natural. Now I'm not sure again. You though, you are full of assumptions about all sorts of stuff, even my politics? All from vids you haven't even watched. My my. Even if the vids were right wing blather from one end to the other, in your world am I not allowed to post them for something else they contain because of their politics? Grab your neck my friend and give a good tug, it seems to be lodged somewhere it shouldn't be. You called me on the way I told someone off not long ago, now I'm calling you on this.

Should I be bothered to defend my political views because of the views of the people who made the vids? No. If you had asked me Jack I would have told you though.

Now, I have a couple of vids to watch thanks to our new friend half_lotus, that should be fun. :)

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 01:21
You got me. Ad hominem- I am guilty. For what it's worth, I'm a lot ruder to friends than I am to strangers and otherwise, so you could choose to take it as a good sign...

I apologize.

What are your politics? It is only fair that I go first. I'm a registered Democrat because the system is set up to marginalize you completely if you don't pick a side. I despise the Democrats less than the other guys, but that's a low, low bar to hurdle, because I despise the Democrats a lot. My politics are all over the place, depending on the subject- with an admitted, but not entirely dependable, left-lean. A friend of my mother's (who is the worst kind of Republican, BTW) says she doesn't get our politics because we are the most conservative people she knows. (For once, she was speaking truth.)

Now, you ARE going to post an equal amount of pro-global warming stuff and make a liar of me, aren't you?

Lancer
09-01-10, 01:57
Thanks Jack. :)

Did you go back and look? I posted that I was leaning towards global warming. (being man made) However the vids are very convincing so I wanted to get people's opinions on them. Read the thread with that in mind and it might read differently.

Anyway I'm a fiscal conservative by nature but since both of the parties have totally rejected that philosophy I'm unrepresented in that so neither gets a point. Oh and I'll give points. :)

I'm really thoroughly against abortion and the right gives lip service to stopping it so they get a half point since its just talk.

Regarding unions and management I'm completely pro union thanks to Zkribbler advising me (he was a management busting tough union lawyer back in LA) and stories like Dale's of his mistreatment by HP just cement me in that opinion, so one point to the left.

I'm pro defense so the right gets a point.

I'm really against the greedy amassing all the money and playing with it to cause things to go up and down acording to their profit so the left gets a point. The rest of us get screwed when they do that stuff.

So you add it up. In fact I didn't vote for either Bush but I voted for Reagan and I still believe that was a good choice. One of the reasons I got out of the army was I figured we were dead meat if the Russians ever came at us. To give one example the Sheridan light tanks used by the recon had a 150mm smooth bore gun meant for firing guided missiles but for lack of spare parts only one worked. Other than that they fired shells but because of the smooth bore and the fact they were very short barrels the round could go pretty wild so the enemy tanks with rifled barrels would win, no problem. Carter never did anything about the situation. Reagan right away put forward and got signed a billion dollar spare parts bill that addressed problems like this and gave the troops weapons that worked. I mean why have a military if it doesn't work?

Anyway, I am registered independent. You are right I'm totally marginalized but I'd rather be than support the current mess.

You can add up the points if you want and then you'll know more than I about which way I lean because I really don't care to be bothered any more.

Lancer
09-01-10, 02:18
Dang the first vid quit loading, bummer.

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 02:18
Only good can come of understanding each other better. I'd like to go through your issues and award my own points, but I have to go start the Court Report right now if I'm going to get in bed when I need to. Maybe tomorrow evening after I get home...

Lancer
09-01-10, 02:32
Your political views aren't important to me Jack, hell my political views aren't important to me either. The whole political thing isn't. I'm 51 years old and all the political stuff I felt strongly about through the years never changed a thing. Lets give it a rest due to complete indifference on my part, shall we? :)

More important to me is handing 5 pesos to some street kid, and a lot more real. Lets talk about small stuff we can change. The big stuff is too easy. We can't change anything so focusing on it is just a vanity it seems to me, a cop out of a sort.

I believe unions are good but its not a political belief anymore, its just what I think.

Even the global warming is something about which I can do something. I can choose a smaller car, or to combine trips or even better take a motorcycle. If its real...its political so I don't trust it. Even the scientists have sold themselves to the politicians on this one. Its hard to know what to believe.

Dale
09-01-10, 02:53
Your political views aren't important to me Jack, hell my political views aren't important to me either. The whole political thing isn't. I'm 51 years old and all the political stuff I felt strongly about through the years never changed a thing. Lets give it a rest due to complete indifference on my part, shall we? :)

More important to me is handing 5 pesos to some street kid, and a lot more real. Lets talk about small stuff we can change. The big stuff is too easy. We can't change anything so focusing on it is just a vanity it seems to me, a cop out of a sort.

I believe unions are good but its not a political belief anymore, its just what I think.

Even the global warming is something about which I can do something. I can choose a smaller car, or to combine trips or even better take a motorcycle. If its real...its political so I don't trust it. Even the scientists have sold themselves to the politicians on this one. Its hard to know what to believe.

I like your thinking mate, and I'm fairly the same. I look to small things I can change rather than stressing over the big things that can't. My wife's like that and she can't understand how I can be happy in this World.

I tell her it's easy. I teach my kids to recycle and am happy when Blake puts a can in the recycle bin. I couldn't give a stuff that due to politics both bins end in the same dump. Nothing I can do about it. And now Blake is learning to turn lights off when he leaves a room, and to turn the taps off when he's not actually using the water. That makes me happy.

The wife just looks at the global climatic debate and goes "oh woe is me, we're all dead!" Why waste the energy on that? If 6 billion people look at the global climatic debate and go "oh woe is me, we're all dead!" then we will be. If 6 billion people teach their kids to recycle, turn off the tap and turn lights off, then problem solved.

Lancer
09-01-10, 03:01
I'm going to try and explain my position a bit better lancer. Lets take a quote of El Mac.


That there is my issue. People are choosing to get their information from those intentionally trying to misinform instead of from scientists. Hell, that berserker guy at civfan straight up said that you can't trust the climatologists because they're climatologists. Do you want to bet he visits a doctor or a homeopathist when he gets ill?

The videos half_lotus posted are legitimate concerns about the science of global warming from within the scientific community. Most of the rubbish posted here and at civfan has been the same endlessly repeated outright lies and twisted truth thats been going round the internet for years. Theres a difference. Its not that I'm being closeminded, its that you're being credulous and unable to correctly value a source.

Here's a search. I'm not going to offer a link other than a search page since you tend to fly off a bit. What I searched is 'Scientist email global warming' and these are the links I got. You seem to be interested in calling people liars, well here some are for you. Hope it works, if not try the search yourself.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkko270dLr3gA8sBXNyoA?p=scientist+e mails+global+warming&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-832&sao=1

Lancer
09-01-10, 03:07
I like your thinking mate, and I'm fairly the same. I look to small things I can change rather than stressing over the big things that can't. My wife's like that and she can't understand how I can be happy in this World.

I tell her it's easy. I teach my kids to recycle and am happy when Blake puts a can in the recycle bin. I couldn't give a stuff that due to politics both bins end in the same dump. Nothing I can do about it. And now Blake is learning to turn lights off when he leaves a room, and to turn the taps off when he's not actually using the water. That makes me happy.

The wife just looks at the global climatic debate and goes "oh woe is me, we're all dead!" Why waste the energy on that? If 6 billion people look at the global climatic debate and go "oh woe is me, we're all dead!" then we will be. If 6 billion people teach their kids to recycle, turn off the tap and turn lights off, then problem solved.

Sounds great m8! :D That's it in a nutshell. If we're doomed well okay, I'll deal with it on doomsday. But I'm tired of people pulling my strings by getting me all worked up about something and in the end its about political power, not at all the point they were making. So one thing at a time in a world I can see and touch. :)

Dale
09-01-10, 03:11
I think the worst that can happen for the climate debate is what's happening over the last few "climate control meetings" like Hopenhagen. The amount of political manouvering and nation-playing is killing any credibility science has.

Lancer
09-01-10, 03:19
I just don't know but, I'm learning a lot. I've learned that the scientists I believed are full of crap and now many believe the other views in the vids I've posted is crap and unscientific. Well. I've got one of the new ones downloading so maybe that will be something to put some confidence in, maybe not. Either way I've got a good game of CivIII going. :dunno:

half_lotus
09-01-10, 03:24
If 6 billion people teach their kids to recycle, turn off the tap and turn lights off, then problem solved.

Not quite that many need to be taught. About half the world's population doesn't have running water, and almost a third don't have electricity.

What is often missing from the environmental discussion is the impact on third-world countries. So many people can barely meet basic living needs like clean water and adequate diet, yet environmental regulations for "clean" energy prohibit undeveloped countries from developing in economically feasible ways - which means people die.

As Dr. Christy says, "Life without energy is brutal and short."

Readily available, and cheaper, fossil fuel energy sources - energy which would help people to live - are restricted by environmental regulations.

It is relatively easy for a westerner to consider adjusting his lifestyle, living standard, and consumption - but tell that to a third-worlder who hauls wood and water 5 miles a day just to heat his home and cook food.

That is why you see third world countries at Copenhagen begging for billions and trillions and dollars to meet the impractical economic demands of "clean" energy. Money which the US certainly doesn't have, given our $11+ trillion debt.

Dale
09-01-10, 03:25
good game of CivIII going

See that's where I draw the line. That's just impossible. ;)










* PS: I'm a Civ3 hater if you didn't know. :D

Lancer
09-01-10, 03:58
Well your data is in error Dale! Blah Blah BLAH! :lalala:



Not quite that many need to be taught. About half the world's population doesn't have running water, and almost a third don't have electricity.

What is often missing from the environmental discussion is the impact on third-world countries. So many people can barely meet basic living needs like clean water and adequate diet, yet environmental regulations for "clean" energy prohibit undeveloped countries from developing in economically feasible ways - which means people die.

As Dr. Christy says, "Life without energy is brutal and short."

Readily available, and cheaper, fossil fuel energy sources - energy which would help people to live - are restricted by environmental regulations.

It is relatively easy for a westerner to consider adjusting his lifestyle, living standard, and consumption - but tell that to a third-worlder who hauls wood and water 5 miles a day just to heat his home and cook food.

That is why you see third world countries at Copenhagen begging for billions and trillions and dollars to meet the impractical economic demands of "clean" energy. Money which the US certainly doesn't have, given our $11+ trillion debt.

My much maligned vids covered this, and it sounds very reasonable to me. If I was an African I'd go dig up the coal and oil and screw the rich countries, I need to cook or heat my home.

I'm really enjoying the first vid half_lotus, very convincing. A voice of reason!

Buster's Uncle
09-01-10, 04:27
Not quite that many need to be taught. About half the world's population doesn't have running water, and almost a third don't have electricity.

What is often missing from the environmental discussion is the impact on third-world countries. So many people can barely meet basic living needs like clean water and adequate diet, yet environmental regulations for "clean" energy prohibit undeveloped countries from developing in economically feasible ways - which means people die.

As Dr. Christy says, "Life without energy is brutal and short."

Readily available, and cheaper, fossil fuel energy sources - energy which would help people to live - are restricted by environmental regulations.

It is relatively easy for a westerner to consider adjusting his lifestyle, living standard, and consumption - but tell that to a third-worlder who hauls wood and water 5 miles a day just to heat his home and cook food.

That is why you see third world countries at Copenhagen begging for billions and trillions and dollars to meet the impractical economic demands of "clean" energy. Money which the US certainly doesn't have, given our $11+ trillion debt.


Well your data is in error Dale! Blah Blah BLAH! :lalala:




My much maligned vids covered this, and it sounds very reasonable to me. If I was an African I'd go dig up the coal and oil and screw the rich countries, I need to cook or heat my home.

I'm really enjoying the first vid half_lotus, very convincing. A voice of reason!
I can't say that I disagree at all about the delemma the third world faces. It's easy for us rich, fat, westerners to demand this and that- and forget the more immediate need of the po' folk.

However, I doubt people in Bangledesh would entirely agree...

Lancer
09-01-10, 04:57
Sure, good point Jack. My view is that people all do what they need to feed themselves and their families. The people of Africa aren't going to not heat their abodes to save the people of Bangladesh any more than the people of Europe cut back to save the south pacific islanders. Sad but true and I think that's what Dale means by this...

"I think the worst that can happen for the climate debate is what's happening over the last few "climate control meetings" like Hopenhagen. The amount of political maneuvering and nation-playing is killing any credibility science has."-Dale

People aren't going to give up their own self interest. That said, maybe if they did all stop burning fuel the climate would still get warmer, maybe it just wouldn't matter. That's the question.

Dale
09-01-10, 05:17
I actually meant my comment at the political level, not the individual. Take Copenhagen where China tried as hard as they could to lock USA into a strong CO2 reduction figure whilst softening their own and trying to get classed as "developing". The political remifications of this if it worked would be HUGE! China would be exempt from the majority of CO2 reduction measures due to being "developing" classification whilst their biggest opponent on the trade market (the USA) would be hampered by strong CO2 reduction marks which would impact severely on US industry. Thus USA would either have to reduce industry or pay trillions to clean up, whilst China would continue the speedy increase of dirty industry to become the number 1 industrial power.

This is when the credibility of science is lost. :(

half_lotus
09-01-10, 07:45
I have to wonder at someone who won't defend what he keeps as permanent links on his blog.


It's a fairly extensive site, and thoroughly sourced, so you'll have to be a little more specific about what is troubling you.

The move toward global government is not a secret. Al Gore and Gordon Brown have made public statements regarding climate change and the need for "global governance". If you pay attention you'll see and hear global leaders talking about it on a regular basis. You can easily find those statements on Youtube, it's not classified information. ;)

John Holdren is "advisor to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" according to Wikipedia.

Holdren co-authored a book called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment. From the book (http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/):

" Toward a Planetary Regime
...
Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and the oceans but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime should have some power to enforce the agreed limits."

And the Club of Rome, a premier think tank which advises the governments of the world wrote in The First Global Revolution (http://books.google.com/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill."

And Mike Hulme, founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia.

That's the same CRU which gave us Climategate (http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/413976_climategate08.html?source=mypi), and which is the primary source of "scientific" data for the IPCC. He said (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=189291&highlight=club+rome&page=10):

"“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but what climate change can do for us.”

“Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical and spiritual needs.”

“We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilise them in support of our projects.”

“These myths transcend the scientific categories of “true” and “false.” "

I can quote many more similar statements from very influential individuals - enough to fill several pages of this forum - but I'm trying to be somewhat brief.

This is not technically a conspiracy in the illegal sense; although quite a few U.S. agreements do violate the Constitution, they are dubbed legal by various executive and judicial declarations, or more often, the Constitution is simply ignored. I am not well versed in the agreements of other nations, but perhaps someone else here is.

Whether one agrees with the AGW hypothesis or not, one should still have reservations about a single centralized global government which controls every person and every resource on the planet.

Americans can't get honest or competent governance from Washington. How well would we be represented by foreigners at the UN?

Lancer
09-01-10, 08:32
half_lotus, I think global government is inevitable and even less responsive to reality than the governments we have today but there are advantages I can think of such as the different states would be less likely to make war. So what's your take on why global government is bad?

Though I don't like the manufactured common enemy bit and those seem like nut jobs the end result might not be too bad if someone else does it...common humanity, that sort of thing. As long as its an elected government I don't see it being too much different.