Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Kirkhill]

;D

 

[a_majoor]

An inconvenient truth:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/10/some-sense-from-agw-believer.html

Some Sense from an AGW Believer

It's refreshing to read material from an AGW believer who at least makes some sense:

    All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.

    Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.

Posted by Paul at 10:41 AM   

Labels: Deconstructing Consensus

 

[Franko]

A perspective on how to deal with global warming. He makes a convincing argument....the last bit after his proposal is a bit of "feel good" mumbo jumbo IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&eurl=

So....ticket "A" or ticket "B"? We only get to play the game once......

Regards


He got some responses...and here are his "Patching holes"....1, 2 & 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGpYI9LcJkA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBy8dEtiCc4&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-JtKsG2fVU&mode=related&search=

 

[Flip]

Found this comment in the National Post

Not bad............. ;D

Comment Link

Parts of it here............

A coup for junk science
Gore's 'truth' nets Nobel Prize
Terence Corcoran, National Post
Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007
Global warming theory has been in political and scientific trouble for some time, but who knew it had sunk so low it needed a boost from the Nobel Peace Prize committee?

My favorite part......

Just hours before the Nobel announcement, Gore was busy spinning his way out of a devastating United Kingdom court case that found nine substantial science errors in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth.

The nine errors, listed on Page A19 of this newspaper, are truly major. But Gore's office, in true political form, tried to turn the science disaster into victory, claiming he was "gratified" that the U.K. court had not totally banned distribution of his film in British schools. Instead, it would have to circulate like a package of cigarettes, with a warning label: Children watch this movie at peril of being politically manipulated by Al Gore into thinking what they are watching is true.

Nice finish..........

Given his science gaffes, and his political liabilities, the Nobel may be more of a liability, not just to Gore but to the entire global warming community. The prize has elevated junk science, gross exaggeration and outright misrepresentation to high international stature, the most prestigious award in the world, discrediting all who work honestly to find the facts and do the right thing.

Enjoy................. ;D

Edit to add: Link to the above mentioned News article

U.K. judge rules Gore film 'exaggerated'
Parent challenged the showing of documentary in classrooms
Allison Hanes, National Post, With Files From News Services
Published: Saturday, October 13, 2007
A British High Court judge this week exposed nine inaccuracies in former U.S. vicepresident Al Gore's award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, labelling it "a political film" and calling many of its claims about climate change "alarmist" and "exaggerated."

 

[sboatright]

Interesting response to Gore's Nobel "Peace" Prize (from Dr William Gray):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe that Al Gore believes passionately in what he believes.  I also believe that Al Gore believes passionately in the world view of his father and his father's close friend and associate, the late Armand Hammer....Google that one and watch what turns up.

In 1982 President Galtieri was facing a domestic political crisis.  Effectively his government was threatened because of unpopular policies.  To stave off the inevitable he reverted to a time honoured tactic.  He found an external threat. In his case the Brits.  Quickly the whole country stepped in line and the government was saved (until the war was lost - unintended consequences).

George Bush has been accused of manufacturing a threat in the form of Iraq to hold on to power.
Ahmadinejad is widely believed to ACTUALLY involved in the same game.  Creating a Great Satan so as to permit him to create the conditions for the return of the Hidden Imam.
Chirac and Schroeder won re-election handily by declaring themselves to be the only sane counter-weights to Cowboy George.

In all cases "critical thinking" went out the window and the masses stampeded into line.

It is my belief the Al wants to create the "External Threat "so as to get everybody to fall in line with his prescriptive policies.  If you make a mob fearful enough then it stops being a group of rational individuals making informed decisions. It becomes instead a mindless lifeform looking for a brain.  Al wants to be the Mob's brain.  Apparently there are enough mindless lifeforms out there willing to let him be their's.

Now whether or not the Nobel committee is composed of mindless lifeforms or, instead, share's Al's World View is for some one else to decide.

Suffice it to say it was instructive to rewatch an old Burt Lancaster movie tonight: "Elmer Gantry".

 

[Kirkhill]

On a lighter note:  I came across this.  It is only tangentially related to Global Warming (except in the economic policy arena).  But I ended up killing myself laughing - Combination Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks and Yes Minister.

Can we trade carbon credits on non-existent methane emissions?
One quizzical entrepreneur writes to the UK's former head of environment and rural affairs (now decamped to the Foreign Office) with a unique take on emissions and agricultural subsidies


Rt.Hon. David Miliband MP,
Secretary of state,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Nobel House,
17, Smith Square,
London. SW 1P 3JR.

16, May 2007.

Dear Secretary of State,

My friend who is in farming at the moment, recently received a cheque for £3,000 from the Rural Payments Agency for not rearing pigs. I would now like to join the "not rearing pigs " business.

In your opinion, what is the best kind of farm not to rear pigs on, and which is the best breed of pigs not to rear? I want to be sure I approach this endeavour in keeping with all government policies, as dictated by the EU under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I would prefer not to rear bacon pigs, but if this is not the type you want not rearing, I will just as gladly not rear porkers. Are there any advantages in not rearing rare breeds such as Saddlebacks or Gloucester Old Spots, or are there too many people already not rearing these?

As I see it, the hardest part of this programme will be keeping an accurate record of how many pigs I haven't reared. Are there any Government or Local Authority courses on this? My friend is very satisfied with this business. He has been rearing pigs for forty years or so, and the best he ever made on them was £1422 in 1968. That is - until this year, when he received a cheque for not rearing any. If I get £3,000 for not rearing 50 pigs, will I get £6,000 for not rearing 100?

I plan to operate on a small scale at first, holding myself down to about 4,000 pigs not raised, which will mean about £240,000 for the first year. As I become more expert in not rearing pigs, I plan to be more ambitious, perhaps increasing to, say, 40,000 pigs not reared in my second year, for which I should expect about £2.4 million from your department.

Incidentally, I wonder if I would be eligible to receive tradable carbon credits for all these pigs not producing harmful and polluting methane gases? Another point: These pigs that I plan not to rear will not eat 2,000 tonnes of cereals. I understand that you also pay farmers for not growing crops. Will I qualify for payments for not growing cereals to not feed the pigs I don't rear?

In view of the above, you will realise that I will be totally unemployed, and will therefore qualify for unemployment benefits. I shall of course be voting for your party at the next election.

Yours faithfully,

Nigel Johnson-Hill.

Half price subscriptions to Ethical Corporation magazine are available here.
Want to read about business and climate change? Then visit ClimateChangeCorp.com for free news, analysis and newsletters
Write to the Editor at editor@ethicalcorp.com.

© Copyright Notice

http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5278&rss=ec-main.xml

 

[Flip]

:rofl:

Kirkhill!

This effort is vital!

You see........Pigs fart.

:rofl:

 

[a_majoor]

Another item you won't see in the MSM:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/11/greatest-scientific-scandal-of-our-time.html

22 November 2007
The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time

The "it's all about oil" crowd constantly remind us that where profit is to be made ... trust can't be had. What they don't tell us, is that the green industry, especially the AGW industry ... has become a multi-billion dollar tax hore ... dwarfing just about any other government funded "scientific" initiative. Essentially, tax payer's dollars have created a gold mine ... for gold digging "greens" and scientists who wish to trade in that Chev Impala for an Escalade.

Laughably, behind it all is a cabal of globe trotting billionaires who, although they've made their riches through good'ol capitalist means, are nothing but utopian socialists bordering on the insane. Our own Canadian member of the club, Maurice Strong, is chief among them.

A recent paper titled, The Greatest Scientific Scandal of our Time, written by
Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., takes swath after swath out of the farce that has become the scientific underpinning of the Global Warming Myth.

Jaworowski's credentials are as good as any, so in the least, AGW believers should give Jaworowski some consideration. The paper is long, so settle in for a good read ... or save it until you've got some time.

Here's a taste of the political landscape, as Jaworowski sees it:


    This obviously is not the case with the IPCC, which is stuffed with money, and in agreement with the UN politics, which are dominated by greens and misanthropic fanaticism. During the past six years, the President of the United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research, leading the world with its unparalleled financial commitment (The White House 2007). This was about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo Program ($2.3 billion per year), which in 1969 put man on the Moon. A side-effect of this situation, and of politicizing the climate issue, was described by meteorologist Piers Corbyn in the Weather Action Bulletin, December 2000: “The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.”

    [...]

    We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Meanwhile, more than 90,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe between1812 and 1961, with excellent chemical methods (accuracy better than 3%), were arbitrarily rejected. These measurements had been published in 175 technical papers. For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements,recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropo-genic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.

For the most part, the paper is a wonderful read that hits hard at the fakery and just plain bad science behing the AGW myth. It is just in time for the latest IPCC fear mongering, and in time to lay just one more stone into the box that is slowly drowning Anthropogenic Global Warming lunacy.

And finally, if what Jaworoski and a growing number of astro and solar scientists are accurate in their predictions ... I'd be looking for a place in Mexico if I were you ... not sun tan lotion for the Canadian summer that won't be.

You could forward the URL to your local paper, but a blogburst will at least make sure the word gets out.

 

[tomahawk6]

China wants financial support from the wealthy countries ? Kind of defeats the purpose of a country complying with Kyoto. Any climate deal thats exempts India and China is a non-starter. Second I would hope there would be solid scientific proof that there is a man made cause for global warming  before we waltz down the road to economic ruin. No global climate treaty should be a suicide pact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSSP33153420071130?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true

BEIJING (Reuters) - Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries, a senior climate change official, Gao Guangsheng, said on Thursday.

Gao was speaking days ahead of talks in Bali, Indonesia, expected to launch two years of formal negotiations to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming after 2012.

He was scathing about industrialized countries' limited efforts to help developing nations cut greenhouse gas emissions, despite commitments under the U.N.'s convention on climate change to share clean energy technologies.

That had made it more difficult for China to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for contributing to climate change, he said.

"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.

"To reduce emissions, technology is a crucial issue. But here for various reasons the developed countries haven't shown much commitment and there basically hasn't been any progress."

China has set itself ambitious domestic targets to increase energy efficiency and replace high carbon-emitting coal with renewable energy sources like wind and hydropower -- although it failed to meet its efficiency target in 2006.

"The goals can often encounter upsets. But international commitments can't be messed about with. China always only makes international commitments that it can live up to. Not just empty cannon blasts. We do more and say less."

Gao cited the example of previous agreements between China and the United States to transfer clean power-generation technology that he said had been blocked by Congress.

He also recounted a conversation with the Danish environment minister, whom he had asked for assistance to transfer advanced wind power technology to China, but had been told it was a matter for companies, not government.

Denmark is home to the world's biggest maker of wind turbines, Vestas and the country is projected to source 25 percent of its electricity from wind power next year.

"If that's always the attitude, then how can we have international cooperation?" said Gao, speaking to a small number of reporters.

"Developed countries should abide by the demands of the (U.N.) treaty and offer favorable terms, or give for free, the environmentally friendly technology that developing countries desperately need."

China is under increasing pressure to act on climate change because of ballooning carbon emissions, especially from its coal-burning power plants and from its cement industry.

When pressed Gao said he could not rule out the possibility

China had overtaken the United States as the world's top carbon emitter, or would do so shortly, because Beijing had insufficient data to prove that one way or the other.

On the Bali talks he affirmed China supported a two-year timeframe to find a successor deal to Kyoto.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=TopStories

On the right-hand side, under videos, click on the link for Tim Ball, Historical Climatologist.

Global Warming indeed- in his opinion, we are headed for a frosty 30 thirty years as the sun goes into a cool cycle.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Only when I know what technology I have can I calculate how much I can reduce emissions; only when I have funding assurances," said Gao, director general of climate change at the National Development and Reform Commission.

It appears that the Chinese believe that Doctrine follows Technology as well ...... ;D  but I digress.

As has been noted before by many others - most recently in the Jawarowski article cited by CJ article and Thucydides - this has ALWAYS been about wealth redistribution - socialism on a global scale.

... there are hidden motives behind the global warming
hysteria. Although there is not the space in this paper to discuss these motives fully, they maybe illustrated by the following citations (for full references, see Jaworowski 1999).

• Maurice Strong, who dropped out of school at age 14, established an esoteric global headquarters for the New Age movement in San Luis Valley, Colorado,
and helped produce the 1987 Brundtland Report, which ignited today’s Green movement. He later become senior advisor to Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General, and chaired the gigantic (40,000 participants) “UN Conference on Environment and Development” in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Strong, who was responsible for putting together the Kyoto Protocol with thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats, and politicians, stated: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Strong elaborated on the idea of sustainable development, which, he said, can be implemented by deliber
ate "quest of poverty. . . reduced resource consumption . . . and set levels of mortality control"

• Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Issues, seconded Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

• Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department, stated: “A global warming treaty must be
implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

The prospect of Maurice Strong and the lads in Beijing getting to define "Mortality Controls" is a truly INTERESTING thought.  I think I saw that movie once.

Now we have Nicholas Stern explicitly tying Global Warming and Kyoto to the 0.7% GDP aid target.

"Bali: now the rich must pay: A fair and global effort to tackle climate change needs wealthy states to take the lead in CO2 cuts " - Nicholas Stern in The Guardian

....Finally, rich countries should honour their commitment to 0.7% of GDP in aid by 2015. This would yield increases in flows of $150bn-$200bn per year. The extra costs that developing countries face as a result of climate change are likely to be upwards of $80bn a year, and it is vital that extra resources are available.

WRT Tim Ball - It is interesting that he finally got some mainstream time.  He has been saying the same thing for a long time and has been consistently decried as a "Denier".

Also, it is interesting to look at Jawarowski's graphs of ACTUAL Atmospheric CO2 levels.  He shows two pulses when the CO2 levels were much higher than now.  One, in the 18-teens and 20s shows a result of 440 ppm.  Curiously that is coincidental with the Year without any Summer of 1816 when there were July frost in Canada and the States and famines in Europe. It broadly believed to the eruption of a massive volcano in Indonesia (Mount Tambora).  That might suggest that IF CO2 has any effect if MIGHT be a cooling blanket keeping the sun out - or maybe it was just the particles of ash that blocked the sun.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries

Just cut your arms production by a commensurate amount, comrades.

 

[Flip]

Beijing is reluctant to set itself international targets to fight climate change without financial assistance from industrialized countries

There I've quoted a quote....

China isn't an industialized country???  Where was this mouse thingy made?
And every other damn thing I see around me.

Gao no longer lives in the China of 1975.  We should all understand that.

 

[Haletown]

Rex says it all . .

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/rex_murphy/bali_logic.html


No two tier climate change solutions !!

 

[Haletown]

and of course, since we now have real data that proves there is no correlation between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, the balloon will eventually  burst on The Goreacle/Dr. Fruit Fly/Steffi+Lizzy fear mongering in pursuit of other goals.  The models they built don't work, are based on flawed assumptions and are only good for stampeding the herd over the cliif.

I wonder how all this people who  bought into this ponzi scheme are going to feel about the Environmental Industry when the realize they have been taken to the cleaners ?  Will they still believe and support the Environmentalists ?  Will they look the other way at the million dollar salaries, the private jets, the do as I say not as I do folks who run the big international environmental organizations ? Will they support the do-gooder Hollywood environmentalists who  own five mansions, multiple  jets and a fleet of cars ?? 

Perhaps not.


http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_temperatures_are_uncorrelated_with_carbon_dioxide_trends_this_last_d/

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Asa I understand it, Tim Ball is not denying that CO2 causes Global Warming- in fact, he seems to welcome it.  His thesis is that the Sun is entering a period of reduced radiance and since the Sun is by far the biggest player in the Global Climate puzzle, it is going to matter alot.

I wonder how the average voter is going to react once/if he/she finds out that they have been seriously frigged over by the Global Warming crowd?

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Isn't Tim Ball the guy that figures that increased CO2 and warming are correlated, but that CO2 concentration lags temp changec?

 

[a_majoor]

and of course, since we now have real data that proves there is no correlation between CO2 increases and global temperature increases, the balloon will eventually  burst on The Goreacle/Dr. Fruit Fly/Steffi+Lizzy fear mongering in pursuit of other goals.  The models they built don't work, are based on flawed assumptions and are only good for stampeding the herd over the cliif.

I wonder how all this people who  bought into this ponzi scheme are going to feel about the Environmental Industry when the realize they have been taken to the cleaners ?  Will they still believe and support the Environmentalists ?  Will they look the other way at the million dollar salaries, the private jets, the do as I say not as I do folks who run the big international environmental organizations ? Will they support the do-gooder Hollywood environmentalists who  own five mansions, multiple  jets and a fleet of cars ?? 

Perhaps not.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_temperatures_are_uncorrelated_with_carbon_dioxide_trends_this_last_d/

So the next quest for us is to discover what the fear mongers will be pushing, since global climate change will be joining the coming ice age, massive global famines, massive resource depletion, peak oil, etc. in the trash bin of history.

Personally, I would be beating the drum for extinction level asteroid or cometary impact. At least we would get a capable space program from the deal.

 

[a_majoor]

From Celestial Junk:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2007/12/ecophobe-checklist.html

The Ecophobe Checklist

When ecophobes argue with you, explaining in condescending tones that the science is settled and that we must do something to save the planet, test them.

Given that any ecophobe worth his salt will swear on a stack of Noam Chomsky texts that Anthropogenic Global Warming is the single biggest threat to ever face humankind, expect them to live accordingly. If they don't, don't even bother debating them because they obviously don't even believe their own rhetoric.

So, here's the deal: Since we are facing global catastrophe, heroic actions are called for. Test how heroic your ecophobe “friend” is by scoring them on the following checklist:

1 to 3– Class A Hypocrite
3 to 6– Typical “Progressive”; all show no go
7 to 9– Genuine Believer ... take pity
10 to 13– Paranoid Schizophrenic ecophobe
13 to 20 – Eco-terrorist; or Hobo

1. Live in as small an abode as possible
2. Bath or Shower only once a week
3. Have only one or two hot meals per week
4. Have no Restaurant meals, coffee shops, or bars
5. Engage in no carbon emitting recreation
6. Drive an electric car
7. Car pool or use public transit only
8. Do not purchase imports (food, dry goods, hardware etc.)
9. Refuse to have children
10. Read only in the daytime or
11. Use only one fluorescent light at a time; live in the dark
12. Have no freezer or refrigerator
13. Ride a bike or walk
14. No vacation travel … ever
15. Don’t use electrical products (blow-dryers, shavers, toasters etc.)
16. Keep house temperatures at plus 10C in winter
17. No AC in the summer (home, car)
18. No powered yard equipment
19. No air travel … ever
20. Buy Carbon Credits and/or donate all surplus savings to Africa
21. Live in a Cave

If by some chance you come across someone who scores 21, take pictures and sell them to National Geographic. You’ve just discovered a pre-historic hominid … genus libratas ecophobia.

Or is perhaps living in a FOB or out in the field. At least that is temporary!