Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Haletown]

The Moonbats & Gorebots slurping tequila jello shots down in Cancun have convinced themselves the globe is going to de-carbonize.  Ya, and the Leafs will win the cup.

Then reality bites and it is like their worst hangover  . . .

"U.S. domestic production for the year will be 140,000 barrels a day higher than last year (which was 410,000 barrels a day higher than 2008). Although the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says U.S. production will decline next year, who knows?

Could these numbers reflect the beginning of the end for U.S. dependence on Mideast oil? Well, in fact, they could be. As Forbes magazine publisher Steve Forbes optimistically asserted the other day, the whole world is “awash in energy.”

Mr. Forbes isn’t the only one to notice. As an article last month in The New York Times observed: “Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.” Further still: “Another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia.”"


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/north-america-the-new-energy-kingdom/article1828896/

 

[Haletown]

the de-marketing of Alberta's Oil industry.

American imperialism lives !

Vivian has been doing some amazing research the sell-out of our environmental movement to the bidding of rich Americans pushing a greenie agenda.

watch the video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WIjHYyIOgk&feature=player_embedded#!



Vivian blogs here.

http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/i

 

[jhk87]

Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system. I do wonder if there is a similar level of self-checks and accountability mechanisms at "nofrakkingconsensus"?

 

[Haletown]

Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system.

Uh huh.  I have a bridge for sale, a nice lovely bridge, just for you.

Good price, almost free today.

 

[a_majoor]

Coffee all over the keyboard!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/

Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
Posted on December 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts

Oh dear, some of these folks aren’t the brightest CFL’s in the room.

Readers may remember this famous Penn and Teller video from 2006 where they get well meaning (but non thinking) people to sign up to ban “dihydrogen monoxide” (DHMO), which is an “evil” chemical found in our lakes, rivers, oceans, and even our food!

Yeah, they signed up to ban water. Now watch the video from the Cancun climate conference, you’d think some of these folks would be have enough science background (from their work in complex climate issues) to realize what they are signing, but sadly, no.

CFACT writes:
UN climate kooks want to cripple US economy and ban H2O

Some people will sign anything that includes phrases like, ”global effort,” “international community,” and “planetary.” Such was the case at COP 16, this year’s United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico.

This year, CFACT students created two mock-petitions to test U.N. Delegates. The first asked participants to help destabilize the United States economy, the second to ban water.

The first project, entitled “Petition to Set a Global Standard” sought to isolate and punish the United States of America for defying the international community, by refusing to bite, hook, line and sinker on the bait that is the Kyoto Protocol. The petition went so far as to encourage the United Nations to impose tariffs and trade restrictions on the U.S. in a scheme to destabilize the nation’s economy. Specifically, the scheme seeks to lower the U.S. GDP by 6% over a ten year period, unless the U.S. signs a U.N. treaty on global warming.

This would be an extremely radical move by the United Nations. Even so, radical left-wing environmentalists from around the world scrambled eagerly to sign.

The second project was as successful as the first. It was euphemistically entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)” (translation water). It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-caused.

Despite the apparently not-so-obvious reference to H2O, almost every delegate that collegian students approached signed their petition to ban that all too dangerous substance, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, is the major substance in acid rain, and is fatal if inhaled.

Perhaps together, the footage associated with these two projects will illustrate to mainstream America the radical lengths many current U.N. delegates are willing to go to carry out an agenda no more ethical, plausible or practical than the banning water.

 

[Haletown]

Penn & Teller did the same gag on a similar group of thin brained wannbe be goody-goody geenies seen to be saving the planet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw

 

[Journeyman]

Actually, the problems at EA were the checked by outside sources, most notably the Inter-Academy Council, which then resulted in tangible improvements to the system.

Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

 

[Haletown]

Name two tangible improvements and what they've done to correct/balance the earlier discredited reports.

They put up a webcam so we can all see the huge piles of snow in the CRU parking lot that has resulted from and absolutely proves Global Warming is real, accelerating, killing polar bears, puppy dogs and fluffy kittens.

Now if only we could get a webcam at the North Pole so we could see all that open water.

 

[jhk87]

Uh huh.  I have a bridge for sale, a nice lovely bridge, just for you.

Good price, almost free today.

Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.

Before asking for citations, proof, etc, perhaps you should provide all the ones you've been asked for first.

 

[Haletown]

Why argue when you can bluster? Detail the self-check processes at nofrakkingconsensus and pjtv, if there are any, if you don't mind.

Bluster?  Can't you even recognize mockery when you are being goosed?

If you think or know something is wrong with Donna's work then tell us . . yer a smart dude so it should be easy for a goody Believer to find the errors.

And please, no more simplistic attempts to change the debate with grade 2 schoolyard "challenges"  . . . this topic is for adults.

 

[Kirkhill]

The whole point of the ruckus was that EA did not allow their data to be examined externally thereby forcing people to accept their word at face value. 

The alternative proposition is that statements are made, hypotheses are proposed and evidence adduced and thus people are free to accept or reject the information available on their own appreciation of the relative merits.

"Self-checking" is an admirable trait, if you don't want to be embarassed. If you don't mind being embarassed then it is not strictly speaking "necessary". 

On the other hand "self-checking" can never be a substitute for open discourse - especially when we are talking about a publicly funded institution, using publicly available (and funded) data and offering prescriptions to government.

I don't really mind if any of the blogs get it wrong.  They are offering an opinion for free.  EA, on the other hand, are charging a mint for their opinions and potentially going to cost me and my grandkids gazillions more if the government ever acts on their suggestions.

Interestingly the blogs seem more willing to describe the assumptions on which their conclusions are based.....right or wrong.

So EA can "self-check" to its heart's content...... I still will want the data to be available so that their assumptions can be challenged....just like mine are.

 

[jhk87]

Before asking for citations, proof, etc, perhaps you should provide all the ones you've been asked for first.

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/

 

[jhk87]

Call it whatever you want - goosing, ducking,or anything else - what kind of checks to these sceptic blogs and websites that are being foisted up here as sources have? None. And this challenge has not been addressed.

 

[Haletown]

So after two weeks in Cancun, suffering under day after day of record setting cold temperatures, 20,000 delegates agreed to agree that what they agreed to last year in Copenhagen was progress and they have declared  Victory !!

Excellent progress in the war against global warming.  Excellent.

Cue the laugh track.

The real laughs will now happen when all the 3rd world rent seekers start fighting over the$100b fund that was set up last year.

 

[Journeyman]

And this challenge has not been addressed.

Nor has mine.

 

[Kirkhill]

Call it whatever you want - goosing, ducking,or anything else - what kind of checks to these sceptic blogs and websites that are being foisted up here as sources have? None. And this challenge has not been addressed.

You are the check.  UEA is the check.  The IPCC is the check.  It is a debate.

 

[Haletown]

If climate science politics were a hockey game…oh, wait


I went to a fight the other night, and a hockey game broke out.
-Rodney Dangerfield (1921 – 2004)

…not surprisingly, the United Nations’ 2010 Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, is failing, with Mother Nature helping to dampen warming fears as an early winter sets in across the Northern Hemisphere.

Some commentators tell us that this is the beginning of the end of the climate scare. More likely, it is just the end of the beginning. If this were a hockey game, the first period would have just ended with a couple of quick goals by climate realists.

But alarmists built up a 5-0 lead while realists were still learning to play. The score is now 5-2, with most of the game yet to go. While it is appropriate for realists to revel in their late-period success, it is vastly premature to celebrate.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/11/if-climate-science-politics-were-a-hockey-game-oh-wait/#more-29235


Great video . . .  Don Cherry would approve.

 

[jhk87]

You are the check.  UEA is the check.  The IPCC is the check.  It is a debate.

This seems like far less of a debate and more of a shouting match reinforced by silly youtube links.

 

[Kat Stevens]

more like this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwirWWnzJKM